Putting the Horses Before the Cart: Technology, Creativity, and Authorship Harnessed Three Abreast

  • Osnat FellusEmail author
  • Yaniv Biton
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)


Over the past few decades, educational systems have continually worked on integrating technology into mathematics education. Creativity, on the other hand, was—more often than not—less attended to. Building on Latour’s (A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. Routledge, London, pp. 103–131, 1991) perspective on technology, Vygotsky’s (J Russ East Eur Psychol 42(1):7–97, 2004) treatment of creativity, and Bakhtin’s (The dialogic imagination: four essays. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1981) perception of authorship, we contemplate a departure from traditional ways of viewing creativity in mathematics education—as arrogated to giftedness—and a shift of attention to a unified manifestation of apprenticeship and authorship to allow for expressions of creativity for all learners. The works of these three classic scholars, brought together, widen our conceptualization of technology, creativity, and learning; show how the very intertwining of these notions allows for a far wider perspective of creativity in mathematics education; and foster the learning and understanding of mathematics as a network of ideas. In this chapter, we first denote the terms technology, creativity, and authorship and then we showcase how these are manifested in an episode drawn from the work of the second author as a mathematics instructor in the virtual high school in Israel. The chapter concludes with a discussion of some of the implications this meeting point between Latour’s, Vygotsky’s, and Bakhtin’s perceptions may have on the learning of mathematics.


TCA Latour Vygotsky Bakhtin Democratization of creativity 


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barmby, P., Harries, T., Higgins, S., & Suggate, J. (2009). The array representation and primary children’s understanding and reasoning in multiplication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(3), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bendetowicz, D., Urbanski, M., Aichelburg, C., Levy, R., & Volle, E. (2017). Brain morphometry predicts individual creative potential and the ability to combine remote ideas. Cortex, 86, 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biton, Y., Fellus, O., & Raviv, D. (2017a). Advanced mathematics and/or physics in a virtual high school: Why? Why not? Who? And so what? In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, & V. Silber-Varod (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the Technological Era (pp. 9E–20E). Raanana, Israel: The Open University of Israel.Google Scholar
  7. Biton, Y., Fellus, O., & Raviv, D. (2017b). Extending scopes: Teachers’ experience of teaching mathematics and physics in the Israeli virtual high school. Paper presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, AERA, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  8. Biton, Y., Fellus, S., Raviv, D., & Fellus, O. (Forthcoming). Yours virtually: Advanced mathematics and physics in the Israeli Virtual High School. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 13, 229–250.Google Scholar
  9. Bolden, D. S., Harries, T. V., & Newton, D. P. (2010). Pre-service primary teachers’ conceptions of creativity in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(5), 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.Google Scholar
  13. Czarnocha, B., & Baker, W. (2015). Creativity and bisociation. In F. M. Singer, F. Toader, & C. Voica (Eds.), The 9th Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness International Conference Proceedings, 2015 June (pp. 80–85). Sinaia, Romania.Google Scholar
  14. Davydov, V. V. (1986/2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Davydov, V. V. (1991). A psychological analysis of multiplication. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Psychological abilities of primary school children in learning mathematics. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education Series (Vol. 6, pp. 1–85). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  16. Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015). Teachers’ professional knowledge and noticing: The case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dreher, A., Kuntze, S., & Lerman, S. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ views on using multiple representations in mathematics classroom-an intercultural study. In T. Y. Tso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the International Group of the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Opportunities to Learn in Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 211–218). Taipei, Taiwan: PME.Google Scholar
  18. Einstein, A. (1982). How I created the theory of relativity (Y. A. Ono, Trans.). Physics Today35(8), 45–47.Google Scholar
  19. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  20. Etlinger, L. (1974). The electronic calculator: A new trend in school mathematics. Educational Technology, 14(12), 43–45.Google Scholar
  21. Fellus, O., & Biton, Y. (2017). One is not born a mathematician: In conversation with Vasily Davydov. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 136–160.Google Scholar
  22. Fellus, O., Biton, Y., & Raviv, D. (2017). Virtual terrains: Learners’ experiences of mathematics and physics in the Israeli virtual high school. Paper Presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), April 2017, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  23. Freiman, V., & Sriraman, B. (2008). Does mathematics gifted education need a working philosophy of creativity? Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 6(1–2), 23–46.Google Scholar
  24. Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Translation ability from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geiger, V. (2009). The master, servant, partner, extension-of-self framework in individual, small group and whole class contexts. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing Divides: Proceedings of the 32nd Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 201–208). Palmerston North, New Zealand: MERGA.Google Scholar
  26. Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representation and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The role of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). Boston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  27. Hashimoto, Y. (1997). The methods of fostering creativity through mathematical problem solving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 86–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haylock, D. (1997). Recognizing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM, 29(3), 68–74.Google Scholar
  29. Healy, L., & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld territory over time: Design and construction in mathematics education. ZDM, 42(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hillman, T. (2014). Finding space for student innovative practices with technology in the classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hohenwarter, J., Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to secondary school teachers: The case of Geogebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 135–146.Google Scholar
  32. Holquist, M. (1983). Answering as authoring: Mikhail Bakhtin’s trans-linguistics. Critical Inquiry, 10(2), 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes, J. (2013). Descriptive indicators of future teachers’ technology integration in the PK–12 classroom: Trends from a laptop-infused teacher education program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). Freedom and constraint in creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 202–219). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jung, R., Segall, J., Bockholt, J., Flores, R., Smith, S., Chavez, R., et al. (2010). Neuroanatomy of creativity. Human Brain Mapping, 31(3), 398–409.Google Scholar
  37. Kieran, C., & Damboise, C. (2007). ‘‘How can we describe the relation between the factored form and the expanded form of these trinomials? We don’t even know if our paper and pencil factorizations are right’’: The case for computer algebra systems (CAS) with weaker algebra students. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 105–112). Seoul, South Korea: PME.Google Scholar
  38. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflections: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 205–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klein, E. (1966). A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language. New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  40. Koichu, B. (2015). Problem solving and choice-based pedagogies. In F. M. Singer, F. Toader, & C. Voica (Eds.), The 9th Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness International Conference Proceedings, June 2015 (pp. 68–73). Sinaia, Romania.Google Scholar
  41. Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: A multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 237–269). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society, 6(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination (pp. 103–131). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Lawrenz, F., Gravely, A., & Ooms, A. (2006). Perceived helpfulness and amount of use of technology in science and mathematics classes at different grade levels. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM, 45(2), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Kocihu, B. (2009). Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levenson, E. (2011). Exploring collective mathematical creativity in elementary school. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind (George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Li, Y., & Li, D. (2009). Open-ended questions and creativity education in mathematics. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 13(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  53. Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Academic versus creative abilities in mathematics: Two components of the same construct? Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luria, A. R. (1960). Experimental analysis of the development of voluntary action in children. In H. P. David & J. C. Brengelmann (Eds.), Perceptions in personality research (pp. 139–149). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Luria, A. R. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R. V. Valsiner (Ed.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 47–56). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. MacKinnon, D. W. (1966). What makes a person creative? Theory into Practice, 5(4), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marshall, N., & Buteau, C. (2014). Learning mathematics by designing, programming, and investigating with interactive, dynamic computer-based objects. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 49–65.Google Scholar
  59. Mhlolo, M. K. (2017). Regular classroom teachers’ recognition and support of the creative potential of mildly gifted mathematics learners. ZDM, 49(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moseley, B. (2005). Students’ early mathematical representation knowledge: The effects of emphasising single or multiple perspectives of the rational number domain in problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(1), 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  62. Novak, E., & Tassell, J. L. (2015). Using video game play to improve education-majors’ mathematical performance: An experimental study. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 124–130.Google Scholar
  63. Nguyen, N. D., & Trinh, T. T. P. (2015). An empirical research on the use of mobile phones to support students’ mathematics learning. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(1), 133–141.Google Scholar
  64. Nadjafikhah, M., & Yaftian, N. (2013). The frontage of creativity and mathematical creativity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Papert, S. (1992). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  66. Perkins, D. N. (1988). The possibility of invention. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 362–385). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prabhu, V., & Czarnocha, B. (2014). Democratizing mathematical creativity through Koestler bisociation theory. In P. Liljedahl, S. Oesterly, C. Nicol, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 5, pp. 1–8). Vancouver, Canada: PME.Google Scholar
  69. Prusak, A. (2015). Nurturing students’ creativity through telling mathematical stories. In F. M. Singer, F. Toader, & C. Voica (Eds.), The 9th Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness International Conference Proceedings, 2015, June (pp. 16–21). Sinaia, Romania.Google Scholar
  70. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Radford, L. (2012). On the cognitive, epistemic, and ontological roles of artifacts. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources (pp. 283–288). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (7, Serial No. 286).Google Scholar
  74. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Säljö, R. (2012). Literacy, digital literacy and epistemic practices: The co-evolution of hybrid minds and external memory systems. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacies, 7(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
  76. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shaffer, D. W., & Clinton, K. A. (2006). Tool for thoughts: Re-examining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheffield, L. J. (2015). Myths about “gifted” mathematics students: How widespread are they? In F. M. Singer, F. Toader, & C. Voica (Eds.), The 9th Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness International Conference Proceedings, 2015, June (pp. 114–119). Sinaia, Romania.Google Scholar
  80. Sheffield, L. J. (2017). Dangerous myths about “gifted” mathematics students. ZDM, 49(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sriraman, B. (2008). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. ZDM, 41(1–2), 13–27.Google Scholar
  84. Sriraman, B., Yaftian, N., & Lee, K. H. (2011). Mathematical creativity and mathematics education. In B. Sriraman & K. H. Lee (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 119–130). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stacey, K. (1995). The challenges of keeping open problem-solving open in school mathematics. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 27(2), 62–67.Google Scholar
  86. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Suchman, L. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E., & Trigg, R. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tan, C.-K., & Tan, C.-P. Graphic calculator instructional approach and students’ probability performances. In A. N. M. Wahid & C. Reaiche Amaro (Eds.), Australian Academy of Business and Social Sciences Conference, 2014 August. Kuala Lumapur, Malaysia. Retrieved from
  90. Tassell, J.L., Stobaugh, R. R., & McDonald, M. (2013). Math and science teacher candidates’ use of technology to facilitate teaching and learning during student teaching. Educational Renaissance, 2(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  91. Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Harpen, X. Y., & Sriraman, B. (2013). Creativity and mathematical problem posing: An analysis of high school students’ mathematical problem posing in China and the USA. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vartanian, O., Bristol, A., & Kaufman, J. (Eds.). (2013). Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  95. Verzosa, D., Guzon, A. F., & Penãs, M. (2014). Using dynamic tools to develop an understanding of the fundamental ideas of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(2), 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood (M. E. Sharpe, Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Weisberg, R. W. (1988). Problem solving and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 148–176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Wagner, D. (2011). Intercultural positioning in mathematics. In B. Sriraman, & V. Freiman (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity for the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Mathematics and Its Connections to Arts and Sciences, Moncton 2009 (Vol. 11, pp. 1–17). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  101. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Wu, X., Yang, W., Tong, D., Sun, J., Chen, Q., Wei, D., et al. (2015). A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on divergent thinking using activation likelihood estimation. Human Brain Mapping, 36(7), 2703–2718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yerushalmy, M., & Botzer, G. (2011). Guiding mathematical inquiry in mobile settings. In O. Zaslavsky & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Constructing knowledge for teaching secondary mathematics (pp. 191–207). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Yilmaza, G. K. (2015). The effect of dynamic geometry software and physical manipulation on candidate teachers’ transformational geometry success. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 1–20.Google Scholar
  105. Zhu, W., Chen, Q., Tang, C., Cao, G., Hou, Y., & Qiu, J. (2016). Brain structure links everyday creativity to creative achievement. Brain and Cognition, 103, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Shaanan College and Centre for Educational Technology (CET)Haifa; Tel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations