Home Education Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)
Article Open Access

Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)

  • Astri Setiamurti EMAIL logo and Farida Kurniawati
Published/Copyright: February 22, 2024
Download Article (PDF)
Open Education Studies
From the journal Open Education Studies Volume 6 Issue 1

Abstract

Several studies have stressed the necessity of fostering students’ creativity in the twenty-first -century learning process, particularly at the higher educational level. This study synthesized the characteristics (country, study population, and field of education/subject), methods, and theoretical ground used to foster students’ creativity in higher education research. Using the PRISMA 2020 as a guideline for writing a systematic literature review, two databases (ProQuest and Scopus) were searched for peer-reviewed, primary, and empirical research published in English between January 1, 2018, and October 15, 2022. A final selection of 28 studies that met the eligibility criteria were examined. The result showed that most of the studies reviewed were conducted on undergraduate students in developed industrialized East Asian countries and used surveys as the primary data collection method. Moreover, the grounding theories used in fostering creativity in higher education research were still scarce. This study showed that further research is needed to examine the mechanism for developing student creativity in higher education with more diverse samples, rigorous methods, and theoretical grounding.

Keywords: higher education; student creativity; creative teaching; creativity fostering teacher behavior; systematic literature review

1 Introduction

One of the critical skills to have in the twenty-first century is creativity (World Economic Forum, 2020). Creativity enables using, creating, improving, analyzing, and evaluating various ideas (Sharma & Sharma, 2018). Creativity also plays a crucial role in various aspects of idea generation and development (Benedek et al., 2016; Gundry, Ofstein, & Kickul, 2014; Ritter & Mostert, 2017). This skill enables individuals to discover new opportunities, enhance their creative thinking, and accurately assess the creativity of ideas.

Acknowledging its importance, educators and researchers agree that creativity in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is a relevant and essential skill for successful learning (Li, 2023; Nissim, Weissblueth, Scott-Webber, & Amar, 2016; Rae, 2023). Several studies have stressed the need to foster students’ creativity in HE (Fields & Bisschoff, 2013; Lee, Lee, Makara, Fishman, & Hong, 2015). Jackson, Oliver, Shaw, and Wisdom (2006) also stated that the goal of teaching in HE is to assist students in recognizing and leveraging their creativity. By doing so, students will become more effective learners and develop into individuals who can deal with uncertainty and complexity in their future workplace. Therefore, HEIs have proactively embraced this perspective by implementing creativity-nurturing programs designed to empower students to hone their creativity (Li, 2023). The programs aimed to enable students to develop their creativity so that they can demonstrate purposeful work that results in effective learning and retention.

Some governments also have developed educational initiatives to promote discussion and the implementation of educational policies to foster students’ creativity skills. For example, more than 20 years ago, the governments of China and Japan, and American and European business leaders mandated and recommended encouraging creativity in university curricula (Cheung, Roskams, & Fisher, 2006; Strom & Strom, 2002). European University Association also established a Creativity in Higher Education Project to analyze conditions that could promote or hinder creativity in the university setting in 21 different countries (European University Association, 2007). Recently, the Indonesian government has issued a “Merdeka Belajar – Kampus Merdeka (MBKM) Curriculum” through the Minister of Education and Culture Regulations Number 3 Year 2020 on National Standards of Higher Education (2020). The MBKM curriculum was designed to provide a student-centered learning environment, encourage creativity, and provide contextual field experience, improving college students’ competence and readiness for employment (Prahani et al., 2020).

The importance of fostering creativity becomes more critical in HEIs because HEIs are obligated to prepare their students and graduates to build a core competency for entry-level employment (Allen, Quinn, Hollingworth, & Rose, 2013; George, 2008). This is due to the increased demand for creative skills in the job market. According to IBM’s Global CEO study (2010), 60% of global CEOs believe creativity is the most crucial leadership trait in the early twenty-first century. A PwC (2017) survey found that 77% of CEOs reported having trouble finding the creativity and innovation skills they needed. Moreover, LinkedIn surveyed corporate leaders, and creativity emerged as the most essential business skill, labeled “the most important skill in the world” (Petrone, 2018). In addition, the World Economic Forum (2020) also considered creativity one of the five most prominent and in-demand skills of the future. Consequently, higher education’s learning outcomes gradually changed their focus on producing creative graduates who can face the uncertainties of a dynamic future and prepare for jobs that may not have been thought of at this time (Hendayana, 2020; Pucio & Lohiser, 2020; van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk, & de Haan, 2020).

Fostering creativity in HEIs cannot be separated from the role of lecturers who interact directly with students in the process of delivering knowledge. Lecturers’ roles and competencies significantly impact student learning engagement (Almarghani & Mijatovic, 2017), which in turn will lead to producing creative learners (Kasmaienezhadfard, Pourrajab, & Rabbani, 2015). However, research on creativity in HE is multifaceted, with researchers advocating for a fusion of methodological and theoretical paradigms (Brown & Leigh, 2018). This complexity is further accentuated by university lecturers’ diverse conceptions of creativity (Gaspar & Mabic, 2015; Kleiman, 2008).

A study by Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, and Kettler (2016) suggested that research on fostering creativity in educational settings should first consider lecturers’ perceptions of creativity using qualitative or mixed-method research since their perceptions often differ from those used in research and theory. Moreover, according to studies, lecturers typically have an implicit concept of creativity, which influences their acceptance of creativity as an essential skill to teach (Cropley, Patston, Marrone, & Kaufman, 2019; Gaspar & Mabic, 2015; Pavlovic, Maksic, & Bodroza, 2013). Their implicit creativity theories may influence their educational practice and attitude toward students’ creativity and development (Pavlovic et al., 2013). Cropley et al. (2019) also found that teachers’ implicit ideas about creativity represent a more differentiated and operationalized framework. Furthermore, there is evidence that higher education lecturers have difficulty expressing, developing, and measuring creativity and that creativity in courses may be more implicit than explicit (Philip, 2015).

Creativity is a word that can be construed differently depending on the context; hence, there is no universal definition (Simkova, Bondarenko, & Bielovetska, 2021). For example, to describe the process of teaching and learning creativity in HEIs, the term “creative pedagogies” is frequently used. However, some scholars believe that the definitions of this term are still inconsistent and too broad as a construct (Batey, 2012; Simkova et al., 2021). For example, Lin (2011) and Holdhus (2019) used this term to avoid the dichotomy of “teaching for creativity” and “teaching creatively” because they believe that the two activities are inextricably linked. In contrast, Jeffrey and Craft (2004) thought these two activities must be distinguished.

Meanwhile, Sawyer (2017) defined creative pedagogies in HE as helping students break free from constrictive learning methods and encouraging their openness to and exploration of diverse ideas. As such, it emphasizes the importance of explicitly defining and operationalizing creativity in higher education research and curricula to ensure that creativity is encouraged and designed to assist in teaching and learning (Philip, 2015). Therefore, there is a need for a systematic review that investigates how research on fostering creativity in HEIs has been defined and what theoretical frameworks have been used.

The theoretical framework is crucial in educational research, including research on fostering creativity in HE. It provides a basis for understanding the principles of creativity and its role in education, thereby facilitating the development of curricula and teaching methods that effectively nurture students’ creativity (Egan, Maguire, Christophers, & Rooney, 2017). Moreover, the theoretical grounding aids in addressing challenges in higher education related to expressing, developing, and measuring creativity. By understanding these challenges, educators will be able to work toward embedding explicit and operational definitions of creativity into the curriculum to ensure that creativity is effectively cultivated and integrated into the teaching and learning process (Rae, 2023).

In this Systematic Literature Review (SLR), we refer to the study by Jeffrey and Craft (2004) and define teaching creatively as “using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting and effective” (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999, as cited by Jeffrey & Craft, 2004, p. 77). Meanwhile, teaching for creativity is defined as “forms of teaching that are intended to develop young people’s own creative thinking or behavior” (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004). Furthermore, the terms “teaching for creativity” and “fostering creativity” in this review are used interchangeably because both refer to activities that promote students’ creativity. We made this decision after searching for synonyms of terms often used in student creativity research.

The number of reviews specifically addressing how to foster students’ creativity in higher education is still relatively small. The most recent review on this topic was by Cremin and Chappell (2021), which discussed creative pedagogy on students aged 0–18 years, not particularly in HE, from articles published between 1990 and 2018. In addition, a study by Alencar, Fleith, and Pereira (2017) reviewed the driving and hindering factors from fostering creativity in HE. Sawyer (2017) investigated teaching creativity in the arts and design courses. Egan et al. (2017) did a scoping review about how HE formally fostered creativity. Mullet et al. (2016) examined lecturers’ perceptions of creativity.

Furthermore, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, at the time of writing, no review currently provides insights into the methodologies, definitions, and theoretical frameworks employed in research on fostering creativity in HE. For those reasons, it is crucial to generate an overview and gain insight into the development of fostering creativity in HE in the recent literature. The research questions used to guide the analysis of this SLR are as follows:

  1. What are the characteristics (country, study population, program study/subject) and research methods for fostering creativity in higher education research?

  2. How is research on fostering creativity in higher education defined and theoretically grounded?

2 Method

This SLR was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement 2020 (Page et al., 2021). PRISMA 2020 is an update of PRISMA 2009. It is a guidance tool that helps researchers find, choose, evaluate, synthesize studies, and also provide a transparent, complete, and accurate account of the review process (Page et al., 2021). PRISMA has also obtained approval and adoption, co-published in several journals, cited in more than 60,000 reports, received support from about 200 journals and systematic review organizations, and has been used in a variety of disciplines (Page et al., 2021).

2.1 Protocol and Registration

The PRISMA 2020 Statement requires the systematic review to specify that this study was not registered and developed no protocol.

2.2 Information Sources and Search Strategy

Two electronic databases (ProQuest and Scopus) were used to search for literature published between January 1, 2018, and October 15, 2022. This time frame was chosen based on Kraus, Breier, and Dasí-Rodríguez (2020) proposition on research field maturity. Meanwhile, ProQuest and Scopus were selected because the authors have complete access to these databases. The initial inclusion criteria for this systematic review were peer-reviewed articles written in English and reporting on fostering students’ creativity in higher education. Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied (Table 1). The search began on October 10, 2022 and concluded on November 15, 2022. The investigation started with identifying the correct search terms and synonyms for fostering creativity in higher education (Table 2), screening articles’ titles and abstracts, and conducting a full-text eligibility process.

Table 1

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
Published between January 1, 2018 and October 15, 2022 Published before January 1, 2018, or after October 15, 2022
English language Not in English
Empirical, primary research Not empirical, primary research (e.g., review)
Indexed in ProQuest and Scopus Proceedings, theses, dissertations, book chapters, evaluations, or a description of a research instrument
Fostering students’ creativity Not fostering students’ creativity
Higher education Not in higher education
Full-text accessible Full text not accessible
Table 2

The search string used in both electronic databases (ProQuest and Scopus) for relevant articles

Search String
(“teaching creativity” OR “teaching for creativity” OR “creative teaching behavio*r” OR “creativity fostering teacher behavio*r” OR “creativity fostering behavio*r” OR “fostering creativity” OR “fostering student creativity” OR “creativity nurturing behavio*r” OR “nurturing creativity” OR “nurturing student creativity” OR “develop student creativity”)
AND
(colleg* OR “higher education” OR universit* OR undergrad* OR postgrad* OR graduate)
NOT
(“K-12” OR kindergarten* OR “corporate training*” OR “professional training*” OR “primary school*” OR “middle school*” OR “high school*”)

Note: Bold terms indicate Boolean operators; the Asterisk symbol (*) indicates truncation character.

2.3 Eligibility Criteria

Figure 1 depicts the procedure for determining article eligibility. A search of the databases resulted in 7,467 references. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 58 articles were considered for inclusion. After manual screening based on title and abstract, 27 articles were excluded, and the remaining 31 full-text articles were assessed. The validity and reliability of each article were evaluated by the transparency of the method, data, and how the methodology may have affected the results and reporting of the research.

Figure 1 PRISMA 2020 flow chart.
Figure 1

PRISMA 2020 flow chart.

2.4 Data Extraction and Data Synthesis

To gather and standardize data from each article, authors created a data extraction form that contained the following information: authors, year of publication, variables, aim, methodology, research design, participants’ characteristics, country, research instrument, creativity definition, theoretical framework, key findings related to fostering students’ creativity, authors’ decision to include or exclude the articles, reasons to inclusion/exclusion. Three full-text articles were excluded from the 31 potentially eligible articles (Table 3), leaving 28 eligible articles in the narrative synthesis.

Table 3

Reasons for exclusion of full-text articles assessed (n = 3)

Article authors Reason for exclusion
Smatanová and Vitková (2018) Insufficient information about fostering creativity in higher education
Tahirsylaj, Mann, and Matson (2018) Did not discuss fostering creativity in higher education
Williams (2020) Did not elaborate the outcome of creative pedagogies on students’ creativity

3 Result and Discussion

3.1 Study Characteristics

Of the 28 studies on fostering students’ creativity in higher education, multidisciplinary study program was the most often researched (21.4%, n = 6), with five studies (17.9%) explicitly investigating the creativity of the education program, four (14.3%) engineering program, three (10.7%) economics program, two (7.1%) health program, 2 (7.1%) arts program, two (7.1%) science program, and one (3.6%) design program. A brief summary of the study characteristics is presented in Appendix A. It should be emphasized that the data in the research instrument column and the key findings column in Appendix A only pertain to fostering students’ creativity in higher education, not the whole findings of the studies.

3.2 Geographical Characteristic

Taiwan, China, and Spain each contributed 14.3% (n = 4) to the study of fostering creativity in higher education, followed by the United States at 10.7% (n = 3). The rest came from various countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Spain, Norway, Poland, Russia, Canada, Ukraine, Brazil, the UK, and Australia, each contributing one study. Only one study (Park, Niu, Cheng, & Allen, 2021) carried out cross-cultural research in the USA and China. In comparison, industrial countries in East Asia, such as China, Taiwan, and Korea, have the most studies on fostering creativity in higher education (32.1%), followed by European countries (25.0%).

In this review, only one article by Nelmira, Efi, and Sandra (2022) about fostering creativity in HE was identified in Indonesia. It examines a learning model designed to promote the development of students’ creativity through Embroidery learning. The participants of this study were students majoring in the Fashion Design Study Program. Other studies about fostering creativity in Indonesia are by Halimah, Marwati, and Abdillah (2020) and Kurniawati, Saleh, and Safitri (2022). Kurniawati et al. (2022) conducted a study to investigate the effect of teachers’ intellectual humility and subjectivity on teachers’ behavior in fostering creativity.

Meanwhile, Halimah et al. (2020) investigated how students’ creativity in project-based learning can be fostered through lap booking. However, both of those studies were not in the context of HE. Kurniawati et al. (2022) recruited elementary, junior high, and high school teachers as research participants; meanwhile, Halimah et al. (2020) recruited elementary students as participants. These results showed that fostering creativity in HE in Indonesia is still limited and can be an opportunity for further research in the future.

3.3 Study Population

A total of 11 studies (39.3%) were conducted at the undergraduate education level, five studies (17.9%) at the undergraduate and postgraduate level, four studies (14.3%) at the postgraduate level, and only one study (3.5 %) at the vocational course level. The remaining seven (25.0%) did not explicitly state the study population’s educational level.

While the focus on undergraduate students in the reviewed studies provides great insights, it also raises important questions about the unique challenges and opportunities in fostering creativity at other educational levels. The emphasis on foundational knowledge and diverse student backgrounds may allow undergraduates to shape creative thinking early in their academic journeys. However, difficulties may arise when dealing with various learning styles and expectations.

Exploring postgraduate and vocational levels may reveal different dynamics, with postgraduates possibly exhibiting more advanced creative capacities honed through specialized training. Vocational students, on the other hand, may require tailored approaches that combine creativity with practical skills relevant to their fields. Addressing these nuances in future research could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of how to foster creativity at various educational levels.

The majority of the 28 studies recruited undergraduate students as research participants (78.6%, n = 22). There are only four studies (14.3%) that investigated teaching for creativity by involving both students and lecturers as participants, and two studies (7.1%) that recruited faculty members (deans, lecturers, and administrative staff) as participants. This showed that among recent literature in ProQuest and Scopus databases, the research on teaching creativity in HE mainly focused on the undergraduate level and chose solely students as research participants.

The results showed that there is a need for future research to involve both students and lecturers in research on teaching creativity. It is critical for effective creativity fostering in HE. By involving students and lecturers, we can have a more thorough understanding of creativity and its development in educational settings. Students can offer valuable insights into their experiences and perspectives on creativity, while lecturers can provide expertise and guidance on teaching practices that can improve creativity.

Furthermore, involving faculty members in research on teaching creativity can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities for fostering creativity in HE. However, faculty members’ limited participation in these studies suggests a lack of awareness or interest in the importance of creativity in higher education. Understanding why this is happening can provide valuable insights into how to effectively engage faculty members in fostering creativity in higher education.

3.4 Methodological Characteristics

Surveys were the most commonly used data collection approach in all studies, followed by interviews and document analysis (Table 4). There were two studies (7.1%) that collected data both online and onsite, six studies (21.4%) online, 19 (67.8%) offline, and the remaining one (3.5%) did not state explicitly (Sun, 2020). Most of the studies used quantitative methods (42.8%, n = 12), followed by qualitative methods (32.1%, n = 9), and the rest used mixed-method designs (25%, n = 7). These results showed that recent literature had not considered the use of more varied research methods and examined the perspective of both teachers and students about fostering creativity in class, as suggested by Mullet et al. (2016).

Table 4

Data collection methods used in the studies

Method n Percentage
Surveys 20 71.4
Interviews 10 35.7
Document analysis 9 32.1
Focus group 2 7.1
Observation 1 3.5

3.5 Definition and Theory-Grounded Used on Fostering Creativity Research in Higher Education

The complexity of the construct is a common theme within research on teaching creativity because it is highly dependent on context (Simkova et al., 2021). Studies showed that a clear and accurate conceptualization of creativity is essential to explore it in the learning environment. This study showed that 50% of the articles reviewed did not clearly define teaching for creativity, student creativity, or creativity used in the studies.

Only four studies (14.28%) provided the definition of teaching for creativity (Kim, Bae, Choi, Kim, & Lim, 2019; Kozlov & Shemshurina, 2018; Raymundo, 2020; Twigg & Yates, 2019). Raymundo (2020, p. 6) defined teaching for creativity as “the use of teaching strategies that can develop students’ creative skills.” Twigg and Yates (2019, p. 2) defined teaching for creativity as “teaching practices that inspire and nurture students’ creative abilities.” It can be concluded that both of these studies defined teaching for creativity as teaching practices that can develop students’ creative skills. It can be supposed that these two studies believed teaching creativity is a teaching practice that can develop students’ creative skills. Furthermore, Kozlov and Shemshurina (2018) and Kim et al. (2019) specified the definition of teaching for creativity based on learning context. Kozlov and Shemshurina (2018) defined teaching for creativity as a teaching practice to improve students’ problem-solving skills in science-technology fields or engineering programs. Kim et al. (2019) described it as a learning process to enhance students’ problem-solving skills in mathematics.

Of 28 studies, only 10 (35.7%) studies stated the definition of creativity but did not elaborate on the notion of teaching creativity; for example, Han, Abadi, Jin, and Chen (2020, p. 758) stated “Creativity refers to the production of new and useful ideas or solutions.” There is one study that explicitly stated that it does not want to dichotomize “teaching creatively” with “teaching for creativity” and prefers to use “creative pedagogies,” which includes both terms (Holdhus, 2019). Meanwhile, Sun (2020, p. 1) was the only study that stated the definition of student creativity. She refers to the study by Tsai, Horng, Liu, Hu, and Chung, (2015), “Student creativity is the tendency of students to generate new ideas that are useful in implementing products or services in individual learning environments, through interaction and sharing knowledge with other students.” The remaining 14 (50%) studies did not include the definition of creativity, teaching for creativity, fostering creativity, or student creativity in their articles. These differences showed that it is vital for each study to explicitly include the definition or concept of creativity used in the study.

Moreover, this SLR also found that most studies’ widely used theories were constructivism theory and Amabile’s theory of creativity components. However, over half of the 28 studies reviewed did not use theoretical grounds. This result represents the possibility of further challenges and discussion related to the theories to ground research in fostering creativity in HE. Specifically, the theoretical foundations were used in 12 studies (42.8%), with constructivism cited in three studies (Holdhus, 2019; Powell, Lambert, McGuigan, Prasad, & Lin, 2020; Raymundo, 2020) and Amabile’s component theory of creativity used in two studies (Liu, Wang, Chen, & Chao, 2020; Meng & Zhao, 2018). Other studies refer to Bandura’s social learning theory (Liu & Wang, 2019), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Laguía, Moriano, & Gorgievski, 2019), C–K (Concept–Knowledge Theory) (Sun, 2020), Perkin’s dispositional theory of thinking (Rabello-Mestre & Otondo, 2021), Simonton’s theoretical model of scientific creativity (Oliveira et al., 2021), gamestorming theory (Feijoo, Crujeiras, & Moreira, 2018), and Janusian’s conceptual combination and structure-mapping theory (Kao, 2019).

These findings revealed a significant gap in explicit conceptualizations and theoretical foundations. In order to close the gap, future research could incorporate prominent theoretical frameworks that provide comprehensive insights into fostering creativity in higher education. According to the results, constructivism theory and Amabile’s theory were widely used. The emphasis of constructivism theory on active participation, collaboration, and problem-solving is consistent with the goals of fostering creativity. This theory provides a solid foundation for understanding how learners construct knowledge and foster a creative environment. More research could be conducted to investigate the nuanced applications of constructivism in various educational contexts and disciplines, as well as its adaptability and effectiveness.

Furthermore, Amabile’s theory of creativity components offers a systematic approach to comprehending the intrinsic (individual) and extrinsic (social) factors that influence creativity. Future research could delve into specific features such as domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and intrinsic task motivation to unravel the intricate dynamics of fostering creativity in HE. Thus, future research can offer tailored recommendations for instructional design and pedagogical strategies by investigating how these components interact in various educational settings.

Another theoretical framework used in the reviewed study was the application of Bandura’s social learning theory. This theory, which emphasizes observational learning and modeling, may help us understand how social interactions and learning environments influence creativity. Furthermore, the TPB provides a psychological framework for investigating the role of intention and perceived behavioral control in fostering creativity. Future research could delve into these theories, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationship between teaching practices, theoretical frameworks, and creativity in higher education.

Furthermore, previous studies have found differences in perceptions and attitudes about creativity between cultures; hence, cross-cultural studies are required (Lee et al., 2015; Wong & Niu, 2013). One of the studies that acknowledged the relationship between creativity and culture in this review is a study by Buasuwan (2018). She discovered that while most faculty members (deans, lecturers, and administrative staff) agreed that students should be more courageous in expressing their thoughts and opinions for their creativity to develop, this was hampered in practice by cultural factors that expected students always to be obedient and submissive to elders. This review found only one cross-cultural study in recent literature (Park et al., 2021); therefore, more cross-cultural studies are needed in the future. Park et al. (2021) proved that there are disparities in the two countries’ creativity and critical thinking levels, with Chinese students excelling in critical thinking and American students excelling in creativity. They also found that having research experience at a university (e.g., taking a research techniques class) significantly impacts students’ creativity and critical thinking, regardless of cultural or national background. These findings suggest that more cross-cultural studies in fostering creativity are needed. From our review, we also arrived at the conclusion that although creativity and critical thinking were used interchangeably (Rusimamto, Nurlaela, Sumbawati, Munoto, & Samani, 2019) and showed a strong correlation, Park et al. (2021) discovered that these two skills must be separately examined and measured in order to generate a precise and thorough analysis.

4 Conclusion, Limitation, and Future Direction

This study synthesizes 28 studies from 2018 to 2022 on creativity fostering teacher behavior in higher education. The majority of studies were conducted in developed industrialized East Asian countries such as China, Taiwan, and Korea, with China and Taiwan each contributing four studies. The sample population consists primarily of undergraduate students with no specification on the majors or program study they pursue. The quantitative technique with survey methods was the most commonly utilized research method. Furthermore, it was discovered that only a few studies incorporated theoretical grounding in the study process. Overall, this review shows the need for future research to apply more controls over the methodology in order to substantiate and analyze the mechanism for fostering student creativity in higher education, as well as firm theoretical grounding.

Following the PRISMA 2020 Statement, the authors have attempted to follow the principles of writing an SLR as closely as possible. However, this work is still at risk of bias because it only includes English publications from the two electronic databases (ProQuest and Scopus), with limitations on the publication year from 2018 to 2022. The studies were included based on the author’s assessment perspective. Additionally, it is critical to recognize the potential bias caused by the concentration of studies reviewed in developed East Asian countries. Future research endeavors should actively seek diverse global perspectives to address this limitation and promote a more inclusive understanding of fostering creativity in HE. Researchers are encouraged to investigate and incorporate studies from a broader range of cultural and regional contexts to achieve a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of fostering creativity in HE worldwide.

  1. Funding information: This work was supported by Hibah PUTI Q3 from Universitas Indonesia.

  2. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1

Summary of included studies

Author/s Aim Methodology Sample/Country Research instrument Key findings concerning fostering creativity
1. Belur, Patil, Mahantshetti, and Patil (2022) Identified the boosters of creativity and modeled the relationships among the identified boosters Online survey MBA students (n = 269), India Critical thinking (Florea & Hurjui, 2015), risk-taking (Dewett & Gruys, 2007), problem-solving (Gapp & Fisher, 2006), adaptability and creativity (Lou, Chung, Dzan, & Shih, 2012), teamwork (Ahmadi & Besançon, 2017) Adaptability, teamwork, risk-taking, problem-solving, and critical thinking competencies positively affected students’ creativity. Adaptive and teamwork learning model proved to be the basis for various competencies, which in turn fostered creativity among MBA students
2. Buasuwan (2018) Examined the gaps and key challenges in fostering creativity that higher education institutions faced In-depth interview, document analysis, survey Faculty member (dean lecture and administrator) (n = 100), Thailand Priority Need Index (PNI) Although the majority of faculty members stated that students should be bolder in expressing their thoughts and opinions so that their creativity would develop, they also expected students always to be obedient and submissive to the elderly. There were cultural factors in the community that upheld strict values toward seniority, which caused the development of students’ creativity to be hampered
3. Feijoo et al. (2018) Developed students’ creativity and teamwork through Gamestorming methodology Survey Undergraduate engineering students (n = 129), Spain Evaluation of the skills developed in the Gamestorming activity The nature and quality of interaction between students and lecturers or interaction among students positively affected the quality of learning, student motivation, and attitudes toward courses. Students considered the Gamestorming methodology as a mechanism to enhance their creativity in decision-making processes and group work
4. Han et al. (2020) Explored the drivers, barriers, and processes for encouraging student creativity in interdisciplinary design teams in colleges Interviews via video conference system Undergraduate and postgraduate students (n = 15), USA Interview questions list A positive team climate and team efforts significantly impact creative outcomes when interdisciplinary teams work together. Brainstorming activities, strong motivation, and diverse perspectives were vital to fostering creativity. At the same time, a lack of equipment and time could foster or hinder creativity, depending on the context
5. Holdhus (2019) Examined how creativity pedagogy, mainly teaching for creativity, can occur in various practical surroundings Document analysis Postgraduate music and visual art students (n = 13), Norway Student’s assignment files Teachers and students need to get to know one another in order to build trust and creativity. Also, creativity must be made relevant and contextualized based on where it functions
6. Kao (2019) Examined how irrelevant stimulus words and antonyms can foster students’ creativity and affect their creativity fluency and originality scores Survey Undergraduate language and arts students (study 1: n = 173, study 2: n = 151), Taiwan Janusian Sentence Completion (developed by the author) Combining irrelevant and contradictory concepts in learning activities could facilitate and foster students’ creativity
7. Kao (2020) Compared students’ creativity fluency and originality scores between the three types of analogy items (IQ-test type, traditional type, and novel metaphorical type) Survey Undergraduate and postgraduate language and arts students (n = 190), Taiwan New Test of Creative Thinking (Wu et al., 1998) With a proper design, learning activities involving analogies could encourage logical thinking and students’ creativity
8. Katz-Buonincontro, Perignat, and Hass (2020) Investigated pre-service and in-service teachers’ epistemic beliefs about creativity and teaching for creativity Semi-structured interview, focus group (onsite and online) Undergraduate (pre-service teacher) & postgraduate (in-service teacher) students (n = 16), USA Interview questions list Pre-service and in-service teachers believed that teaching for creativity requires giving students the freedom to think, take risks, and explore and express new ideas. Although teachers consider creativity essential in learning, and students’ creativity can be developed, teachers also believe that some students are inherently closed-minded and do not want to develop their creativity
9. Kim et al. (2019) Examined to what extent curriculum units that integrate creativity and character education affect the pre-service teacher’s perspective on creativity and character education in the mathematics education program Document analysis, pre- and post-test surveys Undergraduate (pre-service teacher) math education program students (n = 56), Russia Testing Tool for Mathematical Creativity and Character (Whang, Kim, Kim, Lee, & Choi, 2017); Video of student debate sessions; Student’s reflection essays; Student’s final project presentation Curriculum units that integrated creativity effectively influenced pre-service teachers’ perspectives on creativity and character education and raised their desire to foster student creativity when they teach in later periods
10. Kozlov and Shemshurina (2018) Developed a multipurpose technological support to design creative activities for engineering students Document analysis, pre- and post-test survey, interview Undergraduate engineering students (n = 150), Russia Engineering students’ research competency levels (developed by authors) Equipping students with a good understanding of research activities and specific problem-based learning systems was an effective strategy for fostering students’ creativity
11. Laguía et al. (2019) Explored the relationship between self-perceived creativity and potential antecedents of students’ creativity (university and family support for creativity and taking creativity courses) Survey Undergraduate and postgraduate students (n = 559), Spain Creative Potential and Practiced Creativity scale (CPPC-17) (DiLiello & Houghton, 2008); Perceived support for creativity (Zampetakis, Gotsi, Andriopoulos, & Moustakis, 2011) University support for creativity was slightly more strongly associated with self-perceived creativity than family support. Significant determinants of self-perceived creativity were taking creative classes and family and university support
12. Leśniewska-Napierała, Napierała, Tjørve, and Tjørve (2020) Examined whether, as an educational tool, can foster students’ creativity Online and onsite survey, in-depth interview Undergraduate students (n = 27), tutor (n = 7), Poland The ‘24 HOURS Tourism Contest’ evaluation questionnaire regarding participants’ desire to win (developed by authors); Interview questions list Students’ creativity increased during the contest through the development of social competence (teamwork or interacting with other teams). However, as a tool of education, a contest was unsatisfying in increasing students’ creativity because they were more oriented towards winning or gaining knowledge rather than acquiring social competence
13. Liu and Wang (2019) Examined whether the teaching for creativity module (TCM) can improve the faculty member’s teaching behaviors and self-efficacy in creativity Survey pre and post-test Faculty member of Nursing Department (control group: n = 21; experiment group: n = 21), Taiwan Creativity Teaching Behavior Scale (CTBS) (Chang, Chen, & Hsu, 2010; Soh, 2000); Creativity Teaching Efficiency of Technology Institute Teacher’s Scale (CTETITS) (Chen, 2005); Self-efficacy for Creativity Teaching Scale (SECTS) (Lin & Chiou, 2008) TCM module positively affected both creativity teaching behavior and creativity teaching efficiency of faculty members. TCM module, which focused on creativity training for faculty members, had a positive effect on behavior that would stimulate and facilitate students’ creativity
14. Liu et al. (2020) Examined how fostering creativity might be influenced by the possible moderating and mediating role of the relationship between (a) creative teaching self-efficacy and creative teaching behavior and (b) school’s creative climate and creative teaching behaviors Survey Lecturer of Healthcare University (n = 53), Taiwan CTBS (Chang et al., 2010; Soh, 2000); CTETITS (Chen, 2005); SECTS (Lin & Chiou, 2008) A creative school climate is a critical component that is affected teachers’ creative teaching behavior
15. Mareque, de Prada Creo, and Gonzalez-Sanchez (2019) Examined how leisure activities and soft skills were related to fostering creativity in higher education Online survey Undergraduate students of business administration and tourism program (n = 303), Spain “Runco Ideational Behavior Scale: short form” (RIBS-s) (Runco et al., 2014) Students who participated in leisure activities showed a higher level of creativity, especially those who participated in art-related activities. The activities that most influenced creativity were visual arts and writing. Despite this strong relationship, the percentage of students who did writing activities in their free time was meager, even though some research had emphasized the importance of oral and written communication skills in various fields of work
16. Meng and Zhao (2018) Examined the mediating mechanisms of intrinsic motivation, creative thinking, and professional knowledge between academic supervisor leadership (ASL) and postgraduate students’ creativity Survey Postgraduate students of the life sciences program (n = 677), China Creative thinking scale developed by the authors based on the definition of creativity-relevant processes by Amabile (1983) and; Creativity scale (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Zhang & Bartol, 2010) ASL positively influenced postgraduate students’ creativity through intrinsic motivation, creative thinking, and professional knowledge. This result transforms ASL’s tasks to inspire students’ intrinsic motivation, impart their professional knowledge, and foster the creative thinking skills of postgraduate students toward scientific research. But many ASLs were not ready to foster creativity in postgraduate students
17. Miño-Puigcercós, Domingo-Coscollola, and Sancho-Gil (2019) Examined how the learning and teaching culture is affected when integrating learning practices related to the DIY (Do It Yourself) perspective, such as encouraging creativity, collaboration, self-regulation, authorship, and the critical use of digital technology Document analysis, focus groups, observation, and research-based practice Undergraduate students (pre-service teacher) (n = 471), lecturer of education program (n = 20), Spain Verbatim of discussion groups, observation notes, and field notes Because the DIY culture puts students at the center of learning, students admitted it was difficult to change their passive role into an active and participatory role. At the same time, lecturers also admitted their discomfort due to ignorance of the outcome of students’ projects. Initial hesitation and resistance from lecturers and students might be related to their fear of losing control. However, at the end of the project, the participants agreed that their doubts and resistance turned into satisfaction
18. Nelmira et al. (2022) Designed learning models to encourage the development of students’ creative attitudes Interviews, document analysis (students’ product design) Undergraduate fashion design student (n = 12), Indonesia Interview questions list Student Research-Based learning (S-RBL) model proved to help improve students’ understanding of learning material and also develop students’ creativity of students
19. Oliveira et al. (2021) Examined the effectiveness of open-ended drawing as a pedagogical tool to encourage creativity and engagement among undergraduate biology students Document analysis (classroom videos and students’ open-ended drawing tasks) Undergraduate biology students (n = 52), Canada Visual design analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006) The use of open-ended drawing in the sciences program effectively fosters students’ creativity and creative performance
20. Park et al. (2021) Investigated the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, how college research experience affected students’ creativity and critical thinking, and how culture influenced creativity and critical thinking Online survey University students (grades not specified) in the USA (n = 103) and China (n = 166) STEAM Related Creative Problem Solving (developed by authors); Psychological Critical Thinking Exam (PCT Exam) (Lawson, Jordan-Fleming, & Bodle, 2015); California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione & Facione, 1994); Sternberg Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2017) Having research experience in universities had a significant effect on students’ creativity and critical thinking. Despite the strong correlation between creativity and critical thinking, these two skills must be studied separately to produce a precise and comprehensive analysis. Culture could influence students’ creativity, and this study showed that Chinese students excel in critical thinking while American students excel in creativity
21. Powell et al. (2020) Examined how co-created role-play helps Accounting and Audit Program students foster their creativity Online survey University students of the economy program (grades not specified) (n = 313), Australia Students’ perceptions and experiences related to role-playing learning strategy (developed by authors) Co-created role-play effectively removed the creative barriers often found in traditional forms of Accounting and Auditing programs. It provides opportunities for students to be as creative as possible in developing and conducting audit scenarios
22. Rabello-Mestre and Otondo (2021) Examined how incorporating “Creative Sound Workshop” into the Acoustic Engineering undergraduate curriculum could create an applied music creativity experience for engineering students Survey, document analysis Undergraduate engineering students (n = not stated), Chile Self-reported assessment, students’ final project assignment The instructional design developed based on the Dispositional Theory of Thinking positively impacted student motivation and successfully promoted a positive and critical learning culture. While fluency in creativity was not high in student projects, creativity was often manifested in different project features such as creative use of visual elements, conceptual originality, and resourceful use of the programming environment
23. Raymundo (2020) Examined how feasible, effective, and acceptable creative-collaborative group projects were to foster postgraduate students’ creativity in a fully online education program Survey (open-ended question) Postgraduate students of the Master of Distance Education (MDE) program (n = 38), Philippines Students’ feedback and reflection essays about their experience participating in creative-collaborative group projects Creative-collaborative group projects proved to be a learning strategy that can be implemented easily, effectively, and acceptably to encourage student creativity in online education settings
24. Simkova et al. (2021) Examined the creative thinking development of students from different majors during ESP (English for Specific Purposes) courses by implementing web-based applications and integrated learning Online survey, semi-structured interview Undergraduate students who took an online class of English for Specific Purposes (n = 310), Ukraine Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT); Guilford’s Alternative Uses Test; Wallach and Kogan’s creative thinking test; Semi-structured interview (5 min) Students experienced changes in the development of their creative thinking (originality type) before and after web-based applications were implemented in ESP class
25. Suacamram (2019) Designed and examined a series of workshop classes to promote student creativity based on the C–K (Concept–Knowledge) theory Survey, interview, and forms to evaluate lesson plans Undergraduate film major students (n = 25), China Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) adapted by Kim (2006); Creative role identity scale (Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2010); Creative Self-efficacy scale (Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, 2013); Assessment rubric to assess student creativity from their assignments (developed by the author) The group of students taught using the C–K theory showed a higher level of creative development than those who did not. The differences in average creativity scores were unaffected by creative role identity or creative self-efficacy
26. Sun (2020) Examined the relationship between social media use and students’ creativity and the role of student engagement as a mediator in the educational context in China Survey Undergraduate students (n = 652), China Creativity scale (Tsai et al., 2015) The use of social media in an educational setting was associated with student engagement and creativity, and student engagement partially mediated the relationship between social media use and student creativity
27. Twigg and Yates (2019) Investigated creative teaching and teaching for creativity practices experienced by students during their internship Survey, interview Internship undergraduate students of early childhood program (n = 30), UK Interview questions list Students observed more teaching for creativity than creative teaching in their internships.; Creativity was not always appreciated in all educational situations and settings
28. Vilarinho-Pereira and Fleith (2021) Compared the role of technology in fostering students’ creativity motivation from the perspective of professors and students, which were divided into three groups (professors who used information and communication technologies (ICT) creatively, professors who made traditional use of these technologies, and professors who did not use ICT at all) Survey, semi-structured interview Undergraduate students (n = 249), professors (n = 9), Brazil For students: The Inventory of Teaching Practices for Creativity in Higher Education (ITPC-HE) (de Alencar & de Souza Fleith, 2014) The use of ICT, both in the group who used ICT creatively and traditionally, did not provide a significant change in students’ motivation and their perception of professors’ teaching for creativity value. The group of students and professors who did not use ICT at all showed higher teaching for creativity value than the other two groups
For professors: Interview questions list

References

Ahmadi, N., & Besançon, M. (2017). Creativity as a stepping stone towards developing other competencies in classrooms. Education Research International, 2017, 1–9. doi: 10.1155/2017/1357456.Search in Google Scholar

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., & Pereira, N. (2017). Creativity in higher education: Challenges and facilitating factors. Temas Em Psicologia, 25(2), 553–561. doi: 10.9788/TP2017.2-09.Search in Google Scholar

Allen, K., Quinn, J., Hollingworth, S., & Rose, A. (2013). Becoming employable students and “ideal” creative workers: Exclusion and inequality in higher education work placements. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 431–452. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2012.714249.Search in Google Scholar

Almarghani, E. M., & Mijatovic, I. (2017). Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs-it is all about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 940–956. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1319808.Search in Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.Search in Google Scholar

Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–65. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181.Search in Google Scholar

Belur, J. M., Patil, S. v., Mahantshetti, S., & Patil, S. (2022). The boosters that foster creativity-competencies among MBA students: Identifying and modelling the relationships. Higher Education for the Future, 9(2), 216–233. doi: 10.1177/23476311221108228.Search in Google Scholar

Benedek, M., Nordtvedt, N., Jauk, E., Koschmieder, C., Pretsch, J., Krammer, G., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Assessment of creativity evaluation skills: A psychometric investigation in prospective teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.007.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Creativity and playfulness in higher education research. In Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 49–66). Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/S2056-375220180000004005.Search in Google Scholar

Buasuwan, P. (2018). Rethinking Thai higher education for Thailand 4.0. Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(2), 157–173. doi: 10.1108/AEDS-07-2017-0072.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Y.-L., Chen, H. C., & Hsu, C. C. (2010). Jiàoshī chuàngzào lì xìnniàn, chuàngzào lì jiàoxué zìwǒ xiàonéng duì chuàngzào lì jiàoxué xíngwéi zhī yǐngxiǎng [Belief of creativity and self-efficacy for creativity-teaching’s Effect on teaching behaviors for creativity]. Fu Hsing Kang Academic Journal, 99, 151–171. doi: 10.29857/FHKAJ.201009.0007.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, H. C. (2005). A study on teacher’s creativity teaching efficiency of technological institute & vocational school. (Master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, C. K., Roskams, T., & Fisher, D. (2006). Enhancement of creativity through a one-semester course in university. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01264.x.Search in Google Scholar

Cremin, T., & Chappell, K. (2021). Creative pedagogies: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 36(3), 299–331. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2019.1677757.Search in Google Scholar

Cropley, D. H., Patston, T., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). Essential, unexceptional and universal: Teacher implicit beliefs of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 100604. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100604.Search in Google Scholar

de Alencar, E. M. L. S., & de Souza Fleith, D. (2014). Inventory of teaching practices for creativity in higher education. In Theory and practice of creativity measurement (pp. 51–64). Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Dewett, T., & Gruys, M. L. (2007). Advancing the case for creativity through graduate business education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.001.Search in Google Scholar

DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2008). Creative potential and practised creativity: Identifying untapped creativity in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 37–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00464.x.Search in Google Scholar

Egan, A., Maguire, R., Christophers, L., & Rooney, B. (2017). Developing creativity in higher education for 21st century learners: A protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.12.004.Search in Google Scholar

European University Association. (2007). Creativity in higher education: Report on the EUA creativity project 2006–2007.Search in Google Scholar

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. (1994). The California critical thinking skills test: test manual. California Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Feijoo, G., Crujeiras, R. M., & Moreira, M. T. (2018). Gamestorming for the conceptual design of products and processes in the context of engineering education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 22, 44–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2017.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Fields, Z., & Bisschoff, C. A. (2013). A theoretical model to measure creativity at a university. Journal of Social Sciences, 34(1), 47–59. doi: 10.1080/09718923.2013.11893117.Search in Google Scholar

Florea, N. M., & Hurjui, E. (2015). Critical thinking in elementary school children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 565–572. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.161.Search in Google Scholar

Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2006). Achieving excellence through innovative approaches to student involvement in course evaluation within the tertiary education sector. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(2), 156–166. doi: 10.1108/09684880610662033.Search in Google Scholar

Gaspar, D., & Mabic, M. (2015). Creativity in higher education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 598–605. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030903.Search in Google Scholar

George, J. M. (2008). Creativity in organizations. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The academy of management annals (1st ed., pp. 439–477). Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Gundry, L. K., Ofstein, L. F., & Kickul, J. R. (2014). Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 529–538. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.002.Search in Google Scholar

Halimah, L., Marwati, I., & Abdillah, F. (2020). Fostering students’ creativity through lapbooking: A case study in an Indonesian primary school context. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 2969–2979. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080725.Search in Google Scholar

Han, S. J., Abadi, M., Jin, B., & Chen, J. (2020). Cultivating interdisciplinary team creativity through an intensive design competition. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 11(3), 757–772. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-06-2020-0141.Search in Google Scholar

Hendayana, Y. (2020). Kampus Merdeka siapkan kompetensi lulusan yang kreatif, inovatif dan berkarakter di era disruptif [The Merdeka Campus prepares creative and innovative graduates with character competencies in a disruptive era]. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Riset, Dan Teknologi Indonesia. http://www.dikti.kemdikbud.go.id/kabar-dikti/kabar/kampus-merdeka-siapkan-kompetensi-lulusan-yang-kreatif-inovatif-dan-berkarakter-di-era-disruptif/%0A.Search in Google Scholar

Holdhus, K. (2019). When students teach creativities: Exploring student reports on creative teaching. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(7), 690–699. doi: 10.1177/1077800418801377.Search in Google Scholar

IBM Corporation. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/1VZV5X8J.Search in Google Scholar

Jackson, N., Oliver, M., Shaw, M., & Wisdom, J. (2006). Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum. Leeds, UK: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2010). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(3), 247–258. doi: 10.1080/10400410701397339.Search in Google Scholar

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. doi: 10.1080/0305569032000159750.Search in Google Scholar

Kao, C. Y. (2019). How combining opposite, near-opposite, and irrelevant concepts influence creativity performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 24–35. doi: 10.1037/aca0000166.Search in Google Scholar

Kao, C. Y. (2020). How figurativity of analogy affects creativity: The application of four-term analogies to teaching for creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100653.Search in Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big five personality traits as the predictors of creative self‐efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 215–232. doi: 10.1002/jocb.32.Search in Google Scholar

Kasmaienezhadfard, S., Pourrajab, M., & Rabbani, M. (2015). Effects of pictures in textbooks on students’ creativity. Multi Disciplinary Edu Global Quest, 4(2), 83–96. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Masoumeh-Pourrajab/publication/280311851_EFFECTS_OF_PICTURES_IN_TEXTBOOKS_ON_STUDENTS’_CREATIVITY/links/55b1a86108aec0e5f43119c8/EFFECTS-OF-PICTURES-IN-TEXTBOOKS-ON-STUDENTS-CREATIVITY.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Katz-Buonincontro, J., Perignat, E., & Hass, R. W. (2020). Conflicted epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100651. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100651.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, D. J., Bae, S. C., Choi, S. H., Kim, H. J., & Lim, W. (2019). Creative character education in mathematics for prospective teachers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(6), 1–16. doi: 10.3390/su11061730.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2.Search in Google Scholar

Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209–217. doi: 10.1080/14703290802175966.Search in Google Scholar

Kozlov, A. V., & Shemshurina, S. A. (2018). Fostering creativity in engineering universities: Research activity and curriculum policy. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 93–106. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.1147a.Search in Google Scholar

Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(3), 1023–1042. doi: 10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4.Search in Google Scholar

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Leeds, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003099857.Search in Google Scholar

Kurniawati, F., Saleh, A. Y., & Safitri, S. (2022). How to foster students creativity? The effects of teacher subjective well-being mediation on the intellectual humility. Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 41(1), 31–42. doi: 10.21831/cp.v41i1.40055.Search in Google Scholar

Laguía, A., Moriano, J. A., & Gorgievski, M. J. (2019). A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31(October 2017), 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004.Search in Google Scholar

Lawson, T. J., Jordan-Fleming, M. K., & Bodle, J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, H. J., Lee, J., Makara, K. A., Fishman, B. J., & Hong, Y. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1), 131–146. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.892477.Search in Google Scholar

Leśniewska-Napierała, K., Napierała, T., Tjørve, K. M. C., & Tjørve, E. (2020). A ‘contest’ as a pedagogical method in tourism higher education: A case study in teaching creativity through problem-solving. Turyzm/Tourism, 30(1), 43–52. doi: 10.18778/0867-5856.30.1.16.Search in Google Scholar

Li, W. (2023). On the role of creativity in the application-oriented university students’ engagement and success. Heliyon, 9(6), e17374. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17374.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, P. F., & Chiou, H. J. (2008). Construction and related study of the inventory of self-efficacy for creative teaching. Journal of Education Research and Development, 4(1), 141–170.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Y. S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education: Conceptual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 149–155. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.23021.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, H. Y., & Wang, I. T. (2019). Creative teaching behaviors of health care school teachers in Taiwan: Mediating and moderating effects. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1641-8.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, H. Y., Wang, I. T., Chen, N. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2020). Effect of creativity training on teaching for creativity for nursing faculty in Taiwan: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 85, 104231. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104231.Search in Google Scholar

Lou, S.-J., Chung, C.-C., Dzan, W.-Y., & Shih, R.-C. (2012). Construction of a creative instructional design model using blended, project-based learning for college students. Creative Education, 3(7), 1281–1290. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.37187.Search in Google Scholar

Mareque, M., de Prada Creo, E., & Gonzalez-Sanchez, M. B. (2019). Fostering creativity and communicative soft skills through leisure activities in management studies. Education and Training, 61(1), 94–107. doi: 10.1108/ET-07-2018-0149.Search in Google Scholar

Meng, Y., & Zhao, C. (2018). Academic supervisor leadership and its influencing mechanism on postgraduate creativity in China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29(May), 32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.05.006.Search in Google Scholar

Miño-Puigcercós, R., Domingo-Coscollola, M., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2019). Transforming the teaching and learning culture in higher education from a diy perspective. Educacion XX1, 22(1), 139–160. doi: 10.5944/educxx1.20057.Search in Google Scholar

Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., N. Lamb, K., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001.Search in Google Scholar

Nelmira, W., Efi, A., & Sandra, Y. (2022). Efforts to develop creativity in vocational education through a learning model based on student research activities. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–9. doi: 10.17762/kuey.v28i01.319.Search in Google Scholar

Nissim, Y., Weissblueth, E., Scott-Webber, L., & Amar, S. (2016). The effect of a stimulating learning environment on pre-service teachers’ motivation and 21st century skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 29. doi: 10.5539/jel.v5n3p29.Search in Google Scholar

Oliveira, A. W., Brown, A. O., Zhang, W. S., LeBrun, P., Eaton, L., & Yemen, S. (2021). Fostering creativity in science learning: The potential of open-ended student drawing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103416.Search in Google Scholar

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372, 1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.Search in Google Scholar

Park, J. H., Niu, W., Cheng, L., & Allen, H. (2021). Fostering creativity and critical thinking in college: A cross-cultural investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(November), 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760351.Search in Google Scholar

Pavlovic, J., Maksic, S., & Bodroza, B. (2013). Implicit individualism in teachers’ theories of creativity: Through the “Four P’s” looking glass. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23(1), 39–58. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=anon∼2dfe868a&id=GALE%7CA444309491&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=9b5da456.Search in Google Scholar

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi [Minister of Education and Culture Regulations No. 3 Year 2020 on National Standards of Higher Education], Pub. L. No. 3. (2020). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/163703/permendikbud-no-3-tahun-2020.Search in Google Scholar

Petrone, P. (2018, December 31st). Why creativity is the most important skill in the world? LinkedIn Learning Blog. https://www.linkedin.com/business/learning/blog/top-skills-and-courses/why-creativity-is-the-most-important-skill-in-the-world.Search in Google Scholar

Philip, R. B. (2015). Caught in the Headlights: Designing for Creative Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Doctoral dissertation). Queensland: Queensland University of Technology. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33499279.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Powell, L., Lambert, D., McGuigan, N., Prasad, A., & Lin, J. (2020). Fostering creativity in audit through co-created role-play. Accounting Education, 29(6), 605–639. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2020.1838929.Search in Google Scholar

Prahani, B. K., Deta, U. A., Yasir, M., Astutik, S., Pandiangan, P., Mahtari, S., & Mubarok, H. (2020). The Concept of “Kampus Merdeka” in Accordance with Freire’s Critical Pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education (SiPoSE), 1(1), 21–37. http://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiPoSE.Search in Google Scholar

Pucio, G. J., & Lohiser, A. (2020). The case for creativity in higher education: Preparing students for life and work in the 21st century. Kindai Management Review, 8, 30–47. https://www.kindai.ac.jp/files/rd/research-center/management-innovation/kindai-management-review/vol8_3.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

PwC. (2017). CEO Survey Global Talent. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/2017/deep-dives/ceo-survey-global-talent.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Rabello-Mestre, A., & Otondo, F. (2021). Creative dispositions: Teaching for creativity in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 37(4), 915–924. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53b9ea11e4b0657eb1ad239a/t/6113c632fd52fd239ac1f1de/1628685877425/Mestre_Otondo+-+ Creative+Dispositions+-+Teaching+for+Creativity+in+Engineering+Education.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Rae, J. (2023). Connecting for creativity in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 48(1), 127–143. doi: 10.1007/s10755-022-09609-6.Search in Google Scholar

Raymundo, M. R. D. R. (2020). Fostering creativity through online creative collaborative group projects. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1108/AAOUJ-10-2019-0048.Search in Google Scholar

Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243–253. doi: 10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3.Search in Google Scholar

Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M., & Tripp, S. (2014). The incremental validity of a short form of the ideational behavior scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative, and lie scales. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(3), 185–197. doi: 10.1002/jocb.47.Search in Google Scholar

Rusimamto, P. W., Nurlaela, L., Sumbawati, M. S., Munoto, & Samani, M. (2019). Development of critical and creative thinking skills to increase competence of PLC programming for electrical engineering education students. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 535(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/535/1/012005.Search in Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002.Search in Google Scholar

Sharma, E., & Sharma, S. (2018). Creativity nurturing behaviour scale for teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 1016–1028. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-10-2017-0294.Search in Google Scholar

Simkova, I., Bondarenko, O., & Bielovetska, L. (2021). Web-based applications to develop students’ creativity in english for specific purposes. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(2), 684–692. doi: 10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21248.Search in Google Scholar

Smatanová, K., & Vitková, L. (2018). Urban planning education and the problems of cities in the regions of Slovakia. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 16(4), 362–367. http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/WTE&TE/Pages/Vol.16,%20No.4%20(2018)/07-Smatanova-K.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Soh, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118–134. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01205.x.Search in Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. Journal of Intelligence, 5(3), 29. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5030029.Search in Google Scholar

Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2002). Changing the rules: Education for creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 183–200. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01063.x.Search in Google Scholar

Suacamram, M. (2019). Using the C-K theory to develop student’s creativity: A case study of creative university. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 719–732. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12446a.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, X. (2020). Social media use and student creativity: The mediating role of student engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(10), 1–8. doi: 10.2224/SBP.9356.Search in Google Scholar

Tahirsylaj, A., Mann, B., & Matson, J. (2018). Teaching creativity at scale: Overcoming language barriers in a MOOC. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 4(2), 1–19. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-77068.Search in Google Scholar

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x.Search in Google Scholar

Tsai, C. Y., Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Hu, D. C., & Chung, Y. C. (2015). Awakening student creativity: Empirical evidence in a learning environment context. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 17, 28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2015.07.004.Search in Google Scholar

Twigg, E., & Yates, E. (2019). Student reflections on the place of creativity in early years practice: Reflections on second year work placement experience. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1177/2158244019900176.Search in Google Scholar

Vilarinho-Pereira, D. R., & Fleith, D. D. (2021). Creative use of information and communication technologies according to university professors and students. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 38, 1–12. doi: 10.1590/1982-0275202138e190164.Search in Google Scholar

Whang, W.-H., Kim, D.-J., Kim, W., Lee, D.-H., & Choi, S.-H. (2017). Development and validation of a testing tool for mathematical creativity and character. The Mathematical Education, 56(1), 41–62. doi: 10.7468/mathedu.2017.56.1.41.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, P. (2020). ‘How to do things with words’: Teaching creative writing as performance. New Writing, 17(3), 284–296. doi: 10.1080/14790726.2019.1629964.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, R., & Niu, W. (2013). Cultural difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 41–59. doi: 10.1002/jocb.22.Search in Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, J. J., Chen, F. Y., Kuo, C. C., Lin, W. W., Lau, S. H., & Chen, Y. H. (1998). New test of creative thinking. Ministry of Education Taiwan.Search in Google Scholar

Zampetakis, L. A., Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Moustakis, V. (2011). Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in young people. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 12(3), 189–199. doi: 10.5367/ijei.2011.0037.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-03-31
Revised: 2023-11-23
Accepted: 2024-01-30
Published Online: 2024-02-22

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Special Issue: Building Bridges in STEAM Education in the 21st Century - Part II
  2. The Flipped Classroom Optimized Through Gamification and Team-Based Learning
  3. Method and New Doctorate Graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics of the European Innovation Scoreboard as a Measure of Innovation Management in Subdisciplines of Management and Quality Studies
  4. Impact of Gamified Problem Sheets in Seppo on Self-Regulation Skills
  5. Special Issue: Disruptive Innovations in Education - Part I
  6. School-Based Education Program to Solve Bullying Cases in Primary Schools
  7. The Project Trauma-Informed Practice for Workers in Public Service Settings: New Strategies for the Same Old Objective
  8. Regular Articles
  9. Limits of Metacognitive Prompts for Confidence Judgments in an Interactive Learning Environment
  10. “Why are These Problems Still Unresolved?” Those Pending Problems, and Neglected Contradictions in Online Classroom in the Post-COVID-19 Era
  11. Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies: A Case Study in Higher Education
  12. Predicting Time to Graduation of Open University Students: An Educational Data Mining Study
  13. Risks in Identifying Gifted Students in Mathematics: Case Studies
  14. Technology Integration in Teacher Education Practices in Two Southern African Universities
  15. Comparing Emergency Remote Learning with Traditional Learning in Primary Education: Primary School Student Perspectives
  16. Pedagogical Technologies and Cognitive Development in Secondary Education
  17. Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Drop Out Among Black and White Distance Learning Students at a South African University
  18. Gender Sensitivity of Teacher Education Curricula in the Republic of Croatia
  19. A Case Study of Biology Teaching Practices in Croatian Primary Schools
  20. The Impact of “Scratch” on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Primary Schools
  21. Examining the Structural Relationships Between Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Intention to Teach and Perceptions of the Nature of Science and Attitudes
  22. Validation of the Undesirable Behavior Strategies Questionnaire: Physical Educators’ Strategies within the Classroom Ecology
  23. Economics Education, Decision-Making, and Entrepreneurial Intention: A Mediation Analysis of Financial Literacy
  24. Deconstructing Teacher Engagement Techniques for Pre-service Teachers through Explicitly Teaching and Applying “Noticing” in Video Observations
  25. Influencing Factors of Work–Life Balance Among Female Managers in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: A Delphi Study
  26. Examining the Interrelationships Among Curiosity, Creativity, and Academic Motivation Using Students in High Schools: A Multivariate Analysis Approach
  27. Teaching Research Methodologies in Education: Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices in Portugal
  28. Normrank Correlations for Testing Associations and for Use in Latent Variable Models
  29. “The More, the Merrier; the More Ideas, the Better Feeling”: Examining the Role of Creativity in Regulating Emotions among EFL Teachers
  30. Principals’ Demographic Qualities and the Misuse of School Material Capital in Secondary Schools
  31. Enhancing DevOps Engineering Education Through System-Based Learning Approach
  32. Uncertain Causality Analysis of Critical Success Factors of Special Education Mathematics Teaching
  33. Novel Totto-Chan by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi: A Study of Philosophy of Progressivism and Humanism and Relevance to the Merdeka Curriculum in Indonesia
  34. Global Education and Critical Thinking: A Necessary Symbiosis to Educate for Critical Global Citizenship
  35. The Mediating Effect of Optimism and Resourcefulness on the Relationship between Hardiness and Cyber Delinquent Among Adolescent Students
  36. Enhancing Social Skills Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Evaluation of the “Power of Camp Inclusion” Program
  37. The Influence of Student Learning, Student Expectation and Quality of Instructor on Student Perceived Satisfaction and Student Academic Performance: Under Online, Hybrid and Physical Classrooms
  38. Household Size and Access to Education in Rural Burundi: The Case of Mutaho Commune
  39. The Impact of the Madrasati Platform Experience on Acquiring Mathematical Concepts and Improving Learning Motivation from the Point of View of Mathematics Teachers
  40. The Ideal Path: Acquiring Education and Gaining Respect for Parents from the Perspective of Arab-Bedouin Students
  41. Exploring Mentor Teachers’ Experiences and Practices in Japan: Formative Intervention for Self-Directed Development of Novice Teachers
  42. Research Trends and Patterns on Emotional Intelligence in Education: A Bibliometric and Knowledge Mapping During 2012–2021
  43. Openness to Change and Academic Freedom in Jordanian Universities
  44. Digital Methods to Promote Inclusive and Effective Learning in Schools: A Mixed Methods Research Study
  45. Translation Competence in Translator Training Programs at Saudi Universities: Empirical Study
  46. Self-directed Learning Behavior among Communication Arts Students in a HyFlex Learning Environment at a Government University in Thailand
  47. Unveiling Connections between Stress, Anxiety, Depression, and Delinquency Proneness: Analysing the General Strain Theory
  48. The Expression of Gratitude in English and Arabic Doctoral Dissertation Acknowledgements
  49. Subtexts of Most Read Articles on Social Sciences Citation Index: Trends in Educational Issues
  50. Experiences of Adult Learners Engaged in Blended Learning beyond COVID-19 in Ghana
  51. The Influence of STEM-Based Digital Learning on 6C Skills of Elementary School Students
  52. Gender and Family Stereotypes in a Photograph: Research Using the Eye-Tracking Method
  53. ChatGPT in Teaching Linear Algebra: Strides Forward, Steps to Go
  54. Partnership Quality, Student’s Satisfaction, and Loyalty: A Study at Higher Education Legal Entities in Indonesia
  55. SEA’s Science Teacher Voices Through the Modified World Café
  56. Construction of Entrepreneurship Coaching Index: Based on a Survey of Art Design Students in Higher Vocational Colleges in Guangdong, China
  57. The Effect of Audio-Assisted Reading on Incidental Learning of Present Perfect by EFL Learners
  58. Comprehensive Approach to Training English Communicative Competence in Chemistry
  59. The Collaboration of Teaching at The Right Level Approach with Problem-Based Learning Model
  60. Effectiveness of a Pop-Up Story-Based Program for Developing Environmental Awareness and Sustainability Concepts among First-Grade Elementary Students
  61. Effect of Computer Simulation Integrated with Jigsaw Learning Strategy on Students’ Attitudes towards Learning Chemistry
  62. Unveiling the Distinctive Impact of Vocational Schools Link and Match Collaboration with Industries for Holistic Workforce Readiness
  63. Students’ Perceptions of PBL Usefulness
  64. Assessing the Outcomes of Digital Soil Science Curricula for Agricultural Undergraduates in the Global South
  65. The Relationship between Epistemological Beliefs and Assessment Conceptions among Pre-Service Teachers
  66. Review Articles
  67. Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)
  68. The Effects of Online Continuing Education for Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Scoping Review
  69. The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Teacher Mental Health: A Call to Action for Educational Policymakers
  70. Developing Multilingual Competence in Future Educators: Approaches, Challenges, and Best Practices
  71. Using Virtual Reality to Enhance Twenty-First-Century Skills in Elementary School Students: A Systematic Literature Review
  72. State-of-the-Art of STEAM Education in Science Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review
  73. Integration of Project-Based Learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics to Improve Students’ Biology Practical Skills in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
  74. Teaching Work and Inequality in Argentina: Heterogeneity and Dynamism in Educational Research
  75. Case Study
  76. Teachers’ Perceptions of a Chatbot’s Role in School-based Professional Learning
https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0221
Keywords for this article
higher education; student creativity; creative teaching; creativity fostering teacher behavior; systematic literature review
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Special Issue: Building Bridges in STEAM Education in the 21st Century - Part II
  2. The Flipped Classroom Optimized Through Gamification and Team-Based Learning
  3. Method and New Doctorate Graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics of the European Innovation Scoreboard as a Measure of Innovation Management in Subdisciplines of Management and Quality Studies
  4. Impact of Gamified Problem Sheets in Seppo on Self-Regulation Skills
  5. Special Issue: Disruptive Innovations in Education - Part I
  6. School-Based Education Program to Solve Bullying Cases in Primary Schools
  7. The Project Trauma-Informed Practice for Workers in Public Service Settings: New Strategies for the Same Old Objective
  8. Regular Articles
  9. Limits of Metacognitive Prompts for Confidence Judgments in an Interactive Learning Environment
  10. “Why are These Problems Still Unresolved?” Those Pending Problems, and Neglected Contradictions in Online Classroom in the Post-COVID-19 Era
  11. Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies: A Case Study in Higher Education
  12. Predicting Time to Graduation of Open University Students: An Educational Data Mining Study
  13. Risks in Identifying Gifted Students in Mathematics: Case Studies
  14. Technology Integration in Teacher Education Practices in Two Southern African Universities
  15. Comparing Emergency Remote Learning with Traditional Learning in Primary Education: Primary School Student Perspectives
  16. Pedagogical Technologies and Cognitive Development in Secondary Education
  17. Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Drop Out Among Black and White Distance Learning Students at a South African University
  18. Gender Sensitivity of Teacher Education Curricula in the Republic of Croatia
  19. A Case Study of Biology Teaching Practices in Croatian Primary Schools
  20. The Impact of “Scratch” on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Primary Schools
  21. Examining the Structural Relationships Between Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Intention to Teach and Perceptions of the Nature of Science and Attitudes
  22. Validation of the Undesirable Behavior Strategies Questionnaire: Physical Educators’ Strategies within the Classroom Ecology
  23. Economics Education, Decision-Making, and Entrepreneurial Intention: A Mediation Analysis of Financial Literacy
  24. Deconstructing Teacher Engagement Techniques for Pre-service Teachers through Explicitly Teaching and Applying “Noticing” in Video Observations
  25. Influencing Factors of Work–Life Balance Among Female Managers in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: A Delphi Study
  26. Examining the Interrelationships Among Curiosity, Creativity, and Academic Motivation Using Students in High Schools: A Multivariate Analysis Approach
  27. Teaching Research Methodologies in Education: Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices in Portugal
  28. Normrank Correlations for Testing Associations and for Use in Latent Variable Models
  29. “The More, the Merrier; the More Ideas, the Better Feeling”: Examining the Role of Creativity in Regulating Emotions among EFL Teachers
  30. Principals’ Demographic Qualities and the Misuse of School Material Capital in Secondary Schools
  31. Enhancing DevOps Engineering Education Through System-Based Learning Approach
  32. Uncertain Causality Analysis of Critical Success Factors of Special Education Mathematics Teaching
  33. Novel Totto-Chan by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi: A Study of Philosophy of Progressivism and Humanism and Relevance to the Merdeka Curriculum in Indonesia
  34. Global Education and Critical Thinking: A Necessary Symbiosis to Educate for Critical Global Citizenship
  35. The Mediating Effect of Optimism and Resourcefulness on the Relationship between Hardiness and Cyber Delinquent Among Adolescent Students
  36. Enhancing Social Skills Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Evaluation of the “Power of Camp Inclusion” Program
  37. The Influence of Student Learning, Student Expectation and Quality of Instructor on Student Perceived Satisfaction and Student Academic Performance: Under Online, Hybrid and Physical Classrooms
  38. Household Size and Access to Education in Rural Burundi: The Case of Mutaho Commune
  39. The Impact of the Madrasati Platform Experience on Acquiring Mathematical Concepts and Improving Learning Motivation from the Point of View of Mathematics Teachers
  40. The Ideal Path: Acquiring Education and Gaining Respect for Parents from the Perspective of Arab-Bedouin Students
  41. Exploring Mentor Teachers’ Experiences and Practices in Japan: Formative Intervention for Self-Directed Development of Novice Teachers
  42. Research Trends and Patterns on Emotional Intelligence in Education: A Bibliometric and Knowledge Mapping During 2012–2021
  43. Openness to Change and Academic Freedom in Jordanian Universities
  44. Digital Methods to Promote Inclusive and Effective Learning in Schools: A Mixed Methods Research Study
  45. Translation Competence in Translator Training Programs at Saudi Universities: Empirical Study
  46. Self-directed Learning Behavior among Communication Arts Students in a HyFlex Learning Environment at a Government University in Thailand
  47. Unveiling Connections between Stress, Anxiety, Depression, and Delinquency Proneness: Analysing the General Strain Theory
  48. The Expression of Gratitude in English and Arabic Doctoral Dissertation Acknowledgements
  49. Subtexts of Most Read Articles on Social Sciences Citation Index: Trends in Educational Issues
  50. Experiences of Adult Learners Engaged in Blended Learning beyond COVID-19 in Ghana
  51. The Influence of STEM-Based Digital Learning on 6C Skills of Elementary School Students
  52. Gender and Family Stereotypes in a Photograph: Research Using the Eye-Tracking Method
  53. ChatGPT in Teaching Linear Algebra: Strides Forward, Steps to Go
  54. Partnership Quality, Student’s Satisfaction, and Loyalty: A Study at Higher Education Legal Entities in Indonesia
  55. SEA’s Science Teacher Voices Through the Modified World Café
  56. Construction of Entrepreneurship Coaching Index: Based on a Survey of Art Design Students in Higher Vocational Colleges in Guangdong, China
  57. The Effect of Audio-Assisted Reading on Incidental Learning of Present Perfect by EFL Learners
  58. Comprehensive Approach to Training English Communicative Competence in Chemistry
  59. The Collaboration of Teaching at The Right Level Approach with Problem-Based Learning Model
  60. Effectiveness of a Pop-Up Story-Based Program for Developing Environmental Awareness and Sustainability Concepts among First-Grade Elementary Students
  61. Effect of Computer Simulation Integrated with Jigsaw Learning Strategy on Students’ Attitudes towards Learning Chemistry
  62. Unveiling the Distinctive Impact of Vocational Schools Link and Match Collaboration with Industries for Holistic Workforce Readiness
  63. Students’ Perceptions of PBL Usefulness
  64. Assessing the Outcomes of Digital Soil Science Curricula for Agricultural Undergraduates in the Global South
  65. The Relationship between Epistemological Beliefs and Assessment Conceptions among Pre-Service Teachers
  66. Review Articles
  67. Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)
  68. The Effects of Online Continuing Education for Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Scoping Review
  69. The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Teacher Mental Health: A Call to Action for Educational Policymakers
  70. Developing Multilingual Competence in Future Educators: Approaches, Challenges, and Best Practices
  71. Using Virtual Reality to Enhance Twenty-First-Century Skills in Elementary School Students: A Systematic Literature Review
  72. State-of-the-Art of STEAM Education in Science Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review
  73. Integration of Project-Based Learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics to Improve Students’ Biology Practical Skills in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
  74. Teaching Work and Inequality in Argentina: Heterogeneity and Dynamism in Educational Research
  75. Case Study
  76. Teachers’ Perceptions of a Chatbot’s Role in School-based Professional Learning
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/edu-2022-0221/html
Scroll to top button