19 minute read
Integrating creativity in education: A snapshot of jurisdictional progress
Across PISA-2022 participating jurisdictions, integration of creativity in curricula often lacks guidance on how to teach and assess it
Clear definitions and concrete illustrations of the content and performances that students are expected to master are an important source of intelligence supporting education practitioners. Building on research-based learning progressions, system-level assessments can also constitute a reference point for educators to identify key aspects to focus on during instruction, and act as an important source of feedback informing teachers’ formative decisions based on insights on their students’ progress. The PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire inquired jurisdictions on whether formal guidelines (e.g. learning progressions, rubrics) or evaluations are provided in their education systems to facilitate a common understanding on what creative thinking is and expected student outcomes. Responses to the questionnaire show that only 24% of respondents reported the provision of such instruments at the level of the system, in contrast with a 66% of jurisdictions reporting their absence (Figure 5); 10% of respondents indicated that such tools are currently being developed in their jurisdiction.
Fostering creative thinking through education: Drivers, barriers and indicators of progress
Figure 5 Building a shared understanding on what creative thinking means
Existence of system-level formal guidelines (e.g., learning progressions, rubrics) or evaluations of creativity, 2022
Are there any formal guidelines (e.g. learning progressions, rubrics) or evaluations used in your jurisdiction to assess students’ creativity?
Yes No Currently in development Missing information
Albania
Alberta (Canada)
Australian Capital Territory (Australia)
Austria
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Brazil
British Columbia (Canada)
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
England (United Kingdom)
Estonia
Faroe Islands (Denmark)
Finland
Flemish Community (Belgium)
France
French Community (Belgium)
French-speaking cantons (Switzerland)
German-speaking cantons (Switzerland)
German-speaking Community (Belgium)
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong (China)
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Manitoba (Canada)
Mexico
Mongolia
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Brunswick (Canada)
New South Wales (Australia)
New Zealand
Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
North Macedonia
Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Northern Territory (Australia)
Norway
Nova Scotia (Canada)
Ontario (Canada)
Palestinian Authority
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Prince Edward Island (Canada)
Qatar
Quebec (Canada)
Queensland (Australia)
Romania
Saskatchewan (Canada)
Scotland (United Kingdom)
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Chinese Taipei
Tasmania (Australia)
Thailand
Türkiye
Ukraine
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Wales (United Kingdom)
Notes: OECD countries are shown in bold black. Regions of OECD countries are shown in black italics. Partner countries and economies are shown in bold blue.
Jurisdictions are ranked in alphabetical order.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire on Creative Thinking.
References to developing students’ creativity in teacher qualifications and training requirements lag behind curricular ambitions
Pursuing the development of deep learning and high-order socio-cognitive competencies requires teachers with expert professional repertoires. Teacher education and training are an important means of knowledge and skill acquisition for professionals, contributing positively to their sense of preparedness for teaching, including the teaching of cross-curricular skills (OECD, 2019[43]). Hence, at the system level, a key question is whether qualification frameworks and professional standards incorporate the idea that nurturing students’ creativity is a constituent element of good teaching practice.
It must be noted that promoting learners’ creative thinking through teaching, which has been called teaching for creativity, and teaching creatively encompass different ideas. While the latter emphasises the creativity of teachers in their practice generally, the former refers to the use of teaching practices that explicitly cultivate the creativity of students (NACCCE, 1999[48]). The two are nonetheless connected in the sense that teaching for creativity depends on teachers orchestrating learning activities creatively (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[42]), but they should be understood separately and equally promoted.
PISA asked participating jurisdictions whether system-level guidelines or requirements governing teacher formal education and training exist in their contexts, and whether they explicitly refer to 1) developing students’ cross-curricular/interdisciplinary skills, 2) developing students’ creativity specifically, and 3) teaching creatively or creative pedagogy more generally. As shown in Figure 6, guidelines/requirements for primary education teachers included general references to developing students’ cross-curricular/interdisciplinary skills in most jurisdictions (80%). To a lesser extent, they included references to developing students’ creativity specifically (68% of jurisdictions) and to teaching creatively or creative pedagogy (64%). Similar patterns were observed in requirements for secondary education teachers: 74% of jurisdictions reported the inclusion of references to teaching cross-curricular/interdisciplinary skills, 61% to developing students’ creativity and 61% on teaching creatively or creative pedagogy.
Qualifications and training requirements lack a focus on assessing students’ creativity in over half of PISA 2022-participating jurisdictions
Clear guidance on assessment, especially when the use of complex tools is warranted, can help practitioners in designing creativity-supportive learning activities and proposing relevant evaluation criteria. In this sense, policymakers can promote the use of evaluation results to leverage the formative power of assessment. Different areas may be targeted towards this end, notably the development of practitioners’ capacity to assess against student learning objectives and the improvement of their knowledge and skills for formative assessment with a focus on creative thinking.
PISA asked policymakers whether teacher qualification and training requirements in their jurisdiction explicitly refer to assessing students’ creativity. As shown in Figure 7, among jurisdictions reporting the existence of such qualifications and training requirements and with data available, only 44% reported explicit references to assessing students’ creativity for practitioners in primary education and 40% for those teaching in secondary education.
Fostering creative thinking through education: Drivers, barriers and indicators of progress
Figure
6
Preparing teachers to teach for creativity
Existence of system-level formal guidelines or requirements related to the content of initial teacher training referring to creativity, by type and level of education, 2022
Yes No
Not applicable
Missing information
Are any of the following elements explicitly referred to in your jurisdiction’s formal guidelines or requirements related to the contents of initial teacher training for…
Primary Education
Developing students' cross-curricular/ interdisciplinary skills in general
Developing students' creativity
Teaching creatively (creative pedagogy)
Albania
Austria
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
England (United Kingdom)
Estonia
Faroe Islands (Denmark)
Finland
Flemish Community (Belgium)
France
French Community (Belgium)
German-speaking Community (Belgium)
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea
Latvia
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Manitoba (Canada)
Secondary Education
Developing students' cross-curricular/ interdisciplinary skills in general
Developing students' creativity
Teaching creatively (creative pedagogy)
Figure 6 [2/2] Preparing teachers to teach for creativity
Existence of system-level formal guidelines or requirements related to the content of initial teacher training referring to creativity, by type and level of education, 2022
Are any of the following elements explicitly referred to in your jurisdiction’s formal guidelines or requirements related to the contents of initial teacher training for…
Primary Education
Developing students' cross-curricular/ interdisciplinary skills in general
Developing students' creativity
Teaching creatively (creative pedagogy)
Mexico
Mongolia
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Brunswick (Canada)
New South Wales (Australia)
New Zealand
Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
North Macedonia
Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Norway
Nova Scotia (Canada)
Ontario (Canada)
Palestinian Authority
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Quebec (Canada)
Romania
Scotland (United Kingdom)
Singapore
Spain
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Türkiye
Ukraine
Uruguay
Viet Nam
Wales (United Kingdom)
Secondary Education
Developing students' cross-curricular/ interdisciplinary skills in general
Developing students' creativity
Teaching creatively (creative pedagogy)
Notes: OECD countries are shown in bold black. Regions of OECD countries are shown in black italics. Partner countries and economies are shown in bold blue.The table includes information on jurisdictions that reported the existence of guidelines/requirements for initial teacher training for primary and/or secondary education levels. Jurisdictions that reported that such guidelines do not exist or for which it is unclear whether such guidelines exist for both primary and secondary education levels, have been omitted from the table. Jurisdictions are ranked in alphabetical order.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire on Creative Thinking.
Fostering creative thinking through education: Drivers, barriers and indicators of progress
Figure 7 Supporting teachers to assess students’ creativity
Existence of system-level formal guidelines or requirements related to the content of initial teacher training referring to the assessment of students’ creativity, by level of education, 2022
Yes
Albania
Austria
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
England (United Kingdom)
Estonia
Faroe Islands (Denmark)
Finland
Flemish Community (Belgium)
France
French Community (Belgium)
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea
Latvia
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Not
Primary Education Secondary Education
Manitoba (Canada)
Mexico
Mongolia
Netherlands
New Brunswick (Canada)
New South Wales (Australia)
New Zealand
Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
North Macedonia
Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Norway
Nova Scotia (Canada)
Ontario (Canada)
Palestinian Authority
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Quebec (Canada)
Romania
Scotland (United Kingdom)
Singapore
Spain
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Türkiye
Ukraine
Uruguay
Viet Nam
Wales (United Kingdom)
Notes: OECD countries are shown in bold black. Regions of OECD countries are shown in black italics. Partner countries and economies are shown in bold blue.
The table indicates which jurisdictions reported that there are references to the assessment of creativity in the system-level guidelines or requirements for initial teacher training for primary and/or secondary education levels. Jurisdictions that reported that such guidelines/requirements do not exist or for which it is unclear whether such guidelines exist for both primary and secondary education levels, have been omitted from the table. Jurisdictions are ranked in alphabetical order.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire on Creative Thinking.
Box 2 Has teacher education and training to teach for creativity evolved over time?
Inclusion of teaching of cross-curricular skills in teacher education and training: Results from TALIS 2018
In 2018, the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) asked teachers about the content included in their formal education or training, providing insight on the inclusion of teaching cross-curricular skills (e.g. creativity, critical thinking and problem solving) in their preparation. Results show that teacher education and training for about 70% of teachers on average across TALIS 2018-participating jurisdictions included the teaching of cross-curricular skills, with provision ranging from over 90% in Chile, South Africa, United Arabs Emirates and Viet Nam to less than 50% in Austria, Czech Republic, France and Slovenia.
TALIS 2018 also offers a perspective on the evolution of teachers’ formal training and education content by comparing the reports of teachers who completed their formal education and training in the five years previous to the survey with those of the whole teacher population. Results show an increase in the percentage of teachers who reported the inclusion of teaching cross-curricular skills in their education and training in all jurisdictions with data available except for Denmark, where the percentage fell by 1%. In contrast, the largest variation was found in Czech Republic and France, with an increase in teacher reports of over 20%, followed by similar growth in Austria, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain (17%).
Results based on reports of lower secondary teachers, by year of education and training completion, 2018
Note: Jurisdictions are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom the teaching of cross-curricular skills was included in their formal education or training.
Source: TALIS 2018 database, Table I.4.13, https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/talis2018tables.htm
support for schools and teachers more commonly includes access to training and teaching materials, although not in all jurisdictions
Continuous learning beyond initial education and training contributes to building teachers’ know-how and confidence to teach for creativity. Teacher training can help elicit teachers’ prior conceptions of creativity, provide concrete frameworks of creative thinking across domains and a clear picture of the outcomes to be expected of students, and address typical misconceptions, such as views of creative thinking as a competency related only to the arts and confusions between ‘teaching for creativity’ and ‘teaching creatively’. Additionally, the provision of teaching guidelines and examples, such as rubrics and lesson plans, can act as a source of inspiration for teachers seeking for new models to adapt and incorporate in their practice (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019[23]).
To understand how different jurisdictions seek to build capacity for educators and schools to teach for creativity, PISA asked policymakers whether the following support mechanisms are available in their jurisdictions:
1) professional development for teachers on developing students’ creativity; 2) professional development for teachers on creative pedagogy; 3) teaching resources on creative pedagogies or lesson plans (e.g. online portals); 4) funding/scholarship for teachers to participate in creativity-related activities or research; 5) funding to run creative programmes or projects; 6) funding for creative materials, equipment and/or facilities (e.g. art studios, makerspaces, performance spaces); and 7) organised visits to/from creative practitioners (e.g. designers, poets, performers, engineers).
Survey responses (Figure 9) show that 69% of jurisdictions responding to this question in the survey provided teachers with teaching resources, and 67% and 64% of jurisdictions offered professional development opportunities for teachers on developing students creative thinking and developing creative pedagogies, respectively. A lower number of policymakers flagged system-level mechanisms to promote the collaboration between school staff and creative practitioners outside education (42%) and the availability of funding for creativity-related activities/research (39%), despite the role that action research and cross-sectoral collaboration can play in supporting knowledge creation and mobilisation (Davies et al., 2014[33]; Révai, 2020[49]). System-level supports in some jurisdictions also included the provision of funding for creative programmes or projects (54% of jurisdictions), such as curricular and extracurricular courses supporting creativity, and funding for creative materials, equipment or facilities (45%), like art studios and makerspaces. Other forms of support were reported in 13% of jurisdiction. Policymakers in about 1 in 10 jurisdictions responded that no support is available (12%).
PISA also asked jurisdictions about the conditions with which support for schools and teachers is made available to their target beneficiaries. For each of the support mechanisms covered in Figure 9, the PISA questionnaire asked policymakers if they were 1) provided or available to all with no qualifying criteria; 2) provided or available to all conditioned on qualifying criteria; 3) available through a competitive application process with no qualifying criteria; 4) available through a competitive application process conditioned on qualifying criteria; or 5) other.
Figure 9 Supporting creative learning environments
Percentage of jurisdictions reporting the availability of the following system-level support mechanisms for schools and teachers to promote creative thinking, 2022
Note: For each support type, the percentage is based on the number of jurisdictions that indicated providing that support type, over the total number of valid responses received on this question (N=84). Cases in which no response options were selected (i.e. no response including ‘No Support Available’ was selected) were not counted as valid responses.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire on Creative Thinking.
Survey results (Figure 10) show that many jurisdictions make teaching resources (87% of jurisdictions) and professional development for developing students’ creative thinking (73%) and creative pedagogies (71%) available for all teachers and schools with no conditionality. Arguably, an open offer with no conditionality is a policy decision seeking to promote access and encourage participation, although it must be noted that low engagement is seldomly linked to a lack of prerequisites. Results from TALIS 2018 pointed to other, more significant barriers, including time conflicts between training and work schedules, a lack of incentives for participation, training being too expensive or not relevant, difficulties to conciliate training with family responsibilities and a lack of employer support (OECD, 2019[43]).
In contrast, provision of funding for participation in creativity-related activities and research (30%), materials, equipment and/or facilities (27%), and creative programmes or projects (23%) is commonly more restricted. In such cases, education authorities may seek to optimise limited resources and maximise impact – for instance by requiring beneficiaries to present a project plan and demonstrate their technical capacity to implement it, or by defining co-financing rules to incentivise the commitment of participants to the success of their initiatives. There is greater diversity in the way jurisdictions promote cross-sectoral collaboration through organised visits. Such form of support is available to all with no qualifying criteria in about half of the jurisdictions responding to this question in the survey (53%).
Scope of provision and degree of conditionality of system-level supports for schools and teachers, 2022
Note: For each type of support, the bar chart shows the relative frequency of each of four conditions to access. The number of valid responses for each support in shown in parenthesis. Cases in which the support type was indicated but no information was provided on conditions of access were not considered as valid responses.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire on Creative Thinking.
Putting creativity at the heart of school systems: Policy pointers inspired by current practice
Integrating creativity in education: What are we talking about, why should we care and how do we go about it?
Considering the challenges to integrating creative thinking in school systems previously discussed, this section identifies key pointers to develop comprehensive policies supporting the implementation of creativity-conducive curricula. These pointers have been identified by grouping existing practices that were reported by jurisdictions participating in the PISA 2022 System-Level Questionnaire on Creative Thinking
Articulate clear curricular objectives with explicit guidelines for teaching and assessing creative thinking
The incorporation of creative thinking in curricula internationally illustrates the efforts of education jurisdictions to adapt schooling to changing social demands. However, introducing changes in curricula, arduous as it may be, risks failing to generate the intended outcomes if learning goals are not clear. Setting the basis for creative thinking to be promoted consistently and effectively across schools and for all students requires generating a shared understanding on the nature of creative thinking among curriculum developers and educators. Defining curricular terms with precision and providing clear guidance and examples can facilitate the development of creativity-supportive teaching and learning in practice.
Several jurisdictions have developed guiding materials and examples to help teachers understand the types of outcomes that ought to be expected of students and the learning trajectories they typically follow to reaching them. In Canada, for instance, the province of Alberta provides teachers with competency progressions and descriptors of learning outcomes across grades, ages and achievement levels for ‘creativity and innovation’ on its new LearnAlberta platform. In Ontario, similar orientations are offered in the system-level guidelines on assessment, evaluation and reporting for schools. Manitoba is also in the process of developing such guidelines.
In Finland, assessment criteria within the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education are linked to the transversal competence goals, and subject-specific assessment criteria contain references to the assessment of creativity and creative thinking where applicable. The guidelines in the National Core Curriculum offer a baseline orientation for further curricular development locally. Similarly, in Japan, where creativity is particularly emphasised in the context of technology-related subjects, national assessment guidelines refer to creativity and include exemplars for its evaluation for “Art and Handicraft” in elementary schools and for “Art” and “Technology and Home Economics” in middle schools. In Scotland (United Kingdom), teaching and assessment approaches and expected outcomes for creative thinking are provided through the Curriculum for Excellence Benchmarks
Minimise content overload to strike a balance between curricular breadth and depth
Insufficient time for students to engage in the practice of creative thinking and for educators to collaboratively develop new pedagogical approaches and educational resources can be the result of curriculum overload, occurring when new content is added to the curriculum without proper consideration of the content already existing. Education jurisdictions internationally are adopting different strategies in response to this challenge. For instance, some jurisdictions have focused on determining essential content when defining the “exit profile” of students leaving compulsory education or by identifying the “big ideas” curricula should cover to avoid an excessive number of subjects or topics and provide clear priorities for curricular development locally (see OECD (2020[50]) for a detailed discussion and examples).
A complimentary strategy to optimise instruction time and content coverage emphasises connections across knowledge domains (i.e. interdisciplinarity). In interdisciplinary learning, the content and skills that learners practice are defined by the questions or themes that they work on rather than by a strict separation of disciplines or subjects. Greater interdisciplinarity allows for the articulation of pedagogy around more contextualised, authentic problems, providing opportunities for less fragmented and more meaningful learning experiences for students while increasing educators’ professional learning and accountability through collaborative planning and joint teaching (OECD, 2013[45]).
Several examples of integrative approaches were reported in the PISA questionnaire, notably in relation to the benefits of engaging students in manual work and self-expression. Active creation is a form of learning because people develop knowledge by tinkering and making and by experimenting with tangible tools, such as in play. Similarly, activities based on the primacy of self-expression and aesthetics foster student motivation, and personal experiences can be leveraged to foster the development of academic knowledge beyond arts subjects (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[42]).
The Ministry of Education and Research in Norway, recognising the link between creation and expression and the promotion of learning in all subjects, published the strategy “Creative joy, commitment and a desire to explore: Practical and aesthetic content in kindergarten, school and teacher training” in 2019 (Skaperglede, engasjement og utforskertrang: Praktisk og estetisk innhold i barnehage, skole og lærerutdanning). The goals of the strategy included reducing the scope of curricular subjects to facilitate deeper learning, strengthening the practical and aesthetic aspects in the curriculum, and developing new assessment guidelines to support teacher practice. Following the publication of the strategy, a new national curriculum was introduced in 2020, which incorporates accompanying resources for teaching and learning in the practical-aesthetic subjects. Along similar lines, the “Political Agreement about Strengthened Practical Expertise” (2018) in Denmark stressed that pupils should have more opportunities to develop imaginative and creative skills in primary and lower secondary school and to be able to translate methods and theories to concrete products. Among other aspects, selective practical/musical subjects have been made compulsory and must be completed with an exam. A focus on practical learning is also visible in Singapore. The Applied Learning Programme emphasises application of thinking skills and the integration of knowledge across subject disciplines. It provides opportunities for students to develop creative thinking as they generate relatively novel and appropriate ideas or products in authentic settings across society and industry. Similarly, the Learning for Life Programme provides opportunities for students to creatively design activities and programmes for the benefit of their communities.
Examples from other jurisdictions have a specific focus on the link between STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and aesthetic education – the so-called STEAM approach, where the “A” stands for the arts. In Ireland, various initiatives targeting design, creativity and innovation are underway. For instance, “Science Blast” is an initiative in partnership with a range of organisations that aims to encourage students to think, create, design, explore and learn new skills by asking entire primary school classrooms to investigate a question they are curious about and present their findings to a STEM judge, (móltóir), who provides them with constructive feedback.’ In Korea, STEAM education is a project led by the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity, a quasi-governmental organisation in charge of science and ICT, and it aims at fostering creative technical talents in elementary and middle schools. The project involves a focus on teacher training, support to research initiatives and to the development and operation of STEAM school and out-of-school programmes. Studies of the programme have found positive effects in terms of both teacher professional development and student learning outcomes, but also a number of challenges for teachers, including insufficient time to implement it, higher workloads, and a lack of administrative and financial support (Kang, 2019[51]; Park et al., 2016[52]).
Successful integration of learning content through interdisciplinarity can indeed be hard to achieve. Students may experience difficulties in integrating key ideas and methods when working across disciplines, and teachers may lack familiarity with the content and standards of the subjects that they do not commonly teach. Additionally, organisational aspects must be considered, such as school arrangements articulated around strong disciplinary divisions (e.g. timetables), and the professional isolation that many teachers experience in their daily practice. Importantly, educators need access to actionable models that guide them in the orchestration of interdisciplinary teaching and learning activities (Shernoff et al., 2017[53]). Further support may be provided by emerging technologies that, like generative artificial intelligence, hold increasing potential to aid lesson planning and instruction (Mollick and Mollick, 2022[54]).
Provide support for schools to expand learning opportunities for students and teachers
As visible in the results of the PISA 2022 questionnaire, policymakers can support schools and teachers to reflect on and experiment with new practices in different ways. One type of system-level support includes the provision of training and teaching resources for educators to teach for creativity. In Scotland (United Kingdom), for instance, Education Scotland has provided teachers with a National Improvement Hub. The Hub includes several learning resources, articles, impact reports, self-evaluation tools and exemplars of practice for improving teaching and learning, some of which relate to creativity and creative thinking. For instance, practitioners are given access to a “Creativity Toolbox” (2018), which contains 13 short films on creative approaches to support planning and improvement, and to the “Planning for and Evaluating Creativity ZIP file” (2017), which contains several open access resources, such as the “Creative Learning Survey for Pupils”, the “Creative Teaching & Learning Graphic Equaliser”, and a “Creativity Evaluation Checklist” and “Creativity Planning Checklist”. The Creativity Portal, developed in partnership between Education Scotland and Creative Scotland, offers additional support in the form of “a one-stop shop to help teachers, community learning leaders, and educators find high quality creative partnerships, case studies of good practice, the latest creativity research, online teaching resources, local creative learning contacts”. Other examples of support in the form of teaching guidelines and materials across PISA 2022-participating jurisdictions include the Moodle platform developed in the Republic of North Macedonia in 2018, which comprises four courses on developing critical thinking, creative problem solving and programming skills, and the Handbook of Creativity: Development and Practice in Teaching and Learning (2011), in Malaysia, a reference point for educators to plan teaching and learning activities.
Furthermore, support may be directed at expanding learning opportunities for students. Latvia offers an example of system-level support in the form of access to non-formal education programmes (“interest education”), which are available to students in every general education institution as well as in interest education institutions founded by municipalities and private entities. Interest-related education is voluntary, and there are no entry requirements for students, although a status of interest education teacher is required to access funding for these programmes. Interest-related education offers various forms of activities, including individual classes, activities in groups, creative workshops, clubs and others. Most commonly, interest education programmes relate to dance, music, art, drama, folklore, technical innovation, electronics, robotics, modelling, environmental education, and sports.
With a focus on resourcing learning environments, several jurisdictions also have funding schemes in place to facilitate appropriate materials, equipment and facilities for teachers and students to be able to work creatively. For instance, in Iceland, the government makes funding available for the establishment and maintenance of fabrication laboratories (“FabLabs”). These laboratories include different tools and devices to facilitate work on digital design and fabrication. Commonly located in upper-secondary schools, the Labs are typically open to the public. In Italy, the promotion of creativity and entrepreneurship in schools is part of the objectives of the National Digital School Plan (Piano Nazionale Scuola Digitale). In this context, the “Creative ateliers and workshops for key skills” initiative aims to equip primary and lower secondary schools with innovative and modular spaces where they can practice with and learn about manual skills, craftsmanship, creativity and technologies. In Poland, through the “Laboratories of the Future” (Laboratoria przyszłości) initiative, primary and art schools receive financial support from the Ministry of Education and Science to purchase the necessary technical equipment for the development of practical skills to promote creative and technical competencies among students.
