Abstract
Creativity and technology are increasingly important twenty-first century constructs for education. In this chapter, we identify some myths about how these issues are typically framed in educational contexts. In the case of bringing creativity to education, the problem has been that of framing it too broadly and focusing on generic skills, divorced from the grounding and constraints of learning in the disciplines. In contrast, the problem with technology in education has been an inordinately narrow focus on the latest tools rather than deeper issues of pedagogy and content. To address these concerns we offer a two-part framing—bringing together TPACK and trans-disciplinary creativity—to make the case for learning both within and across disciplines. This (in)disciplined learning, we argue, provides a useful way to think about creativity and technology for teaching and learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
The TPACK framework has received a significant level of attention in the recent past, so we will not dwell on it. Interested readers can go to TPACK.org to learn more about the framework and its impact on scholarship and practice.
References
Abrahamson, D. (2006, June). The Three M’s: Imagination, embodiment, and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Baltimore, MD.
Alibali, M., & Mitchel, N. (2011). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 1–40.
Bahls, P. (2009). Math and metaphor: Using poetry to teach college mathematics. The WAC Journal, 20, 75–90.
Caper, R. (1996). Play, experimentation and creativity. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77, 859–869.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Perseus Book Group.
Frank, K., Zhao, Y., & Boreman, K. (2004). Social capital and the implementation of computers in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.
Fuson, K. C., & Abrahamson, D. (2005). Understanding ratio and proportion as an example of the apprehending zone and conceptual-phase problem-solving models. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 213–234). New York: Psychology Press.
Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943–956.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. AMC, 10, 12.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March 24–28). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the tpack framework towards twenty-first century learning. Educational Technology, 11(2), 22–28.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York: Riverhead Books.
Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41–45.
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49–82). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.
Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “Twenty-first-century” skills (p. 17). Washington, DC: American Educator.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, D. K. (1995). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structure domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.
Ureta, N. (2012, January 5). Kinecting With Students: UW Bothell students and faculty get creative with math education. The Daily of the University of Washington. Retrieved from: http://dailyuw.com/news/2012/jan/04/kinecting-students/
Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway?: Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 171–202.
Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This chapter is edited and derived from the following article, which originally appeared in the journal TechTrends (with permission from the publisher and editor). With thanks and credit to the Deep-Play Research Group and authors as noted:
Mishra, P., & The Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Crayons are the future. TechTrends, 56(5), 13–16.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 AECT
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mishra, P., Henriksen, D. (2018). Crayons Are the Future. In: Creativity, Technology & Education: Exploring their Convergence. SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70274-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70275-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)