REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

  1. Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
  2. Czasopisma naukowe / Journals
  3. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications
  4. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2025, Vol. 12, Issue 1

Szukanie zaawansowane
  • Zespoły i Kolekcje


  • Zaloguj się
  • Zarejestruj się
  • Mój RUB
  • FAQ
  • Polityka
  • Regulamin
  • DOI
  • Instrukcja
  • Aspekty prawne
  • Open Access
  • Archiwum


  • Kontakt
  • O Dspace
  • Strona Biblioteki
  • Strona Uczelni



    • Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/20186
    Pełny rekord metadanych
    Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
    dc.contributor.authorCreely, Edwin-
    dc.contributor.authorHenriksen, Danah-
    dc.date.accessioned2026-04-27T08:22:58Z-
    dc.date.available2026-04-27T08:22:58Z-
    dc.date.issued2025-
    dc.identifier.citationCreativity. Theories – Research – Applications, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2025, pp. 48-74pl
    dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/20186-
    dc.description.abstractCreativity in education is universally valued, but the diversity of theories and directions in the field of creativity studies is challenging for practitioners to understand and apply in classrooms. In this conceptual article and position paper, we propose a unified educational approach to creativity based on the philosophical ideas of Alfred North Whitehead and John Dewey. Whitehead’s notion of concrescence—where diverse experiences and resources are integrated into a coherent whole—along side Dewey’s pragmatic emphasis on experiential learning, provides a robust foundation for enabling creativity in educational settings. Drawing upon these stances, we offer a set of three principles derived from the integration of Whitehead’s and Dewey’s thoughts, aimed at enhancing the practical application of creativity in education. These principles focus on designing learning environments that foster creativity and align with learners’ natural developmental tendencies, and the processual nature of learning. As a plausible practice example, we apply these principles within Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) education, showcasing a practical thought experiment that applied the three integration principles and merges experiential learning and the integration of varied experiences and resources. This approach emphasizes the role of teachers as designers of learning environments that foster creativity. A design-based approach can inform curriculum development, teaching methods, and classroom management, influencing research, practice, and policy. By rethinking creativity through the integration of Whitehead and Dewey, educators, researchers, and policymakers can develop more coherent strategies that promote creativity more centrally in the educational process, addressing the need for innovative and adaptive thinking in students.pl
    dc.language.isoenpl
    dc.publisherUniversity of Białystokpl
    dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License-
    dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
    dc.subjectCreativitypl
    dc.subjectWhiteheadpl
    dc.subjectDeweypl
    dc.subjecteducational designpl
    dc.subjectclassroom practicepl
    dc.subjectSTEAMpl
    dc.titleTowards a Unified Approach to Creativity in Education: Integrating Whitehead and Deweypl
    dc.typeArticlepl
    dc.rights.holder© 2025 Edwin Creely, Danah Henriksen, published by University of Białystokpl
    dc.rights.holderThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.pl
    dc.identifier.doi10.2478/ctra-2025-0003-
    dc.description.EmailEdwin Creely: edwin.creely@monash.edupl
    dc.description.EmailDanah Henriksen: Danah.Henriksen@asu.edupl
    dc.description.AffiliationEdwin Creely - Monash University, Australiapl
    dc.description.AffiliationDanah Henriksen - Arizona State University, USApl
    dc.description.referencesAguinis, H., Beltran, J.R., Archibold, E.E., Jean, E.L., & Rice, D.B. (2023). Thought experiments: Review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(3), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2658pl
    dc.description.referencesAlexander, T.M. (2013). The human eros: Eco-ontology and the aesthetics of existence. Fordham University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesAmsen, E. (2019, June 14). Science educators are turning to the performing arts. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evaamsen/2019/06/14/science-educators-are-turning-to-the-performing-arts/?sh=7ed5566937b1pl
    dc.description.referencesBascopé, M., & Reiss, K. (2021). Place-based STEM education for sustainability: A path towards socioecological resilience. Sustainability, 13(15), 8414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158414pl
    dc.description.referencesBeghetto, R.A. (2019). Structured uncertainty: How creativity thrives under constraints and uncertainty. In C.A. Mullen (Ed.), Creativity under duress in education? Resistive theories, practices, and actions (pp. 27-40). Springer.pl
    dc.description.referencesBeghetto, R.A., & Kaufman, J.C. (2007). The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and the expert performance approach. High Ability Studies, 18(1), 59–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554421pl
    dc.description.referencesBeghetto, R.A., & Kaufman, J.C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247pl
    dc.description.referencesBeghetto, R.A., & Kaufman, J.C. (2017). Theories of creativity. In J.A. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity & innovation: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 35–48). Prufrock.pl
    dc.description.referencesBesançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009pl
    dc.description.referencesBiesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.pl
    dc.description.referencesBoell, S.K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 12.pl
    dc.description.referencesBracken, J.A. (1995). Whitehead’s philosophy of creativity. Process Studies, 24(3-4), 282–293.pl
    dc.description.referencesBranco, A., & Dantas de Paula, L. (2025). Thinking outside of the (Western) box: Cultural psychology perspectives on creativity in education. Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(1), e655. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.655pl
    dc.description.referencesBurnard, P., Craft, A., Cremin, T., Duffy, B., Hanson, R., Keene, J., Haynes, L., & Burns, D. (2006). Documenting ‘possibility thinking’: A journey of collaborative enquiry. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760600880001pl
    dc.description.referencesCarr-Chellman, D. (2023). Education for moral judgment: Situational creativity and Dewey’s aesthetics. Education and Culture, 39(1), Article 3. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/eandc/vol39/iss1/art3pl
    dc.description.referencesChan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003pl
    dc.description.referencesChang, T.S., Wang, H.C., Haynes, A.M., Song, M.M., Lai, S.Y., & Hsieh, S.H. (2022). Enhancing student creativity through an interdisciplinary, project-oriented problem-based learning undergraduate curriculum. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101173pl
    dc.description.referencesChiu, T.K., Chai, C.S., Williams, P.J., & Lin, T.J. (2021). Teacher professional development on self-determination theory–based design thinking in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 153–165.pl
    dc.description.referencesCollard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 348-364. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26609225pl
    dc.description.referencesCorazza, G.E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627pl
    dc.description.referencesCreely, E., & Blannin, J. (2025). Creative partnerships with generative AI: Possibilities for education and beyond. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56, 101727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101727pl
    dc.description.referencesCreely, E., Henderson, M., & Henriksen, D. (2019, March). Failing to succeed: The value of failure in creativity. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1403–1411). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).pl
    dc.description.referencesCremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2006.07.001pl
    dc.description.referencesCropley, A. (2016). The myths of heaven-sent creativity: Toward a perhaps less democratic but more downto-earth understanding. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195614pl
    dc.description.referencesCsikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial.pl
    dc.description.referencesDavies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004pl
    dc.description.referencesDewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Management, 37(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00469.xpl
    dc.description.referencesDewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.pl
    dc.description.referencesDewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Minton, Balch & Co.pl
    dc.description.referencesDewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.pl
    dc.description.referencesFan, M., & Cai, W. (2022). How does a creative learning environment foster student creativity? An examination on multiple explanatory mechanisms. Current Psychology, 41(7), 4667–4676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00974-zpl
    dc.description.referencesFeldman, A. (2015). STEAM rising: Why we need to put the arts into STEM education. Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2015/06/steam-vs-stem-why-we-need-to-put-the-arts-into-stem-education.htmlpl
    dc.description.referencesGabora, L. (2020). Research on creativity. In E.G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15347-6_387pl
    dc.description.referencesGadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd ed.). Continuum.pl
    dc.description.referencesGardiner, P. (2020). Learning to think together: Creativity, interdisciplinary collaboration and epistemic control. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100749pl
    dc.description.referencesGeorge, G., Merrill, R.K., & Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. (2021). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 999–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719899425pl
    dc.description.referencesGlăveanu, V.P. (2014). Theorising context in psychology: The case of creativity. Theory & Psychology, 24(3), 382–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007pl
    dc.description.referencesGlăveanu, V.P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180.pl
    dc.description.referencesGrainger, T., Goouch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2005). Creativity and writing: Developing voice and verve in the classroom. Routledge.pl
    dc.description.referencesGriffith, A. (2023). The creativity lab: Interdisciplinary creativity in higher education. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 12(1), 85–108.pl
    dc.description.referencesGuilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.pl
    dc.description.referencesHalsey, V. (2011). Brilliance by design: Creating learning experiences that connect, inspire, and engage. Berrett Koehler Publishers.pl
    dc.description.referencesHartlaub, V., & Schneider, T. (2012). Educational choice and risk aversion: How important is structural vs. individual risk aversion? (No. 433). SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research.pl
    dc.description.referencesHenriksen, D. (2019). Expanding the paradigm: Bringing designerly perspectives into creativity scholarship. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2019.6757pl
    dc.description.referencesHenriksen, D., Creely, E., & Henderson, M. (2019). Failing in creativity: The problem of policy and practice in Australia and the United States. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 55(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2019.1549429pl
    dc.description.referencesHenriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are: Creativity in the lives and practices of accomplished teachers. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700708pl
    dc.description.referencesHenriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2020). Of metaphors and molecules: Figurative language bridging STEM and the arts in education. Leonardo, 53(3), 316–320. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01607pl
    dc.description.referencesHenriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systemic view for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27–37.pl
    dc.description.referencesHenriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001pl
    dc.description.referencesHondzel, C.D., & Hansen, R. (2015). Associating creativity, context, and experiential learning. Education Inquiry, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.23403pl
    dc.description.referencesJindal-Snape, D., Davies, D., Collier, C., Howe, A., Digby, R., & Hay, P. (2013). The impact of creative learning environments on learners: A systematic literature review. Improving Schools, 16(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480213478461pl
    dc.description.referencesJohnson, A.H. (1952). Whitehead’s theory of creativity. Columbia University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesKapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1002195pl
    dc.description.referencesKaufman, J.C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688pl
    dc.description.referencesKaufman, J.C., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesKoh, J.H.L., Chai, C.S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.Y. (2015). Design thinking and education (pp. 1–15). Springer Singapore.pl
    dc.description.referencesKolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.pl
    dc.description.referencesLeClerc, I. (1958). Whitehead’s metaphysics: An introductory exposition. University of Notre Dame Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesLilly, F.R., & Bramwell-Rejskind, G. (2004). The dynamics of creative teaching. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 102–124.pl
    dc.description.referencesLiu, H.Y., Hsu, D.Y., Han, H.M., Wang, I.T., Chen, N.H., Han, C.Y., Chen, Y.L., & Huang, D.H. (2022). Effectiveness of interdisciplinary teaching on creativity: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 5875. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105875pl
    dc.description.referencesMarteel-Parrish, A., & Harvey, H. (2019). Applying the principles of green chemistry in art: Design of a crossdisciplinary course about ‘art in the Anthropocene: Greener art through greener chemistry’. Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 12(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518253.2019.1609595pl
    dc.description.referencesMaxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage.pl
    dc.description.referencesMcKerracher, A. (2016). Understanding creativity, one metaphor at a time. Creativity Research Journal, 28(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1229982pl
    dc.description.referencesMehta, R., Keenan, S., Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2019). Developing a rhetoric of aesthetics: The (often) forgotten link between art and STEM. STEAM Education: Theory and Practice, 117–141.pl
    dc.description.referencesMesle, R.C. (2008). Process-relational philosophy: An introduction to Alfred North Whitehead. Rutgers University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesMiettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/026013700293458pl
    dc.description.referencesMoirano, R., Sánchez, M.A., & Štěpánek, L. (2020). Creative interdisciplinary collaboration: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100626pl
    dc.description.referencesOzalevli, C.C. (2023, April 13). Why sustainability must become an integral part of STEM education. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/why-sustainability-must-become-an-integral-part-of-stem-education/pl
    dc.description.referencesPerignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002pl
    dc.description.referencesPetroski, H. (2006). Engineering: A great profession. American Scientist, 94(4), 304–307.pl
    dc.description.referencesRawat, K.J., Qazi, W., & Hamid, S. (2012). Creativity and education. Academic Research International, 2(2), 264-271. http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.2(2)/2012(2.2-27).pdfpl
    dc.description.referencesRichardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004pl
    dc.description.referencesRobinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Viking.pl
    dc.description.referencesRoot-Bernstein, R.S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2001). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.pl
    dc.description.referencesRousell, D. (2022). Accidental creatures: Whitehead’s creativity and the clashing intensities of more-than-human life. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211065811pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M.A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). Elsevier Academic Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092pl
    dc.description.referencesRyhammar, L., & Brolin, C. (1999). Creativity research: Historical considerations and main lines of development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383990430303pl
    dc.description.referencesSawyer, R.K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesSawyer, R.K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013282pl
    dc.description.referencesSawyer, R.K., & Henriksen, D. (2024). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesSharples, M. (2023). Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131pl
    dc.description.referencesThorburn, M., & Stolz, S.A. (2023). Where Merleau-Ponty meets Dewey: Habit, embodiment, and education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 42(5), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09897-1pl
    dc.description.referencesVaughn, M. (2020). What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever? Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702393pl
    dc.description.referencesWeng, X., Chiu, T.K., & Tsang, C.C. (2022). Promoting student creativity and entrepreneurship through real-world problem-based maker education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, 101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101046pl
    dc.description.referencesWest, R.E. (2016). Breaking down walls to creativity through interdisciplinary design. Educational Technology, 47–52.pl
    dc.description.referencesWhitehead, A.N. (1920). The concept of nature. Cambridge University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesWhitehead, A.N. (1926). Science and the modern world. Free Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesWhitehead, A.N. (1968). Modes of thought. Free Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesWhitehead, A.N. (1985). Process and reality. Free Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesYan, D. (2024). Posthuman creativity: Unveiling cyborg subjectivity through ChatGPT. Qualitative Inquiry, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004241231923pl
    dc.description.referencesZhang, W., Zhang, Q., Yu, B., & Zhao, L. (2015). Knowledge map of creativity research based on keywords network and co-word analysis, 1992–2011. Quality & Quantity, 49, 1023–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0032-9pl
    dc.description.referencesZhou, E., & Lee, D. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art. PNAS Nexus, 3(3), pga052. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae052pl
    dc.identifier.eissn2354-0036-
    dc.description.volume12pl
    dc.description.issue1pl
    dc.description.firstpage48pl
    dc.description.lastpage74pl
    dc.identifier.citation2Creativity. Theories – Research – Applicationspl
    dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5009-4047-
    dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5109-6960-
    Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2025, Vol. 12, Issue 1

    Pliki w tej pozycji:
    Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
    Creativity_12_1_2025_E_Creely_D_Henriksen_Towards_a_Unified_Approach_to_Creativity_in_Education.pdf438,65 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
    Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


    Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons