Radboud Teachers Academy Radboud University, Nijmegen

Research Programme 2016 - 2021

Date

Cultivating Creativity In Education

Interactions Between Teaching And Learning

PREFACE

The Radboud Teachers Academy educates academic prospective and in-service teachers for the senior

grades of Dutch secondary education. The senior grades of secondary education prepare pupils for studies

at a university or a university of applied sciences. At the core of the curriculum is an increasing emphasis on

the development of pupils’ higher order thinking skills, creativity, scientific attitude, research and problem

solving skills, within and across disciplines. The Academy takes on a broad, yet ambitious view of teaching

and learning, in which both students and teachers develop and use their full potential with respect to these

learning goals and develop their talents accordingly. The research program of the Academy contributes to

this view by systematically expanding knowledge and understanding of how new types of learning can be

cultivated. The Radboud Teachers Academy aims to become an expertise center for innovative teaching

and learning and as such a valuable source of learning for teachers and schools. Its central position within

Radboud University enables the Academy to collaborate with research groups from various faculties as well

as a wide array of secondary schools. This stimulates interaction between innovative scientific insights and

new developments in schools. Research outcomes will consist of (context specific) conceptual clarifications

as well as specific pedagogies, to cultivate creativity in secondary education, in teacher education and in

school development.

BACKGROUND

Particularly in the last few decades, Dutch primary and secondary education has been shifting towards

ways of teaching and learning that go beyond mere reproduction of facts. Pupils are increasingly

encouraged to think about and reach a meaningful understanding of the world they live in (e.g., Vermunt,

1992; Bransford & Brown, 2000; Iran-Nejad, McKeachie & Berliner, 1990; Vermetten, Vermunt, & Lodewijks,

1999). Pupils are therefore more likely to become knowledgeable sources themselves. While this shift

towards meaningful learning is still going on, a new challenge is already emerging. Rapid technological,

socio-economic and environmental changes, together with corresponding challenges in today’s society

(Ferrari, Cachia, Ala-Mutka & Puni, 2009) and in the lives of pupils in particular (Redecker, 2008; Pédro,

2006), call for a specific educational approach: pupils need to acquire meaningful knowledge, while

simultaneously feel stimulated to utilize their knowledge in (online and multimedia) learning situations that

allow to (collaboratively) explore, inquire, imagine, create and innovate. The cultivation of intricately

connected requirements and integration of knowledge and skills, termed as creativity, is considered to be

at the core of this new challenge for all learners (e.g., Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009; Richards, 2010; Voogt

& Pareja Roblin, 2010). This cultivation of creativity goes beyond mere cognitive learning; it involves

imagination, feeling and emotion, critical thinking, open end solutions and space to experiment and

cooperate. This type of learning requires specific attitudes from teachers and pupils.

Education that appeals to young people’s abilities and interests is likely to enhance their wellbeing and

learning (Deci & Ryan, 2002) and, consequently, better equip them for contributing to the dynamics of

modern society. Within this perspective, creativity is not regarded as something reserved for certain

individuals, but it is a central part of thinking and acting in new ways, in a world that requires us to do so

(Tanggaard, 2014). There is ample evidence that it is possible to develop pupils’ creativity (e.g. Sternberg,

2006). Therefore, policymakers as well as educators claim that education should play a vital role in

developing the expertise and creativity that the present dynamic society needs (WRR, 2013; Tanggaard,

2014).

Nevertheless, concrete policy changes regarding the cultivation of creativity in education fall behind so far

in the Netherlands (Onderwijsraad, 2008; SLO, 2015; Voogt & Pareja Roblin, 2010). A broader and more

extended approach to learning and teaching in which creativity can flourish is far from common practice,

particularly in secondary education. Cognitive, convergent and teacher-centered views on learning still

seem to be predominant and are accompanied by ever increasing standardized testing (Biesta, 2014).

Accordingly, a strong emphasis is placed on measurable learning results of students for the basic school

subjects.

The Radboud Teachers Academy shares with Biesta (2014) the view that the qualification function of

education (which often has an economic background) should be complemented with a socialization and

personification function. The latter two functions refer to the broad development of pupils towards

becoming autonomous, responsible, and active participants in our democratic, pluriform society (Biesta,

2014), and in turn call for a more comprehensive view on education. The cultivation of creativity requires,

in our view, the committed embracement of the three educational functions together. It is from this

perspective that this research program has emerged and has been developed.

ZOOMING IN ON CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION: TOWARDS A RESEARCH PROGRAM

The concept of creativity

The concept of creativity, although a key topic in current debate on educational innovation, is not a well-

defined in scientific research and within the context of education (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004).

Nonetheless, two main aspects appear to stand out: creativity is about creating something new (original)

and useful (worthwhile) (e.g., Mumford, 2003; Plucker et al., 2004). This requires further specification: to

whom is it new and worthwhile and what does new and worthwile mean? As creativity can be regarded as

positive as well as negative depending on its context (Biesta, 2014; Craft, 2006), solely describing creativity

as ‘something new and useful’ is far too general for educational design purposes. For example, it is

necessary for educators to know more about the conditions, indications and possible outcomes of creative

processes. It is also necessary to shed more light on their (partly) domain specific nature (e.g. Baer, 1998;

Plucker, 1998). One of the central aims of this research program is to gain more insight into the conceptual

structure of creativity in the context of education and of (upper) secondary education in particular. In their

review study of 90 recent studies on creativity, Plucker et al. (2004) came up with the following definition:

‘Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social group’. This definition will serve as a general working definition and starting point to be further explored, refined, developed, and adjusted to specific contexts or domains. Additionally, four starting points form the basis of the research conducted at the Radboud Teachers Academy.

Starting points

Interaction between teaching and learning – the central role of teachers. The Radboud Teachers Academy

research program aims to contribute to the cultivation of individual and collaborative creativity of pupils

and teachers in (the senior grades of) secondary schools. In other words, the program focuses both on

creativity within the interaction between teachers and pupils (the process of teaching) and on creativity

within pupils’ learning processes and outcomes (the process of learning). This is an ambitious focus, since

associated practices are not automatically found in schools nowadays; and if they are, these practices are

not felt as everyday routine just yet. However, teachers play a crucial role in cultivating creativity by

creating and applying educational innovations in their (domain specific) domain of teaching (e.g., Imants &

Oolbekkink, 2009). Therefore, teachers are the main ‘entry points’ for our research program. Teachers’

professional knowledge, skills and space to develop education, in addition to the central position of the

school as the context for their learning and expertise, are key elements of the research program.

Teachers as learners – interaction between teacher and workplace. A second starting point underlying our

research program is that a necessary foundation for the cultivation of pupils’ creativity is the creative

learning by teachers themselves. The interaction between pupil and teacher learning is clearly visible in

recent models of teacher professional development. On the one hand, these models stress the relation

between the learning processes of teachers and, ultimately, the learning results of their students (e.g.,

Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Imants & Oolbekkink, 2009; Desimone, 2009). On the other hand, these

models stress the situated character of teacher learning (e.g., Meirink, Imants, Meijer, & Verloop, 2010;

Bronkhorst, Meijer, Koster, & Vermunt, 2014). Teacher learning is situated in contexts that do not allow for

a separation between the individual and the environment. Teachers learn from experiences in this context

and actively shape these contexts - whether in a creative, innovative, or in a reproductive fashion (Imants,

Wubbels, & Vermunt, 2013). Luttenberg, Imants and van Veen (2013) and Luttenberg, van Veen and Imants

(2013) show how teachers look for cohesion with, and position themselves towards, specific innovation

concepts and characteristics of the school as a workplace. Simultaneously, they attempt to make sense of

their work during school-based innovations.

Teacher identity. For teachers, starting with the cultivation of pupils’ creativity basically implies a shift from

relative certainty and control towards uncertain learning processes and unknown outcomes. It also involves

the certainty that their roles as teachers as well as the roles of their pupils will change. It is therefore not

far-fetched to state that teachers who know how to cultivate creativity show different accents in their

teaching and most likely also in their professional identity. Although much research on teacher learning and

professional identity development has been conducted during the last decades (e.g., Beijaard, Meijer &

Verloop, 2004; Meijer, de Graaf, & Meirink, 2011; Bakkenes, Vermunt & Wubbels, 2010,), what typifies

teachers who (learn to) focus on the cultivation of creativity is not yet clear, nor do we know how these

teachers develop their professional identity. For the purpose of professionalization of teachers, initial

teacher training and teacher recruitment policies, it is vital to obtain more insight in the characteristics of

this process.

Domain specific and general creativity. In the past decades, researchers have debated whether creativity

requires a domain specific or a general set of knowledge, skills, aptitudes and propensities. Although some

scholars adopted a more moderate position, including both domain specific and general components (e.g.,

Amabile, 1983), the abundant evidence both in favor of and against the domain specificity of creativity gave

rise to intense debate (e.g. Baer, 1998; Plucker, 1998). Currently, the emerging view on creativity is one

that leaves room for both perspectives as well as for a fusion between the two. A key insight is that the

knowledge, skills and talents underlying creative performance “… a) vary depending on the kind of work

one is undertaking, b) are similar across related fields or kinds of creative work and c) become progressively

dissimilar as one moves to increasingly disparate fields of endeavor” (Baer, 2010; see also Kaufman & Baer,

2005). This research program includes studies with predominantly domain specific as well as general or

mixed perspectives, according to the goal and context of each study or series of studies.

Outcomes of the research program Cultivating creativity will add to theories of teacher learning and

development and will offer solid ground for useful and effective, partly subject or domain specific practices

in teacher education and teacher professional development.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As stated, the concept of creativity, although a key topic in current debate on educational innovation, is far

from well-defined in scientific research. A central aim of the Radboud Teachers’ Academy research program

is to gain more insight into the conceptual structure of creativity in the context of (secondary) education.

More specifically, we will pay attention to three aspects that, when combined, will help to gain more

insight into the cultivation of creativity in education:

The conditions for creativity: what are the ecological, contextual and personal conditions for the

development of creativity, higher order thinking and problem solving both in learning and teaching, by

students, by teachers and by teacher educators?

The indications for creativity: what are the factors that indicate (the quality of) creativity and how can

they be measured?

The evaluation of creativity: what are the results of creativity, creative learning and problem solving in

different subject domains?

The program's central research question is: How can the development of creativity in education be

enhanced? This central question is specified into three subquestions, which are the point of departure for

three integrated lines of research:

1. Creativity and specific school subject domains: What is the relation between teachers’ and pupils’

creativity within school subject domains? How can developments in school subject domains be

translated into creative teaching and learning that stimulates problem solving and higher order

thinking?

The studies in this line of research work towards tested pedagogies that teachers can use to address their

pupils’ creative potential and create environments that cultivate their pupils’ subject or domain specific

creativity.

2. Creativity and teachers’ professional identity: What characterizes the professional identity of teachers

who cultivate their pupils’ creativity? How do these teachers develop their professional identity? How

can this development be supported and enhanced during teacher education and continuing

professional development?

The studies in this line of research work towards tested teacher education pedagogies and pedagogies for

stimulating further professional development of experienced teachers.

3. Creativity and the school context: How can teaching and learning creativity be implemented in

schools, taken into consideration differences within and between schools and teachers? Which role do

teachers’ work environment characteristics, and more specifically teachers’ professional space, play in

their creative teaching and learning, and in the sustainability of changes towards creative teaching and

learning?

The studies in this line of research work towards tested pedagogies of educating student teachers and

experienced teachers in collaborative responsibility of teacher education institutes and schools ("Samen

opleiden"), and school change that includes a focus on the pedagogies mentioned in line 1 and line 2.

Although these three research lines are described separately, we assume that research leading to

outcomes encouraging sustainable change or development in education cannot be done in just one of

these lines while neglecting the others. There is ample evidence that studies focusing solely on, for

example, the development of materials while disregarding teacher learning or the school context, might

lead to temporary results, but in the long term these results fade out. Fading results occur because

teachers do not use said materials, because schools cannot address the requirements for implementation

and/or because it is unclear how the materials relate to the final exams students are prepared for (e.g.,

Overman, Vermunt, Meijer, Bulte, & Brekelmans, 2014; Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2015).

Another example is the attempts that have been made to change teacher roles towards 'supporting

learning', instead of being mere 'transmitters of knowledge'. Although many studies have indicated a

massive increase in student learning, full implementation has failed because of a lack of teacher support

and a lack of facilities in schools. Teachers did not know how to change their teaching nor did they know

how the ‘supporting learning’ role related to developments in the subject they were teaching (e.g.,

Luttenberg et al., 2013a). Although many studies in the research program are rooted in one of the research

lines, the other lines are never neglected. This emphasizes the importance of dialogue and interaction

between researchers in our research program.

LINE 1. CREATIVE LEARNING AND SPECIFIC SCHOOL SUBJECT DOMAINS

The Radboud Teachers Academy research program targets the cultivation of creative learning in the senior

grades of secondary education, especially, but not exclusively, in the more scientifically oriented school

types, such as pre-university tracks. Pedagogical issues in this area are often of a domain specific nature,

since school subject domains are based on the scientific disciplines they prepare students for. Embedded in

a university context, the program collaborates with researchers from a range of university faculties (for

instance the Faculty of Arts, and the Faculty of Science).

The first line of research therefore concerns the enhancement of teachers’ and pupils’ creative learning

(and teaching) in relation to the specific school subject domains. How do teachers respond to the changing

contexts of the scientific disciplines associated with their school subjects? What kind of domain specific

creative learning do pupils need in order to bridge the gap between secondary school and university study,

and how do teachers design education that encourages this learning? These questions are addressed in

collaboration with colleagues from university faculties and from schools.

Adding the school subject domain into the equation enables us to distinguish three different perspectives

on creative learning and teaching:

1. The creative learning that is required from pupils in relation to the school subject domains;

2. The creative learning and teaching that is required from teachers in relation to the school subject

domains;

3. The creative domain specific teaching that is required from teachers in their relation to their

students.

The first perspective is one of the major targets of upper level secondary education. More specifically,

students need to develop certain domain specific, higher order thinking processes. The exact nature of

these processes and their conceptual structure, which is to a large extent a matter of the scientific domain

itself, is the first target of research in this line. This line of research will be executed in close collaboration

with faculty researchers.

The second perspective is in fact a prerequisite for the other two: teachers are first and foremost domain

experts. The relation between teachers and their domains determines certain epistemic beliefs and

preconceptions. This is the second target of research in this line.

The third perspective is the means to stimulate and scaffold the development of creative learning in the

first perspective. Teachers need to employ efficient and (to a certain extent) domain specific strategies to

foster pupils’ creative learning in the specific domain. Research into this kind of creative teaching is also

(and more fundamentally) rooted in the second line of the research program, which will be elaborated

upon in the next section. However, most research projects within this second line also have the domain

specific means for stimulating and scaffolding creative learning as an object of investigation.

Studies within the first line include (but are not restricted to): cultivating creative learning in literary

education, enriching grammar pedagogy to enhance creative thinking about language, integrating modern

linguistic insights into language education, enhancing critical thinking in history teaching, expert

development in business education and social studies, concept-context approaches in biology, and creative

thinking in mathematics and science.

LINE 2. CREATIVITY AND TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY

This line of research focuses on teachers and their development in the context of cultivating creativity. For

teachers, to start with the cultivation of pupils’ creativity basically implies a shift from relative certainty and

control towards uncertain learning processes and unknown outcomes. Moreover, it involves the certainty

that their roles as teachers as well as those of their pupils will change. It is therefore not far-fetched to

state that teachers who know how to cultivate creativity show different accents in their teaching, and most

likely also in their professional identity. Teachers need to be aware of the cutting edge of their subject

domain, in which answers have not yet been found, they need to have a tolerance for uncertainty that not

only addresses managerial and interactional processes in education, but also to the learning (in process as

well as content) of both students and teacher. Also, they need to employ ‘agency’ in order to create or use

the space they have in school to experiment with inquiry learning or other creative types of learning for

themselves and for their pupils.

Although much research on teacher learning and the development of teachers' professional identity has

been conducted during the last decades (e.g., Beijaard et al., 2004; Meijer et al., 2011; Bakkenes et al.,

2013), it is not clear what typifies teachers who (learn to) focus on the cultivation of creativity in their

students and in themselves. Another virtually unexplored issue that we aim to contribute to is the question

how teacher identity and its development can be measured. Research in this second line focuses on how

teachers develop professionally when they (learn to) focus more on creative types of learning, and on how

such a development can be supported and enhanced during teacher education or professional

development activities (Meijer, Oolbekkink, Pillen, & Aardema, 2014).

Research within this line will be largely descriptive at first, aiming to describe how teachers’ identity

develops over time and in relation to their actual teaching practice (and student outcomes). What follows

are interventions both in teacher education and in schools with beginning and experienced teachers. The

purpose of these interventions is that teachers learn to cultivate the creativity of their pupils as well as

their own creativity, especially in their teaching. In doing so, more light will be shed on the relation and

distinction between the concepts ‘creative teacher’, ‘creative teaching’ and ‘teaching for creativity’.

LINE 3. CREATIVITY AND THE SCHOOL CONTEXT

Specific outcomes of teaching and learning creativity are inherently uncertain and can only partly be

controlled. The school context should stimulate and guide pupils and teachers to position themselves as

creative interpreters and problem solvers. Additionally, the school context should provide conditions and

resources in which creative teaching and learning is promoted, fostered, guided and rewarded. Such

contexts seem to differ considerably from contexts in which teachers and students are expected to produce

high grades on standardized tests and exam results that fit into accountability norms. Moreover, recent

theories on learning and teaching that are potentially fruitful in the conceptualization of creativity learning

state that learning is an inherently social and contextualized activity (Billett, 2004). For these reasons,

teaching and learning creativity can only be understood, promoted, and improved when the context for

teaching and learning is part of the research. Related to research in the second line is the assumption that

identity and agency are strongly interrelated concepts. Agency is about the relationship between the

teacher as a learner and the context in which the teacher is working and learning (Priestley, Biesta,

Philippou, & Robinson, 2015). Parallel to the first line it is assumed that collaboration in development

teams among teachers, university subject specialists and teacher educators is a promising context for

developing productive methods for teaching creativity (Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes & Kyndt, 2015). In relation

to both the first and the second line, alignment is assumed to be a central concept in a systems approach of

creativity teaching innovations. This approach can be helpful to explore the sustainability of the curricular

innovations and aspects of creativity in teachers’ identity (Fullan, 2009). Teacher agency, collaboration (e.g.,

professional learning communities; Schaap & De Bruijn, 2012), and alignment are three promising concepts

for the study of productive and sustainable contexts for creativity teaching (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).

Alignment requires educational leadership (Imants, 2014). Until recently, developing these contexts for

teaching and learning creativity have hardly been subject to research (Tanggaard, 2014).

Context ranges from the classroom and the environment for teachers’ work and learning in the school, to

the educational leadership in school and the partnership between school and university. We therefore aim

to gain insight into stimulating, rewarding and sustainable contexts in classrooms and schools for teaching

and learning creativity by students and teachers, and we aim to contribute to the development of these

contexts. A central assumption in this third line of research is that rich working and learning environments

for teachers are essential for developing teaching and learning creativity. In such environments teachers

are invited and rewarded to develop, perform, and evaluate new contents and methods for student

learning. These are labelled expansive environments for learning, to be distinguished from restrictive

environments, in literature on workplace learning (Tynjälä, 2013).

Research in this third line will be descriptive in nature at first, taking an ecological stance towards teachers

and educational leaders in their authentic context. Additionally, intensive intervention studies (e.g.,

formative interventions, design based research) will be conducted in order to improve or change current

practices. Studies within this line include (but are not restricted to): teachers’ sense making and positioning

towards reform, teachers’ workplace learning and professional development, teacher learning in innovative

teams, teachers’ enactment of work environments in the context of reform, developing an integrated

model for school reform and teachers’ professional development, teacher’s professional space and

professional learning communities.

FINAL REMARKS

In this program, it is assumed that research contributing to sustainable change in education needs to cover

the three lines described above. As a consequence, the Radboud Teachers Academy research program does

not only require the use of more traditional research designs, but also topics and designs that ask for

creativity. This ambition pertains, among other things, the following:

A review study will be conducted on the concept of creativity and its development, and what this

concept entails and might look like in the context of learning and teaching in schools for pre-university

education, including the consequences for research topics and designs in such a context;

In each study, close collaboration is sought with various research groups in the university faculties on

the one hand and with (innovative) schools for secondary education, on the other;

Methods will be developed to assess creativity and its development, to set up experiments to cultivate

creativity, and to design forms for collaborative research with schools and/or teachers in ways that are

valid and reliable (and creative) (e.g., Boevé et al., 2015).

The Radboud Teachers Academy ambition asks for novel ways of collaboration in research. The stakes are

high in that we wish to contribute to sustainable change in education at the level of students, teachers, and

schools. By focusing on the concept of creativity and its cultivation, we set the stage for innovative ways of

collaborative research that can contribute to pioneer research in the area of education.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1983). Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity (pp. 321-341). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173-177.

Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation:

Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20, 533-

548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.09.001

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001

Biesta, G. J. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Boevé, A. J., Bronkhorst, L. H., Endedijk, M. D., & Meijer, P. C. (2015). Tackling methodological challenges to

gain new insight into the complexity of student teacher learning in a dual teacher education

program. In V. Donche, S. De Maeyer, D. Gijbels, & H. van den Bergh (Eds.), Methodological

challenges in research on student learning (pp. 27-54). Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Garant Publishers.

Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments.

Journal of Workplace Learning, 6, 312-324.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665620410550295

Bransford, J. & Brown, A. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B., & Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Deliberate practice in teacher education.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 18-34.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.825242

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 18, 947-967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of

Educational Studies, 51(2), 113-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00229

Craft, A. (2006). Fostering creativity with wisdom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 337-350.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057640600865835

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical

perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 3-34).

Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better

conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), pp. 181–199.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU

member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. JRC Technical Note,

52374. Retrieved January 22, 2015, retrieved from

ftp://ftp.jrc.es/users/publications/public/EURdoc/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf

Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Imants, J. (2014). Onderwijskundig leiderschap. Basisschoolmanagement in de praktijk. Huizen: PICA

Onderwijsmanagement.

Imants, J., & Oolbekkink, H. (2009). Leren denken binnen het schoolvak. Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Garant

Publishers.

Imants, J., Wubbels, T., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013). Teachers’ enactment of workplace conditions and their

beliefs and attitudes toward reform. Vocations and Learning, 6(3), 323-346.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-013-9098-0

Iran-Nejad, A., McKeachie, W. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multisource nature of learning: An introduction.

Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 509-515.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004509

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Luttenberg, J., Imants, J., & Van Veen, K. (2013a). Reform as an ongoing positioning process: The positioning

of a teacher in the context of reform. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(3), 293-310.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.754161

Luttenberg, J., Van Veen, K., & Imants, J. (2013b). Looking for cohesion: The role of search for meaning in the

interaction between teacher and reform. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 289-308.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.630746

Meijer, P. C., de Graaf, G., & Meirink, J. A. (2011). Key experiences in student teachers’ development.

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 115-129.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.538502

Meijer, P. C., Oolbekkink, H. W., Pillen, M., & Aardema, A. (2014). Pedagogies of developing teacher identity.

In C. Craig & L. Orland-Barak (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Part A)

(pp. 293-309). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Meirink, J. A., Imants, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2010). Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative

teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 161-181.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.481256

Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research.

Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 107-120. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403

Onderwijsraad. (2008). Een succesvolle start in het hoger onderwijs. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from

http://www.onderwijsraad.nl/upload/documents/publicaties/volledig/een_succesvolle_start_in_het

_hoger_onderwijs.pdf

Overman, M., Vermunt, J. D., Meijer, P. C., Bulte, A. M. W., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Students’ perceptions

of teaching in context-based and traditional chemistry classrooms: Comparing content, learning

activities, and interpersonal perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1871-

1901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.880004

Pedró, F. (2006). The new millennium learners: Challenging our views on ICT and learning (No. 9228). Inter-

American Development Bank. Paris: OECD-CERI.

Retrieved from http://www.iadb.org/document.cfm?pubDetail=1&id=848507

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational

psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational

Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity

Research Journal, 11, 179–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8

Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., Philippou, S., & Robinson, S. (2015). The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring

teacher agency. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward & J. Pandya (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum,

Pedagogy and Assessment (pp. 187-201). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Redecker, C. (2008). Review of Learning 2.0 Practices. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities.

Richards R. (2010). Everyday creativity: Process and way of life – four key issues. In J. C. Kaufman & R.

Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 189-215). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

SLO (2015). 21e eeuwse vaardigheden in het curriculum van het funderend onderwijs. Enschede: SLO.

Schaap, H., & De Bruijn, E. (2012, June). Leerwerkgemeenschappen als instrument voor schoolontwikkeling;

het verbinden van individueel en collectief leren. Paper presented at the Onderwijs Research Dagen

(ORD), Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Tanggaard, L. (2014). A situated model of creative learning. European Educational Research Journal, 13(1),

107-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.107

Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning,

6(1), 11-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z

Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review.

Educational Research Review, 15, 17-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002

Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & G. Lodewijks (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in

higher education: Different viewpoints towards development. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 69, 221-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709999157699

Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs: naar

procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken (Doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: Swets &

Zeitlinger.

Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Simons, R. J. (2015). Promoting effective teacher-feedback:

From theory to practice through a multiple component trajectory for professional development.

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(8), 990-1009.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1005868

Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2010). 21st century skills. Discussion paper. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.

WRR. (2013). Naar een lerende economie. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/publicatie/article/naar-een-lerende-economie-1/