You are here:

Understanding creativity and the role of technology in education: a tri-modal approach

, Monash University, Australia ; , Arizona State University, United States ; , Monash University, Australia

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Creativity is widely viewed as pivotal to 21st Century education, and thus is frequently connected with technology. However, creativity continues to be ill defined, difficult to recognise and even harder to systematically develop in students and in teachers. This paper proposes a new way of understanding creativity, with an eye toward technology in education settings. The authors propose that creativity has three modes of operation and emergence: the Visceral (embodiments), the Ideational (mind and conceptual) and the Observational (critical, economic and social). This paper presents creativity dynamically and cohesively as representing individual creative experience and output, in embodied ways with technology in education, as well as recognising what externally shapes, enhances and constrains creative experience and productivity systemically. Technology is at the core of the operation of these three modes. The paper also focuses on issues of power, control and discourse about what is deemed to be creative, including creative gatekeeping practices in educational settings. The tri-modal model of creativity offers a cross-disciplinary framework, one with relevance to a range of educational contexts. We share a practice example from literacy education, and its integration with technology, to illustrate the operation of the model.


Creely, E.A., Henriksen, D. & Henderson, M. (2018). Understanding creativity and the role of technology in education: a tri-modal approach. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2495-2503). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Banaji, S, Burn, A., & Buckingham, D. (2010). The rhetorics of creativity: a literature review. London: Arts Council England.
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  3. Butler, J. (2001). What is critique? An essay on Foucault's virtue. Eipcp, May. Retrieved from Casminaty, T., & Henderson, M. (2016). Risky business: ICT and creativity. In S. Prestridge& P. Albion (Eds.), Australian Council for Computers in Education 2016 Conference Refereed Proceedings (pp. 16-22). Brisbane, Australia: ACCE.
  4. Chemi, T. (2018). Transgressive or Instrumental? A Paradigm for the Arts as Learning and Development. In T. Chemi & X. Du (eds.), Arts-based Methods and Organizational Learning (pp. 19-40). Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities. Cham:
  5. Craft, A. (2001). Little C Creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (eds.), Creativity in Education (pp. 45-61). London: Continuum.
  6. Creely, E. & Crispin, J. (2016). Decentering writing practice. Developing a writing culture in a school through a specialised open writing space. Idiom, 52 (1), 2016. Retrieved from writing_culture_in_a_school_through_a_specialized_open_writing_space
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
  8. Davies, J. (2012). Science of Creativity Moves into the Body. Psychology Today, Nov. 7. Retrieved from
  9. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things. London: Routledge.
  10. Hall, T. (2012). Digital Renaissance: The Creative Potential of Narrative Technology in Education. Creative Education, 3, 96-100.
  11. Holton, G. (2004). Defining risk. Financial Analysts Journal, 60(6), 19-25.
  12. Houston, M. & Lin, L. (2012). Humanizing the Classroom by Flipping the Homework versus Lecture Equation. In P. Resta (edit.), Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference, 2012 (pp. 1177-1182). Austin, Texas, USA:
  13. Idhe, D. (2002). Bodies in Technology. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
  14. Kaufman, J. & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond New and Appropriate: Who Decides What Is Creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83-91.
  15. Lucas, B., Claxton, G. & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. OECD Education Working Paper No. 86.
  16. Matthews, J. (2007). Creativity and Entrepreneurship: Potential Partners or Distant Cousins? In R. Chapman (Ed.), Proceedings Managing Our Intellectual and Social Capital: 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference (pp. 1-17). Sydney, Australia: ANZAM.
  17. Mishra, P. & Hendriksen, D. (2017). Creativity, technology& Education: exploring their convergence. New York, NY: Springer.
  18. Montuori, A. (2011). Beyond postnormal times: The future of creativity and the creativity of the future. Futures, 43(2), 221-227.
  19. OECD (2016). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  20. Rogers, C. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics. 11, 249-260.
  21. Sporton, G. (2015). The Social Narrative of Technology. In Digital Creativity: Something from Nothing (pp.14-34). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  22. Starko, A. (2018). Creativity in the classroom: schools of curious delight. New York: Routledge.
  23. Zhou, J. & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact