Leverage

Networks And Partnerships To Support Professional Learning And Innovation

Professional collaboration and learning are possible beyond the walls of a single institution. They can be practiced and encouraged in the context of joint projects and professional networks of educators and schools, and when school staff work in partnership with individuals and organisations from other sectors. Networks and partnerships mobilise knowledge, trust and leadership locally, and can support innovation to take root and scale (Révai, 2020[49]; Nilsson Brodén, 2022[55]). In their systematic review of the development needs of teachers to promote creativity, Davis and colleagues highlighted the positive role that external partners can play in facilitating knowledge generation and mobilisation – for instance, by acting as research mentors for teachers to analyse their teaching practices systematically, or in supporting students and school staff to discover and experiment with new technologies as part of their creative endeavours (Davies et al., 2014[33]). Even though survey results reveal that cross-sectoral collaboration is not the most common form of systemlevel support offered to schools and teachers, a number of initiatives across PISA 2022-participating jurisdictions illustrate the important role that professionals and organisations in creative sectors other than education can play. In New Zealand, Creatives in School (2020-2023) is delivered by the Ministry of Education in collaboration with Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Creative New Zealand. The programme, which targets Years 1 to 13, provides schools with up to NZD 17 000 to deliver 8 to 20 weeks-long projects oriented to developing students’ creative thinking, communication and collaboration competencies. An online database of creative practitioners is available to help schools identify a creative partner. Once a partnership is established, a joint project proposal can be formulated and submitted for evaluation and, eventually, funding approval. Between 2020 and 2022, more than 300 projects have been carried out, and around 200 projects will receive funding in 2023. Past funded projects included carving in the Māori tradition, ballet performances, school-site murals, storytelling, and student-led films and music. An evaluation of the programme’s first cycle (2020) found that it was “a worthwhile and valuable contribution to sharing knowledge and offering creative practices in schools”, and that it allowed teachers to “be more confident to design teaching and learning projects that engage students’ creativity, across the learning areas of the curriculum” (Oakden and Spee, 2021[56]). Evaluation of round two (held in 2021) confirmed the positive impact of the project and underlined how it contributed to strengthening key skills for both students and teachers (Oakden and Spee, 2022[57]).

Several examples exist also in the United Kingdom, such as the Creative Partnerships programme in England. Funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) with a contribution from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), and managed by Arts Council England (and later, the organisation Creativity, Culture and Education), the programme was rolled out from 2002 to 2009 in 36 of the most disadvantaged areas in England. It defined ‘creativity’ not as bound to the realm of arts, but rather as a “wider ability to question, make connection and take an innovative and imaginative approach to problem solving”. Creative Partnerships invited schools to identify areas of improvement and paired them with creative professionals outside education to develop joint solutions. At the end of the project, schools were invited to reflect on the experience, and revisit the priorities initially identified. Creative Partnerships resulted in more than 8 000 projects in over 2 400 schools, reaching 1 million children and more than 90 000 teachers. It involved creative professionals of all fields, including architects, artists, scientists and others. In Lithuania, the homonymous ‘Creative Partnerships’ programme also supports the development of long-term partnerships between schools and creative professionals to explore inspiring ways for pupils to learn and develop their creativity and challenge teachers to engage in new pedagogical approaches. Since 2011, Creative Partnerships has worked with over 138 schools and 9000 pupils across the country. Additionally, inspired by England’s initiative, Chile piloted the programme ‘Creative Learning’ (Aprendizaje Creativo) in 2018. The programme is still running and has since scaled up.

In Scotland, the Creative Learning Networks (CLN) are a key delivery mechanism of the nation’s Creative Learning Plan, which is endorsed by Scottish Government and seven of Scotland’s national learning bodies and sets out a strategy for improving the quality and quantity of creative learning opportunities. CLN are locally led initiatives that give support to developing creative teaching, learning and skills across all subjects. CLN “typically encourage collaborative working across the education, culture and communities sectors, bringing together learning practitioners and creative partners” (Education Scotland, 2021[58]). Monthly professional development, networking opportunities and sharing of best practice are at the core of CLN. In 2021-2022, funding for the initiative reached its 11th year through the Creative Learning Network Fund. Grants of up to GBP 7 000 per local authority are available through written proposals, and the amount of funding can increase if different local authorities develop joint proposals. Applications must be aligned with the goals of the initiative, and evidence of impact gathered through self-evaluation must be presented in an end of year report.

The Lead Creative Schools Scheme (2015-2025) in Wales, delivered in partnership between the Welsh Government, the Arts Council of Wales, and the organisation Creativity, Culture and Education, aims at building positive and sustainable synergies between creative professionals and primary, secondary and special schools, to promote creativity-conducive pedagogy. Similar to the English case, the Scheme requires schools to identify key challenges and development priorities that could benefit from a creative approach to learning. Then, in collaboration with a ‘Creative Agent’, schools develop a programme to address the identified priorities and foster creativity while meeting curriculum goals. Artists and creative practitioners actively contribute to the delivery of the programme, with the teacher still playing a central role at all times. The Scheme supports enrolled schools over a minimum of two academic years: a grant of GBP 10 000 is provided to cover for the cost of the activities, with schools contributing 25% of the total. Since its implementation, more than 600 schools have participated in the Scheme, recaching over 42 000 learners and 1 800 teachers.

Additionally, several jurisdictions encourage and support students to visit creative spaces beyond schools. The “Go and See” (2015-2025) initiative in Wales (United Kingdom) provides funding for students to meet arts professionals and attend arts events. Conversely, the “Art Lending Scheme for Schools” (2019-ongoing) in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), and “La Grande Visite” in New Brunswick (Canada), are centred around brining the creative work of local artists and other professionals into schools, where they are exposed to inspire students and other members in the school community. In Sweden, ‘Creative Schools’ (Skapande skola) is a programme to strengthen co-operation between schools and professional cultural life to give children and youth the opportunity to experience their creative thinking as they participate in cultural activities in the school context. To this end, the Swedish Arts Council manages a state grant of about SEK 180 million, and pre-schools and compulsory education schools can apply for funding. In 2020, about 89% of the Swedish municipalities received Creative School funding for the academic year 2019/2020 (European Commission, 2023[59]). Other jurisdictions promote cross-sectoral collaboration and learning by helping professionals and organisations to find each other. This is exemplified by Austria’s free-to-use digital platform by the Agency for Education and Internationalisation (OeAD), which allows teachers to identify creative professionals in their area with whom they can collaborate in joint projects. Similarly, the Ministry of Education in Brazil created an interactive map collecting information on 178 educational institutions (including public and private schools) and non-governmental organisations that have been recognised as an example of creativity and innovation, so to help favouring coordination and strengthening their initiatives.

Adapt assessment and evaluation systems to recognise and support creativity-conducive practices

How close the formal or written curriculum aligns with the implemented curriculum, this is, what teachers and students work on and practice in the classroom, is directly connected to the evaluated curriculum – the content and skills that evaluation and assessment instruments in a system choose to focus on. We treasure what we measure, and the focus of assessment usually becomes the focus of instruction.

Some jurisdictions have promoted changes in their student summative assessments to make creative thinking visible, evaluate student progress and promote its integration into teaching and learning. Since 2013, all students in Grade 8 in Estonia must conduct a “creative work” (loovtöö) to complete basic education (lower secondary education). The theme for the project, which may take the form of a research paper, a project, artwork, or others, is assigned to students and evaluated by the school. The project focuses on cross-curricular topics and can be carried out independently or in groups. In other cases, creative thinking is included in national examinations. For example, in Denmark, creativity/innovation is one of the criteria for the visual arts, design, woodwork and metalwork and English subjects in the school leaving exam (Prøvevejledningen). In Ireland, the official examination marking scheme for the state examinations at the Junior and Senior Cycles (ISCED 2 and 3) includes explicit recognition to elements of creativity, such as “originality” and “freshness” in student responses to open-ended questions contextualised in real-life situations (e.g. writing a letter for a newspaper).

Complimentary to the inclusion of creative elements in national examination, Ireland also exemplifies another strategy to reduce the negative impact of student assessment regimes on the practice of creative thinking: the ‘Transition Year’. This is an optional one-year programme that forms a bridge between the Junior Cycle and the Senior Cycle. It is intended as a year during which students can focus on personal, social and vocational development in the absence of time and examination pressures. Approximately 75% of schools in the country offer the programme (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2022). As part of their transition year, students can participate in different initiatives, such as ‘The B!G Idea’, which is aimed at putting creative thinking at the centre of Ireland’s secondary education system through experiential learning and mentorship. Supported by the Creative Ireland programme and industry partners, the B!G Idea is a 15-week practically-oriented programme developed to empower students to use their creativity to tackle society’s biggest challenges.

Other examples include the development of system-level standardised student assessments of creative thinking. Colombia’s Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación de la Educación (ICFES) is in the process of developing a standardised diagnostic assessment of students’ creative potential. The assessment is meant to provide information to support the design of policies, programmes, and teaching strategies that strengthen students’ creativity. Once rolled out, this assessment will be carried out in a sample of students between 14 and 17 years of age. While standardised student assessments of creative thinking are not common, other examples exist internationally outside the jurisdictions that participated in the PISA 2022 system-level questionnaire, such as the Critical and Creative Thinking (CCT) assessments in Victoria (Australia)

Beware of complexity and prepare for unexpected policy effects

As reflected in the reports of policymakers, a lack of political will or high-level strategy to carry out a reform may not be the most significant obstacle to move policies forward. The reality is that while policies need to be rationally planned, “breaking down a goal or set of intentions into steps, formalising those steps so that they can be implemented almost automatically, and articulating the anticipated consequences or results of each step” (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 108[60]) may not always work in practice. There is always a degree of unpredictability once policies are rolled out on the ground. Unforeseen elements emerge because of conflicting perspectives and lack of consensus, and resistance may appear due to miscommunication or if reform is attempted in adverse contexts. Similarly, “reform fatigue” may emerge if policies shift direction with each change in political leadership. The timing of reform matters, although it can be difficult to identify the moment in which policies should be introduced, its effects evaluated and strategies reconsidered. Policies can take a long time to bear fruit despite often being conceived with expectations of short-term results (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[29]).

One way to work with this complexity and reduce uncertainty in policy design and implementation is policy experimentation, i.e. “a purposeful and coordinated activity geared to producing novel policy options that are injected into official policymaking and then replicated on a larger scale” (Heilmann, 2007[61]). Evidence from pilots invites stakeholders to reflect on themes or aspects of policy that had not been previously considered, sometimes putting into question deeply rooted ideas and beliefs. Small-scale interventions that can be iterated and then scaled-up help policymakers discover and test changes in the education system in a controlled, ethical, efficient and transparent way, and can increase the legitimacy of a reform and create momentum for it if this is lacking (Blanchenay and Burns, 2016[62]).

Jurisdictions responding to the PISA survey reported several examples of policy prototyping including elements related to creative thinking. In Croatia, the Ministry of Education led a curricular reform experimental programme called “School for Life”. Implemented in 74 schools during the school year 2018/2019, and gradually extended to all schools thereafter, the programme served as the basis for a wider curricular reform with a focus on promoting basic competencies such as “Learning how to learn”, which includes the goal that the “student uses different learning and information management strategies that are the basis for the development of other types of literacy and for a critical and creative approach to problem solving“. Similarly, “School for an Innovator” (Szkoła dla innowatora) in Poland is a three-year pilot project that supports teachers and primary school principals in introducing changes allowing for the effective development of pro-innovative competencies in students, including courage and risk-taking, creativity, curiosity, having a hobby, perseverance or improvising. Educational programmes supporting students’ pro-innovative skills and attitudes have been designed and implemented in 20 schools from across the country, and positive outcomes from the initiative are expected to be gradually extended to other schools.

In France, the ‘Accessibility, Innovation and Research’ unit at the Evaluation Directorate of the National Ministry for Education has been tasked to investigate how ‘21st Century Skills’ can be assessed. As part of its mandate, the Unit is conducting two experimental projects specifically related to creative thinking: one to explore the assessment of creative thinking in mathematics using convergence and divergence thinking measures, and the second one investigating how to evaluate students’ design thinking skills. As part of their research, the Unit had found that references to creative thinking are not common in French curricula, particularly at the level of secondary education, and when present, they reflect a partial view of creative work, i.e. they are mainly represented in relation to the arts and science and technology. The two experiments being conducted, which involved a representative sample of over 5 000 schools each in 2022, seek to explore how creative thinking can be measured and taught effectively in a wider range of subjects, and open a debate on its importance in relation to disciplinary knowledge and skill acquisition.

With a greater diversity of actors shaping policy across multiple layers of governance, active involvement of different stakeholders in the process of policy development and experimentation is also key. In 2019, the Durham Commission published the results of a three-year investigation into how the education system in England (United Kingdom) can cultivate the creativity of young people in schools (The Durham Commission, 2019[63]). The Commission recommended the setting up of a national network of Creativity Collaboratives, in which schools collaborate in establishing and sustaining the conditions required for nurturing creativity in the classroom through a three-year pilot of nine Creativity Collaboratives, externally evaluated by Durham University. When COVID-19 delayed the launch of the initiative, Arts Council England launched Creativity Exchange, a space for school leaders, teachers, those working in cultural organisations, scientists, researchers and parents to share ideas about how to teach for creativity and develop young people’s creativity at and beyond school. Eventually, in 2021 eight Creativity Collaboratives, spread across all regions of England including more than 90 schools. Lead teachers from each Creativity Collaborative meet twice a term and are collectively exploring which definitions/models of creativity are most helpful, how creative thinking can be embedded in all subjects and at all levels, how best to organise curriculum planning, which pedagogies are most effective, how to assess pupils’ progress, what professional learning is most helpful and what the implications are for school leaders.

Acar, S. et al. (2020), “Creativity and Well‐being: A Meta‐analysis”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 55/3, pp. 738-751, https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.485

Amabile, T. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45/2, pp. 357-376, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. and M. Pratt (2016), “The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 157-183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001

Beghetto, R. (2020), “Assessment that supports classroom creativity”, in McClure, E. and G. Jaeger (eds.), Assessing Creativity: A Palette of Possibilities, The LEGO Foundation, Billund, https://learningthroughplay.com/

Beghetto, R. and J. Kaufman (2007), “Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity.”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 1/2, pp. 73-79, https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73

Beghetto, R. and J. Plucker (2006), “The Relationship Among Schooling, Learning, and Creativity: “All Roads Lead to Creativity” or “You Can’t Get There from Here”?”, in Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606915.019

Bereczki, E. and A. Kárpáti (2018), “Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 23, pp. 25-56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003

Blanchenay, P. and T. Burns (2016), “Policy experimentation in complex education systems”, in Governing Education in a Complex World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-10-en

Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en

Burns, T., F. Köster and M. Fuster (2016), Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262829-en

Cachia, R. et al. (2010), Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching: Final Report on the Study on Creativity and Innovation in Education in the EU Member States., Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Care, E. et al. (2018), Education system alignment for 21st century skills: Focus on assessment, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/

Craft, A. (2001), “Little c Creativity”, in Craft, A., B. Jeff rey and M. Liebling (eds.), Creativity in Education, Continuum, London. [9]

Cremin, T. and K. Chappell (2019), “Creative pedagogies: a systematic review”, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 36/3, pp. 299-331, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677757

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention, Harper Collins, New York. [16]

Davies, D. et al. (2013), “Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 8, pp. 80-91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004

Davies, D. et al. (2014), “The roles and development needs of teachers to promote creativity: A systematic review of literature”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 41, pp. 34-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.003

Education Scotland (2021), Creative Learning Networks, https://education.gov.scot/improvement/learning-resources/creative-learning-networks/ (accessed on 9 April 2023).

European Commission (2023), YouthWiki - Sweden, https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki/chapters/sweden/88-synergies-and-partnerships (accessed on 21 April 2023).

Fadel, C. (2021), Assessing countries’ competencies: The 4D index, ranking of skills, character and meta-learning., Centre for Strategic Education, Melbourne.

Foster, N. and M. Piacentini (eds.) (2023), Innovating Assessments to Measure and Support Complex Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e5f3e341-en

Gouëdard, P. et al. (2020), “Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 239, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en

Heilmann, S. (2007), “Policy Experimentation in China’s Economic Rise”, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 43/1, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-007-9014-4

Kang, N. (2019), “A review of the effect of integrated STEM or STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education in South Korea”, Asia-Pacific Science Education, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0034-y

Kaufman, J. and R. Beghetto (2009), “Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 13/1, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

LEGO Foundation (2022), “Creating reforms: National and sub-national stories of creativity reform”, Creativity Matters, No. 3, The LEGO Foundation, Billund, https://learningthroughplay.com/

Lucas, B. (2022), A field guide to assessing creativity in schools, FORM, Perth, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24010.03529

Lucas, B. (2022), Creative thinking in schools across the world: A snapshot of progress in 2022, Global Institute of Creative Thinking, London, https://www.gioct.org/reports

Lucas, B. (2016), “A Five-Dimensional Model of Creativity and its Assessment in Schools”, Applied Measurement in Education, Vol. 29/4, pp. 278-290, https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209206 [5]

Lucas, B., G. Claxton and E. Spencer (2013), “Progression in Student Creativity in School: First Steps Towards New Forms of Formative Assessments”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 86, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en

[4]

Lucas, B. and E. Spencer (2021), Creative leadership to develop creativity and creative thinking in English schools: A review of the evidence., The Mercers’ Company, London. [25]

Lucas, B. and E. Spencer (2017), Teaching Creative Thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically (Pedagogy for a Changing World series), Crown House Publishing Ltd. [17]

Lucas, B. and M. Venckutė (2020), Creativity - A Transversal Skill for Lifelong Learning. An overview of existing concepts and practices., Publications Office of the European Union., Luxembourg. [20]

McLure, F. and J. Aldridge (2022), “A systematic literature review of barriers and supports: initiating educational change at the system level”, School Leadership & Management, pp. 1-30, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2113050

[64]

Mintzberg, H. (1994), “The fall and rise of strategic planning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72/1, pp. 107-114, https://hbr.org/1994/01/the-fall-and-rise-of-strategic-planning [60]

Mollick, E. and L. Mollick (2022), “New Modes of Learning Enabled by AI Chatbots: Three Methods and Assignments”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4300783 [54]

Mullet, D. et al. (2016), “Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 21, pp. 9-30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001

NACCCE (1999), All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture & Education - Report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, DfEE, London, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440037.pdf

Nilsson Brodén, D. (2022), “Cross-sector and interprofessional collaborations: A powerful tool for the teaching profession?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 283, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7144c6ac-en

Oakden, J. and K. Spee (2022), Creatives in Schools Programme Evaluation Report: Round 2 2021., Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga – the Ministry of Education, Wellington, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0006/219345/Creatives-in-Schools-Programme-Evaluation-Report-Round-2-2021.pdf

Oakden, J. and K. Spee (2021), Creatives in Schools Programme Evaluation Report: Round 1 November 2020, Ministry of Education, Wellington, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/209125/ Oakden-Spee-2021-Creatives-in-Schools-Evaluation-Round-1-Report.pdf

OECD (2022), Thinking outside the box: The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Assessment, OECD, Paris, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/thinking-outside-the-box

OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en

OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en

OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en

OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en

OECD (2013), Innovative Learning Environments, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en

OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9113021e. pdf?expires=1511446761&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=18A9CC493392BE9A918508D9929D29A3

Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en

Park, H. et al. (2016), “Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices of STEAM Education in South Korea”, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Vol. 12/7, https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1531a

Patston, T. et al. (2021), “What Is Creativity in Education? A Qualitative Study of International Curricula”, Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 32/2, pp. 207-230, https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x20978356

Plucker, J., R. Beghetto and G. Dow (2004), “Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 39/2, pp. 83-96, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

Révai, N. (2020), “What difference do networks make to teachers’ knowledge?: Literature review and case descriptions”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 215, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/75f11091-en

Révai, N. and S. Guerriero (2017), “Knowledge dynamics in the teaching profession”, in Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-4-en

Shernoff, D. et al. (2017), “Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education”, International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 4/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1

Sternberg, R. (2006), “The nature of creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18/1, pp. 87-98, https://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2013/cs7601_spring/papers/Sternberg_Nature-of-creativity.pdf [8]

Sternberg, R. and T. Lubart (1995), Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity, Free Press, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-97404-000

Sternberg, R. and T. Lubart (1991), “An Investment Theory of Creativity and Its Development”, Human Development, Vol. 34/1, pp. 1-31, https://doi.org/10.1159/000277029

Taylor, R. et al. (2020), Competencies for the 21st century: Jurisdictional progress, Centre for Curriculum Redesign, Brookings Institution. [37]

The Durham Commission (2019), The Durham Commission on Creativity in Education, Arts Council England, London. [63]

Treffinger, D. et al. (2002), Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [31]

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (n.d.), 2022 Critical and Creative Thinking (CCT) assessments, https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/f-10assessment/edstateap/Pages/cct-assessments.aspx (accessed on 12 April 2023).

Vincent-Lancrin, S. et al. (2019), Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What it Means in School, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en

WEF (2023), Future of Jobs Report 2023, World Economic Forum, Geneva, https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/

Wyse, D. and A. Ferrari (2014), “Creativity and education: comparing the national curricula of the states of the European Union and the United Kingdom”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 41/1, pp. 30-47, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3135

For a more detailed description of the PISA 2022 creative thinking assessment and its theoretical under pinnings, you can consult the full draft assessment framework at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/creative-thinking/

All PISA products are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO). For specific information regarding the scope and terms of the licence as well as possible commercial use of this work or the use of PISA data please consult Terms and Conditions on www.oecd.org