*Article* **Exploring Educator Leadership Practices in Gifted Education to Facilitate Online Learning Experiences for (Re)Engaging Gifted Students**

**Michelle Ronksley-Pavia 1,2,\* and Michelle M. Neumann 1,2**


**Abstract:** This article draws on case study findings of educator leadership in an online gifted education school, which emerged from a larger study exploring online engagement practices used by specialist gifted education teachers to (re)engage gifted learners. The gifted education teachers and their team leader were interviewed about leadership practices for supporting online engagement of gifted primary and high school students. Semi-structured interview data were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Findings related to teachers voicing the importance of a passionate and committed team leader who understood giftedness and who acted as a facilitator in both the continuous development of teaching team skills and facilitation of online engagement practices for gifted students. Findings indicated five key themes related to transformational leadership practices: (1) understanding requirements of online practices for teaching gifted students; (2) supporting digital and online innovation and creativity for engaging gifted students; (3) leveraging the unique skills of the specialist teaching team for teaching gifted students in the online space; (4) actively facilitating and encouraging (re)engagement of gifted students through online participation; (5) follow-through to meet the needs and concerns of the specialist teaching team, gifted students, and their parents and/or carers. These leadership practices are of importance for actively supporting gifted education teachers and their students in online learning environments in order to achieve positive student engagement and learning outcomes commensurate with student potential.

**Keywords:** educator leadership in gifted education; gifted and talented education; gifted student engagement; online learning environment; leadership in gifted education

#### **1. Introduction**

Significant research currently exists on leadership development for gifted students; similarly, there is a plethora of research on the characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students (e.g., teachers as passionate subject experts, strong achievement orientation, intuitive thinkers). However, there is little empirical research that specifically explores the leadership practices and characteristics that enable and empower teachers to support the learning and engagement of gifted students. This article draws on findings of transformational educator leadership in online gifted education, which emerged from a larger study exploring online engagement practices used by gifted education teachers to (re)engage gifted learners.

There are two common leadership styles—distributional and transformational—that are useful in understanding what 'quality' education leadership may look like. Distributed leadership purports that there is not just one traditional leader but multiple leaders who work collaboratively in reciprocal ways to achieve positive outcomes and change [1–3]. In other words, in educational contexts, every teacher is a leader. Studies have demonstrated that a distributed leadership approach enhances teacher morale and confidence where

**Citation:** Ronksley-Pavia, M.; Neumann, M.M. Exploring Educator Leadership Practices in Gifted Education to Facilitate Online Learning Experiences for (Re)Engaging Gifted Students. *Educ. Sci.* **2022**, *12*, 99. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci12020099

Academic Editors: Dorothy Sisk and Jacobus G. Maree

Received: 30 November 2021 Accepted: 28 January 2022 Published: 31 January 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

sharing and collegiality occur [4,5]. However, opportunities for distributed leadership may be limited by systemic issues, such as entrenched rigid and formal hierarchies [6] (e.g., transactional leadership). Building on this view of distributional leadership, transformational leadership approaches rely on the team leader to exhibit characteristics such as trustworthiness, creativity, good communication and organisation skills [7,8], formal shared team goals [9], and support for innovative education practices [10]. It is essential that transformational leaders actively motivate, engage, and inspire their fellow teachers to achieve shared goals. It is important to note that distributed and transformational leadership are not separate concepts, nor are they opposed or exclusive, meaning that teachers and educators are also leaders in their fields, encompassing the qualities of both distributed and transformational leadership. Transformational educational leadership is a model that gifted education leaders can apply to lead by example in online learning environments, to foster student achievement and a model that values the creation of strong community relationships [9,11]. Transformational leadership includes the following key elements:


It is well recognised in the literature that transformational education leaders work towards improving the overall performance of their school, as well as student engagement and learning outcomes [9]. In turn, fostering the development of group goals and high performance of team members in working collaboratively towards common goals [9], along with school leadership qualities and skills, all have key roles in improving the learning experiences and outcomes of all students [12]. It is the actions of teachers who interact directly with students that play critical roles in implementing change and improving achievement of students [13]. The realisation that complementary leadership qualities of both teachers and team leaders are keys to success [14] is paramount, particularly in online learning environments where teachers often work in isolation, even though they may be part of an established network and teaching team.

A 2014 study by Kanjanaphoomin and Laksana [14] examined teacher leadership in gifted education in Thailand and found that school leadership, teacher leadership, and principles of learning were all key factors in successful leadership for gifted education teachers. From this study, teacher collaboration and collegial relationships signified solid leadership attributes for gifted education teachers. Leadership for gifted education teachers is an urgent topic of exploration, with DaVia Rubenstein [15] stating that for the field of gifted education to 'remain relevant, we need to foster deliberate leadership practices that contribute to a shared purpose' [15] (p. 131); transformational leadership may be one significant response to this call. Importantly, DaVia Rubenstein [15] emphasised that gifted education leaders can become more effective teachers by focusing on a shared purpose that underscores increased expectations and engagement for gifted students. In turn, encouraging educational leaders in gifted education to collaborate and learn with and from each other, as well as from leaders in other disciplines.

Furthermore, a qualitative study from Mexico [10], which explored the role of teachers as leaders in teaching gifted students, found that these teachers were highly innovative in their pedagogical practices and their use of technology. Importantly, the study reported that the educational institution's organisational culture actively promoted teaching leadership of gifted students through elements such as openness to new ideas, fostering of teacher initiatives, and autonomy in teaching practices. Moreover, these teacher leaders in gifted education were shown to motivate and engage their students using technology (e.g., specific software and university-level multimedia resources), empathy towards their students, and tailoring activities to specific student groups. By applying pedagogical practices specifically focusing on tailoring learning to their gifted students (e.g., through personalised

differentiation), the teacher leaders facilitated student engagement, and from the students' own perspectives, connected this to a model of 'continuous innovation ... considering emotional empathy with students ... [which] the students themselves [stated] generated greater confidence in their teachers' [10] (p. 32). Some inhibitors to educational leadership in gifted education were also identified and included teacher bias and systemic issues around sensitivities to potential loss of control and limited support for teacher initiative. Significantly, this study found a strong connection between teacher leadership and student outcomes, evinced by students graduating from the institute at a very early age and continuing to university [10].

Transformation educational leadership is used to frame the present study because it allows a deeper exploration of what can be leveraged from the perspectives of current practicing teachers working in the field of gifted education. This enables a scaffold for increasing understanding of the roles, relationships, and characteristics of quality gifted teacher leaders. This potentially will provide new ways to better resource, nurture, and support gifted education leadership that is transformational, especially in the new millennium and worldwide situations (e.g., COVID-19), where gifted students are increasingly learning in online environments.

#### *Conceptualising Giftedness*

In Australia, gifted students are frequently defined according to Gagné's Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) [16], embracing conceptualisations around differences between giftedness (as potential) and talent (evidenced by achievement). Gagné's DMGT designates the development of giftedness into talent, highlighting specific catalysis needed for talent development and defining gifted students as those whose potential is in the top 10% of age peers [16]. Gagné's model highlights one catalyst relevant to this study: 'Learning Environments', where teachers make explicit and deliberate efforts to engage gifted learners by means of differentiated curricula—in the present study, the online learning environment.

Some commonly listed characteristics of gifted students include their ability to learn rapidly, having varied interests, being easily disengaged (particularly in areas that are viewed as mundane/repetitive), perfectionistic, passionate, and curious. However, as Ronksley-Pavia and Neumann [17] suggest, disengagement (and underachievement) for gifted students can impact their actualisation of talent potential due to several factors, including limited opportunities to engage in areas of their interest, lack of voice and choice in learning, and lack of opportunities to work with like-minded peers. Gifted students need to be appropriately challenged and extended with opportunities to learn that are associated with their potential (and abilities) which facilitate behavioural, affective, social, and cognitive engagement [17,18].

#### **2. The Study**

This article describes findings of the leadership practices and qualities of gifted education leaders working in an online learning environment, which delivered courses specifically designed for gifted students. These findings emerged from a larger qualitative exploratory Australian case study, which explored the pedagogical practices of an online education context serving gifted students in Kindergarten to Year 10. The guiding research question about leadership practices was 'What are key educational leadership practices for supporting gifted and talented students in online learning environments?'

#### *The Context*

The educational context explored for this case study was an online gifted education 'school' (pseudonym of Lake Online School) in an Australian state jurisdiction, which supplemented classroom learning in government schools across the state for gifted students enrolled by their classroom teachers in the online school program from Kindergarten (5 to 6 years of age) to Year 10 (15 to 16 years of age).

Lake Online School (LOS) was an initiative of the state education directorate specifically aimed at providing free online courses for gifted learners in government schools. The primary purpose of LOS was to support regular classroom teachers across the state to meet the needs of gifted and talented students in their schools. The courses were delivered online by experienced educators of gifted students (Lake Online Delivery Teachers (LODTs) using a popular learning management system (LMS). The teachers were responsible for developing, designing, and delivering challenging learning experiences for their enrolled gifted students in their specialist subject areas. The teachers were supported by a team leader (LOS manager) who was responsible for the overall operations of LOS and for meeting the primary goal of supporting gifted students enrolled in government schools in the state education jurisdiction.

The online courses extended learning from the Australian Curriculum in terms of extension in one curriculum area, and/or integrated units of work across multiple curriculum areas, thus providing significant extension opportunities, as well as opportunities to cover breadth and depth in curriculum content. Specific core skills developed in the courses were literacy, numeracy, and ICT, as well as critical and creative thinking and problem-solving. The learning tasks included opportunities to work individually and with like-minded peers on projects designed to challenge thinking, extend understanding, and further develop students' skills and interests. Specific courses were dedicated to both curriculum connections and student interest and included Mathematical Methods, Creative Writing, Life Sciences, Visual Arts, Programming and Coding, Philosophy, Robotics, and enterprising and entreprenerial projects connected with local community action and student passion projects.

The way the courses were delivered varied across schools, but predominantly, classroom teachers were to provide time during the school day (minimum of one hour per week) for their enrolled students to engage with their LOS courses. Each school that had gifted students enrolled in LOS provided a school-based support teacher who worked in person with the gifted students during school hours to support them in goal setting, choosing learning activities, and ensuring effective online participation. Individual schools were responsible for resourcing the necessary technology, computer equipment, and internet access required for students to engage in the online learning environment. Gifted students were also able to access their courses outside school if they had internet access and the necessary equipment (e.g., laptop) to be able to engage in the course.

Each course was taught by a specific LODT and had an individual dedicated site in the LMS where students engaged with their course content and related learning activities. LODTs used the tools available via the online LMS (e.g., discussion forums, virtual classrooms) and email to communicate with students enrolled in their courses, to facilitate student learning, provide feedback on their learning, and give guidance when needed. Individual student engagement was monitored by each LODT, the LOS Manager, as well as classroom teachers, school-based support person, and, in some cases, parents/carers.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

#### *3.1. Participants*

Participants in this study (Table 1) consisted of one gifted education team leader (LOS manager) and three specialist teachers (LODTs) (*N* = 4) working via the School LMS, which complemented state school classroom learning experiences for gifted students across the government school network. Participants were all female, between 40 and 49 years of age. All participants were qualified and registered teachers, with specialist qualifications in gifted education (see Table 1). The team leader was responsible for managing 14 LODTs across 26 different course offerings available through LOS.


**Table 1.** Overview of participants.

\* Lake Online School. \*\* Lake Online Delivery Teacher. ˆ Professional Development.

*3.2. Methodology and Data Collection*

Permission was granted from the University Ethics committee (GU ref No: 2020/949), the LOS education jurisdiction, and the LOS team leader for the conduct of this study. Each teacher provided informed consent to participate in the study and completed some demographic questions (e.g., age and highest education qualification).

LODTs and the team leader each participated in an individual, one-hour, online semistructured interview at a time convenient to them. In contrast to more rigid structured interview methods, semi-structured interviews have the benefit of being flexible, allowing extension of discussion and providing greater opportunity for participants to express their perceptions, opinions, and experiences [19,20].

To guide the interviews in the current study, a set of focus questions was posed (Table 2). Each semi-structured interview was conducted online by a trained researcher and the audio was recorded using best practice in interviewing approaches [21]. Where appropriate, each interviewer probed further to follow up any responses allowing opportunities for extension of participant ideas and clarification of responses where needed. All audio data were transcribed for coding and thematic analysis. Through the process of collating, drafting potential themes, and reviewing [22], relevant themes were identified.

**Table 2.** Overview of interview questions and alignment with the research questions.


#### *3.3. Data Analysis*

A generalised, inductive approach was taken for the analysis of the qualitative transcript data. The data analysis procedure comprised transcript grouping for stakeholder groups to create sub-group datasets of (1) team leader (Heather, LOS manager) and (2) online gifted education teachers (LODTs—Aria, Nubia, and Evelyn). Next, the sub-group datasets were individually examined by each member of the research team. This examination involved an initial reading of each transcript, discussion, and noting of initial themes (i.e., eclectic coding). Each member of the research team then proceeded through a re-reading process culminating in in vivo coding directly from participants' own words. Encoding evolved to produce eclectic codes as initial responses to the guiding research question. Lastly, descriptive codes summarising and identifying the primary topic of specifically quoted excerpts emerged to respond to the research question.

#### **4. Findings**

Five key themes emerged from the data in relation to transformational educational leadership in online gifted education practices for supporting (re)engagement for gifted students. The LOS manager and LODTs expressed the importance of a team leader who understood the requirements of online practices for teaching gifted students; supported digital and online innovation and creativity; was able to leverage the unique skills of the specialist teaching team; could actively facilitate and encourage (re)engagement of gifted students through online participation; and, follow through to meet the needs and concerns of the specialist teaching team, gifted students, and their parents/carers. These elements were repeatedly acknowledged by the teacher participants as essential to any online gifted education program. In this section, we will briefly present each key theme and a sample participant quote to exemplify the respective theme.

#### *4.1. Theme 1: Understanding Requirements of Online Practices for Teaching Gifted Students*

This theme related to leadership practices that demonstrated an understanding of the uniqueness of both gifted students and the online learning environment where the students were being taught. Evelyn, a teacher with over 20 years of experience in teaching gifted students explained:

*"We need a manager that understands what we do and why we do it* ... *I need to be allowed to run really. I'm happy to share and help, and I'm fairly confident in what I do, because I've been doing it for a long time* ... *I need support in terms of the system, that our manager doesn't let the system lock us down."*

#### *4.2. Theme 2: Supporting Digital and Online Innovation and Creativity for Engaging Gifted Students*

The importance of a team leader who supported innovation and creativity was a recurrent theme across the participants' experiences, principally openness to using and finding new technology and resources for engaging gifted students in the online space. This was evident in the openness to new ideas which Heather (as LOS manager) held for her teaching team:

*"As a leader, you have to ask [when a teacher approaches with an idea]. You can't just say, no* ... *'Why have you got that idea?' Then, often, you'll get a really surprising answer [from the LODT]. You think, well, actually, yes, that's a worthwhile thing. So, we have a lot of negotiation in the team about how some people work this way, some people work another way. If you've got a proposal, come to me. We'll try and work it out. 'Make me understand why you think it's a good idea'."*

#### *4.3. Theme 3: Leveraging the Unique Skills of the Specialist Teaching Team for Teaching Gifted Students*

There was considerable agreement from participants that a key capability of a team leader for their context was around online teaching practices, developing different thinking routines for gifted students, and being competent in recognising the unique expertise of the LODTs in their specialist teaching areas. Heather (LOS manager) exemplified this when she stated:

*"Sometimes* ... *we're looking within the team [for new ideas]* ... *there's usually an answer there* ... *There's a Team's chat, now. They're in there every day. Someone's [an LODT has] got a new problem. Then, other people [LODTs] are saying, 'Well, have you tried this?' 'Have you looked at that website?'* ... *They're sharing. I don't go in there a lot, because I don't want to be checking on them. So, I just let the conversation run."*

#### *4.4. Theme 4: Actively Facilitating and Encouraging (Re)Engagement of Gifted Students through Online Participation*

Heather and the LODTs all emphasised the importance of student engagement, which emerged predominantly in the form of active participation in online class learning activities. Heather described how this was evident for courses offered by LOS as follows:

*"We'd say healthy participation in the course is an hour to two hours a week* ... *So, [students are] putting up [their] ideas and responding to someone else's idea. So, that would be healthy participation in that course. That you're on every week. You've been on for about an hour. You've left a comment yourself and commented against something a few other people have said. Some of the courses give reward badges for those things* ... *We also ask students to review other students' work or comment on their work, like a peer review. Some courses show students the learning material. Then, they have to go offline and do some art or make something in a STEM challenge or code their robot to do something. So, their good online engagement might be sending in a video or uploading a photo of something they've done with some notes."*

#### *4.5. Theme 5: Follow-through to Meet the Needs and Concerns of the Specialist Teaching Team, Gifted Students, and their Parents/Carers*

Heather as team leader was often responsible for following up on student engagement (e.g., active participation), but individual teachers also took responsibility for this role. Engagement was also important to students in the online courses; for example, one student had contacted Heather to voice her concern that, although her classroom teacher had enrolled her in LOS, she had not been provided with time to engage with the course. This presented Heather with an opportunity to follow up and advocate with the classroom teacher on behalf of the gifted student. Other examples of monitoring engagement arose from the assigned school support teacher and parents/carers, as Heather explained:

*"Sometimes I've been to schools where things are not going right. The parents got angry. But the parent didn't even know their child was in this course [at LOS]. That really came to light last year when kids went to learning from home [due to COVID]. Because the one thing they did have straight away, on day one, for being at home, was these [LOS] courses. The parents said, 'What's that? How often do you do that?' My staff were getting emails from parents saying, 'I've just discovered Jack's got coding. I can see he hasn't done very much'. So, it was really powerful. The parent needs to know, as well."*

#### **5. Discussion**

To date, little research has examined the leadership practices and characteristics that enable and empower teachers to support the learning and engagement of gifted students [14]. Even less is known about educator leadership practices for supporting teachers of gifted and talented students in an online learning environment. Therefore, the present study explored important key educator leadership practices needed for positively supporting and engaging gifted and talented students in online learning environments. Five key educator leadership practices for supporting specialist teachers and students in gifted online learning environments were identified. These practices offer promise for creating collaborative and collegial workplaces for teachers while resulting in engaging

online learning experiences for gifted students, therefore both teachers and students feel part of a learning community.

It is essential that a team leader of specialist educators of gifted students understands who gifted learners are, knows how they learn, and understands the evolving nature of online learning environments. It was critical that the team leader had the capability to carefully listen to and respond positively and seamlessly to the teaching team. Attentive listening practices are reported to help build the foundation of collegial relationships and the exchange of ideas between gifted teachers [23]. This was because the online gifted teachers needed to feel confident that any decisions that were being made by management were central to meeting the core needs of themselves as teachers and their gifted students.

Having a leader who is open to new ideas, application of innovative online learning tools, and creative resources allowed teachers to have an autonomous and flexible approach to their program planning and online course design and development. Trusting and offering members of the teaching team voice and agency to take academic risks and try out new online applications, interactive activities, and project-based learning activities was strongly emphasised by the teachers in the current study. Such an approach has also been highlighted in previous research (e.g., [10]).

The teachers in the gifted education team were selected for their roles because of their knowledge and passion about both their content area expertise and supporting the unique needs of gifted students. These passions were closely associated with specialist training and qualifications that all of the teachers brought to their roles. It was clear that the team leader strategically harnessed these unique skills so that there was diversity in teaching approaches, which, in turn facilitated greater sharing and collaboration of online teaching ideas and resources. The team leader placed a strong emphasis on capitalising on the strengths of each team member as active contributors to the gifted online education program. Such collaboration and collective leadership approaches have also been described by Harris and Muijs [1].

On occassion, the teachers experienced some barriers to student participation in the online activities due to reasons such as limited time provided to them in their school classroom and minimal support and guidance some students received from their regular classroom teachers. A team leader who is flexible and proactive in readily facilitating teachers and schools in supporting their gifted students was shown to be essential for student engagement, for example, by providing flexibility to fit in with a student's regular class timetable while ensuring time was allocated for students to participate in their online gifted courses; and following up when learning and engagement problems arose. Such an approach can also help and motivate gifted students to engage and participate more regularly in their online learning activities.

Indeed, within any educational system, complex networks, relationships, curriculum priorities, and various views from key stakeholders (e.g., parents/carers, teachers, and students) arise. Unsurprisingly, issues and concerns occur daily, and it is important for a team leader in gifted education to act as an empathetic problem solver who cares about people and is also able to build and maintain positive relationships. This finding concurs with other researchers [9,11,14]. Other elements of transformational leadership also emerged from the findings. This was evinced by how Heather as team leader was able to facilitate innovative and creative practices for her teachers working in the online context, where the teachers reported improved overall performance for LOS and educational outcomes for their gifted students. According to Anderson [9], transformational leadership in education stresses the importance of teacher learning, establishing new ways of thinking, and tackling established norms in educational contexts to transform school culture.

#### **6. Limitations**

The primary limitation of this case study relates to the small participant number which does not allow generalisations of the findings to be made. Nevertheless, the qualitative responses from the gifted educators provide an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under exploration, in this case, educational leadership for specialist teachers of gifted students in an online context. A further limitation is the study's focus on the leadership of specialist online gifted education teachers practicing in an online school and delivering courses solely online. This suggests that the findings may not be applicable in other educational contexts, such as face-to-face gifted education settings. Nonetheless, the findings may still have important implications for informing gifted education leadership practices in other contexts, especially within the ongoing COVID-19 landscape that is impacting greatly on educators around the world with school lockdowns and increasing use of online learning activities.

Additionally, prior research studies on the topic of educational leadership for gifted education teachers are limited. This presents a possible limitation in terms of the need to develop a novel research typology for this phenomenon in terms of connecting to descriptions of differing leadership behaviours and qualities. However, this study presents useful findings for moving the field forward and for highlighting that further research is required.

#### **7. Recommendations and Implications for Theory, Practice, Future Research, and Policy**

Recommendations from the current study relate quite specifically to how educational leaders (in online contexts in particular), need to work as a collaborative team, moving in the same direction to benefit their gifted students—a team in which collegiality and respect for teachers' expert knowledge are both recognised and valued. It is imperative that team leaders foster strong collegial connections with their teachers, between teachers, and between teachers and their gifted students. This is particularly important in online contexts, where teachers (and their gifted students) may be working in relative isolation.

The foundations to facilitating online learning experiences for engaging gifted students were found to be based on trust, provision of space and time for innovation and creativity, leveraging teacher skill, passion, and expertise, and following through on issues when and as they arose through open and responsive leadership practices. Developing and providing ongoing opportunities for building trust, as well as sharing skills, resources, and specific innovative practices, are strongly recommended in developing collaborative teaching teams for online gifted education environments.

As there is little empirical research that specifically explores the leadership practices and characteristics that enable and empower teachers to support the learning and engagement of gifted students, further research is needed. Effective engagement and learning depend greatly on how content is delivered, and how teachers are actually engaging and working with gifted students. This is difficult to explore in asynchronous learning contexts. However, differing methodologies could potentially be employed to explore what may be happening in classrooms where a number of students could conceivably be working synchronously in online gifted programs. For example, observing the delivery of online gifted classes in action over a longer time period (e.g., a school semester) and examining impacts on student learning outcomes and how teacher leadership practices may have impacted on these outcomes. This may assist in demonstrating how gifted students engage with, and respond to, the content, and how it is being taught, and furthermore, how specific leadership practices of teachers can have positive effects on gifted students actualising their potential. Future research that explores teacher leadership (e.g., transactional leadership) and the specific content areas of online courses could provide deeper insights for teachers about ways to further enhance gifted student learning and engagement.

Implications for policy from this study, relate to the need of mainstream classroom teachers to receive increased support in delivering engaging content and learning activities for gifted students. In Australia, in particular, there are no mandated requirements for teachers to be trained in understanding or supporting the needs of gifted students and as a result gifted eductation is not seen as a priority. This study suggests that there is an immense (relatively) unmet need at the ground level, for engaging learning opportunities on a daily basis for gifted students, and that at present, teachers are struggling to meet in regular face to face classrooms. Therefore, we would strongly recommend that all classroom teachers engage in continued professional development in the field of gifted education. Also that support gifted students and the practices of online schools, such as Lake Online School, be expanded to support urban, regional, rural, and remote gifted students to have access to quality gifted education every day. Furthermore, we would strongly recommend that Australian education jurisdictions make it a key priority to mandate teacher training (and preservice teacher education) in gifted education, to support the obvious learning needs of both classroom teachers and their gifted students.

#### **8. Conclusions**

The findings of this study extend previous research to better understand ways to enhance gifted education leadership practices in online gifted education contexts for supporting and engaging gifted learners. Professional learning opportunities should be given to leaders for developing practices that deepen practioner understanding of the requirements of leading a gifted online school. As this study demonstrated, leadership qualities that promote teacher innovation and creativity for engaging gifted students are essential. Harnessing the multiple unique skills and expertise of passionate gifted education teachers will strengthen the engagement of gifted students, especially those at risk of underachieving and disengaging from their learning. During the ongoing disruptive landscape of the global COVID-19 pandemic, educators in gifted online schools and programs are best placed to listen and act through sensitive and thoughtful ways to address potential concerns of stakeholders (e.g., teachers, students, parents/carers). Genuine multi-way communication is key to building and maintaining strong relationships. These research findings related to transformational approaches to gifted education leadership will assist in ensuring that educators of gifted students feel confident to overcome challenges that arise, and ultimately, provide positive engaging learning experiences for gifted students to reach their full potential.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.R.-P. and M.M.N.; Formal analysis, M.R.-P. and M.M.N.; Funding acquisition, M.R.-P. and M.M.N.; Investigation, M.R.-P. and M.M.N.; Methodology, M.R.-P. and M.M.N.; Project administration, M.R.-P.; Writing—original draft, M.R.-P. and M.M.N.; Writing review & editing, M.R.-P. and M.M.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by a Griffith University, Arts, Education and Law Group Research Development Grant (ERC2020).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007), and approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Review Committee (GU Ref No: 2020/949, 27 April 2021).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** No publicly available datasets were analysed or generated during this study. These data are not publicly available due to authors'/researchers' use of the datasets for further analysis and dissemination. A summary of data presented in this study may be made available on request from the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University; the Griffith Institute for Educational Research (GIER); and, also acknowledge the research grant support provided by the Arts, Education and Law Group, Griffith University, Australia. The authors would also like to acknowledge the participants from LOS for their generous time in participating in this tudy.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**


## *Article* **Context Matters in Gifted Education**

**Bruce M. Shore**

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada; bruce.m.shore@mcgill.ca

**Abstract:** Bruce M. Shore's research contributions in gifted education have focused on three contexts that impact how giftedness is understood and the instructional environments that serve gifted learners' educational needs. This article describes these contributions and provides selected examples plus a more complete Supplemental Online bibliography. First, giftedness benefits from being conceptualized in terms of theories that address the development of expertise. Featured expert– gifted parallels include interconnectedness of knowledge, metacognitive processes, perspective taking, active learner roles, affinity for novelty and complexity, and task representation and planning. Illustrative research is described from preschool age through higher education, including connections to creativity research. Second, gifted education benefits when guided by social-constructivist theory of education and its expression in inquiry-based instruction. Examples include building upon learner interests, question asking, collaborative inquiry, and active learner roles. Desirable specific instructional practices are framed by the above theories and by being considered in the contexts of widely recommended and best practices with their research support. Third, gifted education, at all levels including higher education and teacher education, needs to be an integral part of the context of general education. Most specific gifted education practices also work in general education, including learning high-level skills within subject matter. Nineteen examples are cited about how gifted education contributes to the quality of general education.

**Keywords:** giftedness; context; theory; expertise; social constructivism; inquiry; evidence; instruction

Contributors to this Special Issue of *Education Sciences* were invited to describe how our work contributed to the theme, New Perspectives on Cultivating Creativity, Giftedness, and Leadership. My short reply, the focus of this article, is "context matters". I intentionally used the word "matters" as both verb and noun. Context is important and these are but a few examples.

With invaluable contributions by my graduate students and other collaborators, my research on giftedness has contributed to three contexts in which giftedness is addressed: (a) theories that guide our understanding of the cognitive and social-motivational nature of giftedness and provide an aligned overall instructional framework, (b) evidence-based specific instructional practices, and (c) situating gifted education within general education.

Isolating these three interrelated contexts is artificial but valuable to better understanding each. The details below include examples of evidence we contributed (see the Supplementary Materials for this article for a complete bibliography) and selections from that of others. In addition to these three contexts about which I take the position of an observer, the perspective from which I and my coresearchers have made these observations is relevant. I work in a Western country that is nonetheless highly multicultural both internally with multiple Indigenous nations and also has an official bilingual (English-French) and multicultural policy. The university at which this work was conducted enrolls students from over 170 countries. The initial psychological lens through which I have observed educational theory and practice is social-constructivist (as described below), and the assumptions explicit in this approach sometimes challenge norms elsewhere. Key examples arise in the roles of students and instructors. The assertion for example, that learning is more effective in active-learning situations in which learners explain key ideas to each

**Citation:** Shore, B.M. Context Matters in Gifted Education. *Educ. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 424. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci11080424

Academic Editor: Dorothy Sisk

Received: 9 July 2021 Accepted: 9 August 2021 Published: 11 August 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

other as part of their own learning, that learners should ask questions beyond clarification (a challenge to accepted authority in some situations), and that learners' interests should play a part in curriculum design, can conflict with other views. Another potentially culturerelated assertion might be that gifted learners do not necessarily prefer to work alone. At the same time, international comparisons to which this article refers briefly, found that jurisdictions in countries (or parts of countries) as diverse as Finland, Canada, China, and Singapore have implemented social-constructivist pedagogical regimes to positive effect. To explore these particular applications is beyond the scope of this article, but indeed the research reported has emerged from within its own context. In the bibliography are several works that are especially sensitive to this reality (e.g., [1–4]). Indeed, context matters.

#### **1. Theory Context Matters**

Two theories are essential to contemporary understanding of giftedness and providing appropriate curricular experiences: (a) expertise and (b) social-constructivist instruction theory, including inquiry-based teaching and learning. Neither theory is specifically about giftedness.

#### *1.1. Contributions to the Context of Theories about the Nature of Abilities*

Since the 1980s, several scholars have promoted the idea that giftedness should be regarded as evolving expertise (e.g., [5–9]). The underlying idea is that the highest levels of cognitive and creative performance are achieved by experts in various fields of endeavor. Like expertise, giftedness embraces a complex set of evolving cognitive, social, and motivational skills and dispositions. These abilities and dispositions can, to an important degree, be learned at home [1], school, and beyond. Creativity falls within this general framework; for example, practicing with intentional variation rather than reproducible perfection aids creative performance, the ability to recover seamlessly from an error [10], and perhaps flexibly invoking new strategies when challenged rather than floundering unsystematically [11–14]. Six ways experts think differently from others, and gifted persons' performance resembles that of experts, to which we have provided evidence include the following (see [15] for a longer list).

#### 1.1.1. Nature of Knowledge

Experts have more extensive specialized knowledge, they better connect different parts of this knowledge and accurately explain these connections [16,17], as in concept maps. Experts and able students link more concepts and can explain the connections. They see less-obvious interconnections and, like experts who better categorize problems into meaningful groups that make suitable solutions more accessible, more able learners also create hierarchical clusters of related ideas [18].

#### 1.1.2. Metacognition

Experts use metacognition in problem solving. They think ahead, evaluate their progress, and change approach if needed. Metacognition is an important part of Self-Regulated Learning [19]. In the classic task of combining different-sized jars of water to make a new volume, several examples in a row need three different-sized jars, but then a problem can be solved with two or three, then several only with two. More capable learners switched to the two-jar solution when it was optional and made fewer errors when it was required [20]. Children with dual exceptionalities also more often use expert-like cognitive skills when given the chance [21,22].

#### 1.1.3. Perspective Taking

Experts can easily take another person's perspective. Even preschoolers can more readily tell that another child's view of a toy barnyard would be different from their own [23]. The ability extends to taking on another person's role in a learning situation [24] and friendship sustainability in adolescence [25].

#### 1.1.4. Interests and Roles

Experts find and invent problems for themselves and others, another link to creativity. Type III activities in Renzulli's Enrichment Triad Model [26] are an example; individuals or small groups investigate real problems in which they are interested; adults can promote these interests. Evidence of classroom inquiry is students and teachers taking on new roles. One study reported three months of in-class observation of two groups of upper-elementary students engaged in collaborative inquiry [27]. Of almost 50 observed roles, only asking questions was universally shared by teachers and learners. Other frequent student roles included responding to others' questions, being an information finder, connecting knowledge, planning investigations, critical thinking, and being a source of knowledge. Key in all forms of active learning, including higher education [28], is students engaging in the role of explainer to the teacher and especially to other learners [29].

#### 1.1.5. Novelty and Complexity

Experts know that important problems rarely have simple solutions. Like creative people [30–32], they enjoy novel and complex situations, adding complexity, and redefining problems to align with their own perspectives [33]. Gifted students asked to improve a computer game they were playing sought more difficulty levels and greater complexity [34].

#### 1.1.6. Task Representation and Solution Planning

Experts can represent a problem in more than one way [35]. Gifted learners can also see multiple ways to approach a task [12]. We also found this strategy flexibility on a perceptual task [13,14]—students used their verbal or spatial strengths; able high school mathematics students did, too [15]. Gifted learners spend relatively more time exploring problems before carrying out the solution on which other learners take longer [36]; experts also take longer pauses when they gather relevant information they need to work on a problem.

#### *1.2. Contributions to the Context of Theories about Instruction*

Our comparative portrayal of experts and gifted learners [15] also noted becoming quick and automatic on basic processes so they can focus on main topics, being goal driven, and separating good from irrelevant evidence. These are also central to doing inquiry, our next topic.

Social-constructivist, inquiry-driven instruction closely complements an expertisebased view of giftedness. Social constructivism refers to Vygotsky's two main ideas [37]: Learners construct their own meaning in social interaction with more knowledgeable peers and adults, especially through dialogue, such as learners explaining ideas to each other. Inquiry-based instruction is based on social-constructivism [29,38,39]; gifted learners thrive in inquiry [40]. Systems that implemented inquiry curricula rank high in international comparisons of achievement [3]. Through interests, inquiry engages motivational and cognitive properties of expertise. Like experts, gifted learners more often experience flow [41], being deeply in a zone of concentrated, extended attention in their favorite areas of activity [42].

Social constructivism connects cognitive and social-emotional variables. In addition to addressing cognitive or academic qualities of inquiry-based instruction and learning, we have contributed to updated understanding of three interrelated social-emotional variables that aid understanding high ability and the success of inquiry implementation:

#### 1.2.1. No Universal Preference to Work Alone

Contrary to decades of misrepresentation [43] and largely ignoring the learning context [44], gifted learners do not always prefer to work alone. We surveyed 247 schoolidentified Grades 4 to 7 gifted learners about ideal learning situations and when and why they prefer to work alone [45]. Those who felt their contributions were valued by teachers and fellow students most strongly preferred to work with others. Our subsequent

survey [46] revealed other context variables, such as high- versus low-stakes tasks, who was grading the work, and how groups were formed. Gifted learners want input about with whom they work. They care that coworkers contribute a fair share of the effort and work, fully discuss the goals—even if it takes a lot of time, and not be "free riders" [47]. In extended interviews, we asked high-achieving and other students what they expected would actually occur when teachers tell them they would engage in group work. Both expected their teachers to be sitting at their desks. High performers expected to work harder in groups, a greater number of negative social experiences, and to work together rather than divide the task into parts [48].

#### 1.2.2. Working with Friends Can Be Positive

In our three-month observation of inquiry in two classrooms, students who were friends functioned better over time than a group created for the task [27]. Friends collaborating works with a rule to leave out no student. Friendship groups of gifted learners better withstand events that might upset others, for example, friendly arguing, sticking to their positions during arguments [49], and competition based on task mastery—not winning and losing [50]. Group work virtually guarantees difficult social moments [51], but promoting active listening and turn-taking, for example, can help effective classroom collaborative inquiry [29].

#### 1.2.3. Gifted Students' Friendships Are Somewhat Distinctive

Rather than having fewer friends or being socially isolated, gifted students seem to structure their friendships differently, perhaps because they can have intense and unusual interests [52]. Although they report fewer positive qualities in specific friendships [51], they appear to have different friends for different needs. High-quality gifted friendships were predicted by social-perspective coordination and simply having a close personal friend [25]. Less able students seem to expect support on many common dimensions from most of their friends. More able students support each friendship with a smaller number of pillars, perhaps only one, and simply need fewer friends to feel cared for and supported [53]. In inquiry, depending on the task, they might want to have a different friend working closely with them.

#### **2. Practice Context Matters**

Practice in gifted education needs to be aligned with the theoretical contexts for understanding the nature of giftedness and instruction. My work has contributed in two ways to the choices we make in designing and implementing teaching, learning, and evaluation: (a) identifying overall best practices in gifted education based on the quality of research evidence, and (b) supporting specific practices that arise from interest in inquiry-based instruction.

#### *2.1. Identifying Best Practices*

In *Recommended Practices in Gifted Education: A Critical Analysis* [54], we extracted 101 specific practices from 100 books on gifted education. We then sought research evidence for each practices and summarized what was known, defensible, and worthy of further study. We chose textbooks as the knowledge base because they were more likely to give teaching and curricular advice than scientific journal articles, and the Internet as a source of the latter was not yet highly developed. Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of research on IQ in identification; but research is not an election and, although IQ-test use was frequently recommended, the need to better align identification practices with emerging new theories was already evident. The state of research in support for many practices was weak and remained so over the next 15 years [55].

The next effort [40] used a Delphi approach by a panel of 14 experts in the field identified 29 specific practices that had varying degrees of research support. The resulting work was *Best Practices in Gifted Education: An Evidence-Based Guide*.

Especially in their focus on evaluating support for particular practices, and being targeted to practitioners, both contributions differ from the many yearbooks, handbooks, guides, and encyclopedias of giftedness and gifted education The latter gather known research on the widest range of giftedness topics or on a theme. Examples that include our contributions are *Creative Intelligence: Toward Theoretic Integration* [56], the *International Handbook on Giftedness* [57], *The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education* [58], *Critical Issues and Practices in gifted Education: What the Research Says* (2nd ed.) [59], the *APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent* [60], and *The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education* [61].

#### *2.2. Specific Pedagogical Practices*

Here are four examples of evidence for practices arising from our theoretical foci.

#### 2.2.1. Goal Setting

Expert behavior is goal driven; goal setting is important, even if goals change. Gifted learners in collaborative contexts want to discuss goals up-front ([46]. Morisano studied undergraduates in a university with extremely high entering grades [62]. She identified students whose grades slipped and engaged an experimental subgroup in a very brief exercise of writing down any personal goals. A control group wrote about neutral topics. The experimental group's grades rebounded and the recovery was sustained the following semester. We also explored the potential of this approach to help gifted underachievers [63]. Enabling engagement in goal setting helps students plan ahead about strategies to use in the task, and sharing responsibilities.

#### 2.2.2. Group Work Guidelines

Group work benefits from several specific actions. Excluding no classmates, students should participate in deciding with whom they work [27,46]. The teacher should actively circulate, oversee and assist the process when it stumbles [48]. Whereas most students expect to do a part of the total task, high achieving learners anticipate working as a group collaboratively rather than just cooperatively, on a considerable part of the task. The group work process should therefore schedule in opportunities for the work groups to discuss their goals, progress toward their goals, each others' contributions, and a fair distribution of effort and contributions to the final product. In a survey of parents and teachers, teachers were more favorable to group work than parents [64]. We wondered if parents were sensitive to the same concern about their children's exceptional performance being undervalued. The added value of group work needs to be discussed openly with students and their parents, not just about learning collaborative skills, but the deeper learning that occurs when students expand their repertoire of roles, for example, asking questions, explaining, and offering evidence for statements.

#### 2.2.3. Knowledge Fairs and Integrity

A learning experience that can be done individually or in groups is knowledge fairs. We casually asked participants in a regional science fair where they got their project ideas and how they did them. Several students revealed that the ideas came from books or parents (understandably) but they did not actually do the work they were exhibiting. Did they cheat? We then systematically surveyed science fair participants [65]. Five of 24 students, all of whom were required to participate, openly admitted that they did not fully do the work they were presenting. We then did a second survey to ask why, and what was missing so that they could have presented their own honest work. The main reasons they gave were lack of time and support. Cheaters received more help from parents than teachers, and only one from another student. They would especially have liked more help coming up with and shaping the idea, and setting up the project. Cheaters and noncheaters both reported the three greatest obstacles to be pressure to do the project, disappointment along the way, and coming up with project ideas. All the projects were

undertaken individually. We extended the study to academic scientists, graduate students, and elementary and secondary school students who voluntarily or compulsorily entered a science fair [39]. Graduate students, scientists, and voluntary participants were interested in the topics and self-motivated. Others were mostly assigned their topics. Voluntary projects evolved over time, often becoming more complex. The greatest obstacles were lack of time, knowledge, and resources. The students who were required to participate did not prepare their projects with an authentic audience in mind (as proposed in Renzulli's Type III activities [26]). The obstacles resembled those reported by professional adults who have been caught cheating. For knowledge fairs to succeed, the following advice emerges: give students opportunities to develop interests (Renzulli's Type I activities are one way), extensively discuss goals at the beginning, explain the work in stages so students can assess their own progress, allow enough time to complete the work, encourage working in groups including a trusted friend, have students "ask another student first" and give each other feedback at each stage of the work, closely monitor progress not just at the end. All this advice overlaps with the requirements of inquiry.

#### *2.3. Identification by Provision*

In our summer gifted program, identification is by provision—offer the program and suitable students will come. A local school district asked us to operate a similar program for them for two years. They would identify students on IQ and related criteria. We obtained approvals to compare the students on aptitude, social, and achievement measures [66,67]. Only one differed statistically significantly: Our group was higher on the Torrance divergent figural subtest [68]. There were no significant differences on self concept (both high), IQ (both in the 120 s), or other measures. Although this study was of a summer, not regular, school, and there were other constraints, it mildly supported our preference to invest in programming first [69]. Most tests do not inform teachers about abilities in ways related to contemporary theories of learning and instruction and perhaps their use should be selective and inclusive—focused on giftedness rather than who is gifted.

#### **3. General-Education Context Matters**

Conceptually and politically, gifted education needs to be contextualized as an integral part of general education (including higher and teacher education), not as a separate discipline [70].

#### *Situating Gifted Education within Regular Education*

Because an approach works well in gifted education does not usually mean it is less relevant elsewhere. Decades of publications have shown the educational value for gifted learners of curricula that incorporate student interests, individual and small-group investigations, and other inquiry-based approaches. However, in international comparisons, these are in general curricula in the highest performing general school curricula [3]. Just five practices from the 101 in *Recommended Practices in Gifted Education* [54] might be uniquely applicable in gifted education: acceleration, some career education, program organization addressing certain socio-affective outcomes, ability grouping, and using high- and abovelevel curricular materials [71]. In addition, learning is enhanced in disciplinary context. For example, "thinking skills" in isolation do not transfer to new tasks as well as those learned in subject areas [72].

The theme of the Fourth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children [4] was Education of the Gifted for the Benefit of All Children. In the Parallel Curriculum Model [73], the first foundation stone of excellent gifted programming is a strong general curriculum. A volume commissioned by UNESCO, specifically connecting gifted, regular, and special education, documented 19 examples of direct contributions from gifted education to the field at large [2], recategorized here in relation to the three main domains described in this article (see Table 1).


**Table 1.** Nineteen Ways Gifted Education Contributes to the Quality of General Education.

Despite these examples of practices in gifted education that also enhance general education, plus the parallel applicability of contemporary theories about expertise development and social-constructivist pedagogy, the goal of uniting gifted and regular education remains rather aspirational. The two are not yet well synchronized [74], as also shown by the continuing struggles to serve gifted learners either in the classroom or in complementary services such as counseling or school psychology [75].

#### **4. Conclusions**

My contribution to the field has been to provide evidence that (a) giftedness and gifted education should be contextualized within theories of the development of the cognitive, social, and emotional characteristics of expertise, (b) social-constructivist and inquirybased instructional theories should guide practice, (c) specific instructional practices can be especially applicable to gifted education but are not necessarily uniquely so, and (d) gifted education needs to be an integral part of general education to thrive.

These contributions are consistent with the overall direction of contemporary scholarly argument about giftedness and gifted education. In practice, the ubiquity of high IQ and achievement scores as criteria for receiving gifted education services—emphasizing acceleration and more advanced materials as the most defensible matches—emerges as a possible area of conflict. However, it is also possible to not toss the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Giftedness is not a singular phenomenon. If we conceptualize giftedness differently and in multiple ways, then we need multiple ways to identify gifted learners differently. This also has implications for what gifted education can be—with less emphasis on more knowledge more quickly and more emphasis on interests, asking important questions, and collaborative knowledge creation, in pedagogically, socially, and emotionally supportive ways.

I have a parallel research interest in successful teaching and learning in higher education. Gifted and higher education are both concerned with student engagement, high-level learning, creating knowledge, and intellectual and creative leadership. The populations of postsecondary students and students needing gifted education considerably overlap. Additional sources on this topic are provided in the Supplementary Online Material linked to this article.

**Supplementary Materials:** A full bibliography of the author's related publications is available at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci11080424/s1.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


## *Article* **Organic Creativity for 21st Century Skills †**

**Jane Piirto**

College of Education, Ashland University, Ashland, OH 44805, USA; jpiirto@ashland.edu

† This article summarizes a keynote talk I gave at the 2017 World Conference for the Gifted and Talented, in Sydney, Australia (Piirto, 2017).

**Abstract:** This article contains 15 "takeaways" about how to teach organic creativity, from actual teachers with several hundred total years of experience. Teachers of English, physics, Advanced Placement Calculus, science, theater, the visual arts, dance, school administration, school counseling, educational psychology professing, world languages, mathematics, the education of the gifted and talented, social studies, music, and elementary education describe their strategies for teaching for intuition, imagination, insight, imagery, risk-taking, openness to experience, feeding back, improvisation, and other aspects of creativity that arise from the subject matter.

**Keywords:** organic creativity; creativity; teaching for creativity; creative teachers

#### **1. Introduction**

Often, how-to-teach advice is given by persons who have little or no experience in the classroom with real, live children and adolescents. The writers, often professors, may have taught in a K-18 classroom many years ago, but only for a few years, before they received their higher degrees, entered the education departments and psychology departments, and did not remain in touch with the academic field in which they taught. As the editor of the *Organic Creativity* book, I asked academic specialists who were also pedagogy specialists how they taught creativity while also teaching subject matter. This article summarizes their thoughts on how to teach intuitively in the academic and arts classroom.

Creativity can be taught and nurtured, and we can build classrooms in which creativity thrives. Twenty-three educators with over 500 combined years of classroom experience in K-18 discussed how they used the Eight I's (intuition, inspiration, insight, improvisation, incubation, imagery, imagination, and intentionality), the Five Core Attitudes (group trust, risk-taking, openness to experience, self-discipline, and tolerance for ambiguity), and General Practices for Creativity (ritual, exercise, a decision to live a creative life). I have developed the The Five Core Attitudes, Eight I's, and General Practices for Creativity and based them on the practices of creators, which I have explicated in articles (cf. Piirto, 2009, 2016) and in my book [1]. These 23 educators taught literature, mathematics, social science, science, physics, foreign language, theatre, visual arts, songwriting, dance, music, arts education, educational psychology, gifted education, school counseling, and school administration.

What is Organic Creativity? I coined this term, which some of my colleagues have viewed with humor. By "organic", I mean creativity that arises from within, with or without intention, as part of the whole. It is unforced, spontaneous, free, pure, living, and animate. Most people think being creative means being in the arts and they say, "I am not creative". This is a misconception. All people are creative. The working definition of creativity which I have used since I wrote my first book on creativity [2]. is this simple dictionary definition: "Creativity is a basic human need to make new" (p. 2). While creativity is the natural propensity of human being-ness, creativity can be enhanced and also stifled. The creative personality can be developed and also thwarted. What is unnatural and sad is for creativity to be repressed, suppressed, and stymied through the process of growing up and being educated. Creativity takes certain habits of mind.

**Citation:** Piirto, J. Organic Creativity for 21st Century Skills. *Educ. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 680. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci11110680

Academic Editor: Dorothy Sisk

Received: 29 August 2021 Accepted: 13 October 2021 Published: 25 October 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

What I have gleaned about the creative process has been learned through my research method, which is a qualitative biographical approach. I have read over 1000 biographies of creators deemed worthy of having a book written about them and noted how they describe their creative processes. However, I have also read nonscholarly biographies, which include puff pieces, autobiographies, memoirs, and interviews. For example, each issue of the literary journal, *The Paris Review*, includes a lengthy interview of a writer. Many of these interviews were cited in my book about creativity in writers [3] My and these themes were gleaned. For example, in the 1967 interview of poet Anne Sexton, (1928–1974) she was quoted as saying:

Hell, I am undisciplined too, in everything but my work ... and the discipline, the reworking, the forgeing into being is the stuff of poetry ... the original impulse is only that ... and perhaps poets get that as a gift. However, it is what you do with the gift that makes the difference. Everyone in the world seems to be writing poems ... but only a few climb into the sky. What you sent shows you COULD climb there if you pounded it into your head that you must work and rework these uncut diamonds of yours.

[4]

I coded this as an example of the core attitude of self-discipline.

In conceiving the book on organic creativity [5], I considered teaching as a creative domain. I asked 23 creative teachers to write personal essays of about 6000 words on how they teach their academic disciplines creatively. One of the criteria for choosing these people was (1) that they had expertise in the academic subjects they taught—for example, they had undergraduate majors and in many cases, graduate degrees in the subjects; and (2) they had years of experience teaching. After compiling the book, I recapitulated its themes, cross-coding among the teachers' personal essays about how they teach creativity; here are 15 takeaways from their insights.

#### **2. Takeaways from the Personal Essays of Creative Teachers**

*2.1. Teachers Should Resist the Current Climate of Multiple-Choice Assessment, Single-Target Standards*

Peppercorn [6], spoke about the pressure of meeting such standards. He related that creatively in the subject of social studies was extremely important, as students and teachers were subjected to rigid assessments were demoralizing. He related that schools were not businesses, and that "the MBA-ification of schools is interfering with teachers' ability to inspire their students, help them discover their talents and interests, and let them showcase their creativity" ([6], p. 34). The current and recent past emphasis on standardized testing has put the focus on narrow right and wrong answers, and "we're losing sight of the importance of developing students' creative thinking skills, and we're killing students' intellectual curiosity and love of learning. "Peppercorn argued that academic skills such as critical thinking were important. Students should also be helped in discovering what their strengths are, and teachers and schools should "give them opportunities to be imaginative".

Groman [7], who is now a professor of the education of the talented, found her years of classroom teaching often heartbreaking, being required to check off testing standards instead of teaching with joy and creative energy:

I found that life as a teacher of the gifted is very difficult. Heartbreaking, even. Now when I hear stories of the breaking hearts of teachers around me and the questions my young teachers-to-be ask about the difficulties of the profession, I think back to these days ... I saw the slow, steady movement toward standardization with the No Child Left Behind and the standards-based legislation and at the same time was aware that teaching could be different—deeper, and more soulful.

([7], p. 273)

She said that her creative work as a jazz singer and singer-songwriter was necessary for her sanity: "I had an outlet for expression when I was frustrated, sorrowful, and ready to give up. I had a connection to like-minded individuals that bolstered me" ([7], p. 273).

#### *2.2. Teachers Should Know Their Students' Strengths and Teach to Their Strengths*

Nicoll [8] experienced a teaching breakthrough while teaching choreography and dance. She noted that most such classes were very directive, with the choreographer being the leader and boss, imposing the patterns upon the company. Once a 9-year-old student asked her, "When do we get to dance?". This comment moved Nicoll to reflect on her teaching. To make space for students' creativity, teachers sometimes need to move aside, even when students request more help. In her essay, Nicoll [8] described how making space for students' intuition and creativity can be one of the most challenging and essential tasks undertaken by any teacher. Her question for herself was this: "What is the least I can do that will help students discover their own powers as artists?" ([8], p. 109). Nicoll likened her teaching to being a cairn, a wilderness marker on a hiking trail. Instead of freeing her from overplanning her classes, her insight led her to more planning:

Planning became a more intensive process. I spent hours imagining every student and digging around in my memory for what I heard and saw in their dancing. I started hauling notebook and pen around the studio with me, scribbling notes about what students were doing, what questions they asked each other, what thoughts they expressed. Studying the notes later, I asked myself questions. When did this or that student get excited? What did he or she say, or was she mostly silent? To whom should I pay special attention so I would catch that little smile or glimmer in the eye ... My goal: to pay very close attention and turn the students on to themselves.

([8], p. 114)

#### *2.3. The Teacher Should Teach Improvisationally; That Is, the Lesson Can Be Changed when the Situation Changes*

As an example of teaching improvisationally, Kettler and Sanguras [9] developed a method for teaching literature that utilized four pedagogical strategies. One of these strategies was "disciplined improvisation" ([9], p. 14) which encouraged students to perform their favorite works with verve and emotion. Second is the "centrality of imagination", which encouraged students to engage with fantasy and to interpret literature using a "what if" strategy:

Depending on their personal experiences and worldviews, perhaps they envision an absentee father, or a series of academic failures, or even a chemical imbalance. The product students create (i.e., an essay, a scrapbook, a series of Facebook posts) is secondary to the true purpose: melding life experiences and imagination to create deep, personal meaning of literature.

([9], p. 9)

Snowber [10] also advocated that teachers be willing to "see what happens" and to enter the classroom willing to improvise: "I may come in with a lesson plan, but I may find out that day that there was a huge tragedy, and the only way the class could bear this" is to write or move honoring the grief and loss" ([10], p. 257). Snowber called this "the emergent curriculum". The teacher must be open, fluent, and aware of the textures of creativity. "I am more interested in what I do not know than what I know" ([10], p. 258). The teacher must embrace vulnerability, "for the creative process is seldom neat and is an invitation to both wonder and difficulty, but it is a process, which resides in the text of our bodies and souls" ([10], p. 258). The teacher should feel free to stray from the lesson plan and use his or her intuition to determine the direction of the classroom situation and the lesson, encouraging students to use their imagination.

#### *2.4. The Teacher Should Seek to Develop a Climate of Feedback in the Classroom where the Students Trust Each Other*

Developing a trusting atmosphere in the classroom requires skill. The teacher should demonstrate an acceptance of students' stories and comments, without putting down students' ideas. World languages teacher, F. Christopher Reynolds [11] has developed a process called "feeding back". There are four responses for when a student presents a product or idea.


Firstly, the class and the teacher draw upon their own past experiences, and comment on the work noncommittally, saying, "Your work reminds me of ... " This is a sharing exercise and not a value judgment. Reynolds [11] related, "This level invites you to allow the creativity to inspire you to remember and to share your memories" ([11], p. 81). The second level of feeding back adds a little more specificity. Feeding back is not evaluative. It does not say, "Cool, dude!" or "What's up, man?" or gush about how awesome or beautiful the work is. Works are taken seriously, perhaps with the class walking about the room silently and quietly looking at their classmates' work in a respectful manner, as at an art show. Then, the student or teacher pins the image to the wall or board, and the person who constructed the image listens quietly and nondefensively while the rest of the people begin their sentence with the words "I see". We tell the students: "You will receive insights into your work (and self) that you did not know you were putting into the work, if you listen to the feeding back". This is said carefully and tenderly, with no evaluation, but just description or association: "While I was looking at this, something just popped into my mind". Other possible responses are these: "This work reminds me of". A higher, more engaged level of feeding back is answering art with art: "I want to make a work of art to respond to your work of art", or, most profound of all, being rendered silent by the power of the work [12].

#### *2.5. Students Should Be Encouraged to Learn from Failure and from Vulnerability*

The arts of dance and theater are particularly suitable for learning from failure and vulnerability, as much of the learning is improvisational and requires trial and error as the students gain skills and remember lines, notes, and routines. The fear of failure is always present, but the teacher can mitigate this by encouraging risk-taking. Dubin [13], a teacher of theatre, related that students were hungry for a non-judgmental atmosphere which encouraged experimentation and "unfettered exploration" ([13], p. 124):

Risk-taking is an inherent part of the creative process. If students are to realize their potential, to develop the skills in which they are the least confident, to step outside of what is comfortable, they need to have the freedom to indulge in unfettered exploration. They have to be willing not only to go out on a limb, but to leap, hop and jitterbug on that limb. What stands in the way of their arboreal Lindy-Hopping, is that ubiquitous question "What if I fall?" ... it is necessary to have a safe environment; an environment in which failure has been de-stigmatized, in which it is encouraged and even celebrated.

([13], p. 125)

Dubin argued that failing with permission is liberating, and thus it is "an invaluable tool of learning and growth" ([13], p. 125). He uses circle meditation and a bevy of trust exercises to help students to conduct the risk-taking.

#### *2.6. The Teacher Should Use Creative Humor which Teaches and Engages Students*

Social studies middle school teacher, Daniel Peppercorn [6], is known throughout his school for his joke contests and humorous stories, and parents clamor to attend the class as guests. He said that comedians are known for their ability to surprise people with ideas that are unique and original., and that he welcomed class comics into his classes because the other students were engaged and the teacher always had a foil. He described his parents' nights:

During our annual Curriculum Night, I try to incorporate humor into the presentation to give my students' parents a sense of what my class is like. For example, sometimes I give them current events challenge questions and they win bills from our classroom currency for answering questions correctly. One question was: "According to a study by psychologists, do our memories get more or less positive over time?" After a parent correctly answered that our memories get more positive over time, I said, "Hopefully your son or daughter will really like my class. However, even if they do not, in ten years they'll love the class".

([6], p. 35)

#### *2.7. Administrators, Counselors, and Teachers Should Not Be Afraid to "Trust the Gut"*

Rebecca McElfresh [14] wrote about being an elementary school principal and Maria Balotta [15] wrote about being a middle school counselor. Both emphasized that such work is improvisational and requires intuition as decisions are made on the fly when situations arise throughout each day. Balotta illustrated this through four case examples—of a girl who was being bullied by other girls, and so brought a knife to school intending to deal with them violently; of a boy whose macho Latino father would not accept that he was gay; of a Russian immigrant girl whose mother was so busy with her other six children that she could not perceive the needs of her oldest child; of a bright, achieving native Spanish speaking girl who was being refused the class valedictorian honor because of her background. Balotta [15] related:

I feel blessed to have discovered the voice within. This thing that we call *intuition* leads me to carve new paths when at times the road seems to have reached its end. Not all the stories are about students whose lives have been in danger, or students denied their earned rewards. The incubation period for creative solutions is frequently seconds long, but as I look back at my journey as a school counselor, I cannot think of any story where intuition did not play a significant role.

([15], p. 311)

#### *2.8. Music, Theatre, Art, Dance, Foreign Language, and Athletics Are Not Extras, but Vitals*

McElfresh [14] also wrote about seamlessly weaving the standard curriculum and the arts together through shared activities, field trips, and residencies by artists, writers, musicians, dance companies, and so on. Every day, in the schools she led, students would have music lessons embedded into their literature, mathematics, science, history, and other lessons as a matter of course. When the bombings of 11 September 2001 happened, she gathered her teachers, students, and staff for the making of art as a response:

It seemed natural to us to respond organically through the creation of art. Students created art, teachers created art, poems, and song. We gathered in a large group assembly, surrounded by our art, and listened to poetry and music. We had found confidence in this way of working and we were able to turn to it at a time when we knew little else to do.

([14], p. 324)

#### *2.9. Techniques Such as Meditating, Slowing Down, Paying Attention, and Mindfulness Should Be Part of a Teacher's Repertoire*

I discussed the use of meditation in the classroom. Meditation is a part of the creative process in all domains [11]. Meditation seems to be a theme in the discussions of creators on how they create. Religion is most likely not a reason; creators seem to meditate in a spiritual, individual sense. Here, are some ways teachers can use the general creativity practice of meditation in their classrooms:


#### *2.10. The Use of Field Trips Increase the Likelihood of Students' Engagement, Remembering, and Transfer*

Nowadays, and throughout history, schools have debated the usefulness of field trips. Just do it, as Nike says. Even as a college professor, I require field trips for all of my undergraduate and graduate students; getting away, seeing things with one's own eyes, socializing, and being somewhere physically cannot be beaten. Gardner's [16] work on "teaching for understanding" emphasized the "museum curriculum", noting that transfer is achieved through the concrete apprehension of learning through the body. Johnson [17], who taught poor, rural Appalachian students was adamant that they took trips out of their school and local region. He even conducted field trips to the nearest McDonald's 30 miles away, for his students, who had never eaten out, teaching them about mathematics, economics, and nutrition.

#### *2.11. The Classroom Is a Mutual Learning Environment, where Both Students and Teachers Learn Together*

Science is a subject that is often challenging for both teachers and students. Taber [18] said there are three myths about how to creatively teach science. The first myth is that science is about facts. This is false. Science is about data from which facts are creatively extrapolated: "In terms of cognitive processes, this means *inventing* patterns that can make sense of the data. Scientists *imagine* possibilities to best fit data, and then *invent* ways of testing those imaginary possibilities by doing further data collection" ([18], p. 49). Making models to explain phenomena is also part of creativity in science. The second myth about teaching science is that students can memorize concepts by rote. In fact, when a model is presented to explain a phenomenon, the student must encounter the model with an imagination similar to the imagination with which the model was invented. Understanding is necessary. The third myth is that memorizing a set of facts increases knowledge of science. Taber [18] related that, while it is convenient to know that water is H2O,

Arguably, we should be more impressed by the student who can devise a roleplay; or develop a graphical representation; or construct a narrative; or build a model—which shows some understanding of the concept of element, than the student who can select, or even regurgitate a formal definition.

([18], p. 114)

However, creatively teaching science requires that the teacher have at least enough knowledge of the concepts to be able to simplify them so that the students can apprehend them at a level which they can understand. This is often accomplished through the use of "metaphors, similes, and analogies between the target knowledge and what is already familiar to learners" ([18], p. 115). The teacher must be able to build cognitive bridges between the textbook and the individual student's level of understanding. The teacher must have "knowledge of the subject matter, preparation in the pedagogy, and a good deal of insight into learners and their ways of thinking" ([18], p. 115).

Tolan [19], a Newbury Award-winning children and young adult fiction writer, who has given thousands of author workshops and readings to teachers and children, spoke

about emphasizing the magic of a story when working with students. She also listed several ways that children's creativity and intuition can be hindered. These are (1) criticisms, both good and bad, including grades; (2) an overemphasis on *product* rather than on the process of creating; (3) an overemphasis on *revision*, which "should not be regularly expected of children, whose focus is the adventure of seeing where the story goes. Revision should seldom be required earlier than middle school" ([19], p. 179); (4) requiring students to always pay attention and work hard can kill creativity, as day-dreaming, looking out of the window, and sitting quietly with a thought are necessary for creativity; (5) movement, recess, walking, running around, are also necessary; and (6) an emphasis on creative courage:

*Fear*. This comes in part from criticism (grading) or the idea that every creation must be appreciated by someone else. Creation involves the ability to take a risk, and all creators experience times when they are not sure they'll be able to finish something they've started, or come up with another new idea. Share this fact with the kids, and maintain as much as possible a sense of play and exploration. Regularly remind students that creators need to be courageous.

([19], p. 186)

#### *2.12. Self-Knowledge Tools Such as Mandalas, Walking the Labyrinth, Reflections, Nature Walks, and Similar Tools Help Give Students Insight and Inspiration*

Burnett [20], an actor and dancer who engaged in the highly cognitive Creative Problem-Solving Process (CPS) as a professor, decided to include a softer intuition within the CPS process in order to round it out, aligning the process with what creators do while creating. She encouraged her students at the State University of Buffalo to slow down while practicing CPS. She called this "passive intuition":


Burnett also described the addition of "active intuition": "visualization and imagery, artistic tools, the use of analogies, centering tools such as meditation and labyrinths, and the deliberate focus on an intuitive response e (i.e., —what does your gut say?)" ([20], p. 291).

#### *2.13. Talent Is Omnipresent, but There Is a "Certain Something" beyond Talent That Is Indefinable, That Experts and Audiences Know when They See It*

Many experts suggest that a certain number of repetitions, say 10,000, or ten years of deliberate practice can trump the presence of talent (cf.: [21,22]). The writers of chapters in the book being discussed here [5] beg to discuss this. Oreck [23] was the organizer and leader of a program, ArtsConnection, in over 150 NYC public schools that identified children with talents in dance, music, circus, and theatre. Oreck was interested in creativity and motivation:

That creativity and motivation were considered essential to artistic ability and success is not at all surprising. When discussing the roots of their own success and that of their most promising students, accomplished artists often mention attitude—of curiosity, openness, risk-taking—as key to their development . . .

([23], p. 95)

While Oreck [21] is in agreement with the necessity for repetition, deliberate practice, and so on, he contemplates, in this chapter, about the obvious "artistry ... in untrained children working in the arts ... . An artistic attitude, emotional connection, and aesthetic appreciation, signal the artist at work" [23], p. 97). He came to call this "A". We might refer to this general artistry as an "*A factor*", a range of abilities and attitudes that can explain and predict outstanding performance in a variety of artistic experiences and settings. It

is crucial to recognize that *A* is equally important at both ends of the continuum: "from Carnegie Hall to the gym at PS 130" ([23], p. 98). Further, correlational studies with a large grant program, which Oreck ran in Ohio, showed the existence of a *g*-factor in artistic talent across domains; children showed *general* talent: "What was striking was the magnitude of the statistical correlation among the art forms—almost perfect across the three performing arts and just a bit lower when visual art was added in". ([23], p. 99).

#### *2.14. "Know Thyself " Is a Goal for Teaching and Living Creatively*

Visual arts professor, Charles Caldemeyer [24], noted the presence of talent in students in advanced painting classes. Often, his students were feted and honored for their work in, say, landscape, or in decoration, and thus they continued to work in the fields in which they had garnered praise. They were certainly talented, but they had not explored their inner selves, nor had they used their intuition in creating. He stated that "The artistic process is only vibrant when it is one of discovery" ([24], p. 210). He urged that young artists develop their intuitive skills: "Techniques we use to develop intuitive skills involve (a) elimination of routines, (b) the re-contextualization of everyday events, and (c) the use of associative patterns to view life, as well as painting, experiences" ([24], p. 211). Caldemeyer reminded students that their paintings "stand halfway between the artist and the viewer, reflective of the artist's intent, yet equally interpretable by the viewer in their terms" ([24], p. 211). Yet, the student's personal symbol system needs to be developed, a system that is not too esoteric nor too cliched. Each individual artist needs to examine their inner self and to reflect on their personal references and images:

Ideas are gifts from the great unknown. It is important for artists to follow their ideas, because ideas that are dispensed but ignored will slowly drive one insane, or at least lead to compensatory neuroses and insecurities. Developing one's ideas allows an artist to understand and order his/her world, and to reconcile outer and inner experiences.

([24], p. 220)

Montgomery [25] emphasized that teachers teaching creatively must assess what their students already know and build upon this. She operates with two guidelines: "(1) I will not teach what is already learned and (2) I cannot teach what learners are not ready developmentally to learn" ([25], p. 264). Montgomery developed a model that emphasized transformational thinking called The Holistic Model. The Holistic Model included (1) The Mind, (2) The Body, (3), The Spirit, and (4) The Heart. ([25], p. 248).

She worked with her graduate students on opening up their preconceived notions of knowledge, leadership, and dominance, utilizing tools such as walking the labyrinth, meditation, movement, creating a mandala, memory work, and so on, using the Medicine Wheel as an example. Montgomery worked in the highly indigenously populated state of Oklahoma with many mentors who helped her to create this model. "The medicine wheel was the inspiration for the Holistic Model. The Medicine Wheel focuses on the four geographical directions (east, south, west, and north) or areas of development—physical, social, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual" ([25], p. 248).

#### *2.15. Students Should Be Encouraged to Improvise, Theorize, Elaborate, Discuss, Explore, Create, Conjecture, Ask Why, and Not to Just Focus on "the Right Answer"*

George Johnson [17], a long-time Gifted Intervention Specialist, shared his 40 years of practices that inhibited or encouraged creativity in the Appalachian G/T classroom where creative innovation is a way of life for both parents and teachers. The author concluded that the single most important factor in the creative classroom is a teacher and students who ask "Why?" the title of his essay was "Cars on Blocks and Roadkills", exemplifying the way of life of his economically challenged community and school. Johnson wrote, "I have found that the easiest and most consistent way to encourage creativity in the classroom is to ask the question "Why?" ([17], p. 222). He described the guided imagery that he practiced with his students. "In a relaxed setting, allow students to close their eyes and use their mind's eye to see. There must be time to incubate, to allow the images to come forward. Try reading selections from appropriate literature with highly descriptive scenes" ([17], p. 224).

Daniels [26] discussed how to use creative imagination in teaching physics and Advanced Placement Calculus in a public high school with little funding. She said, "When studying concepts in physics, it is often necessary to use visualization and imagery" ([26], p. 19). Few high schools can afford simulators that can let students feel inertia or conduct field trips where students can experiment with weight loss or gain in a pool or a moving elevator. Using dummies to simulate the force of car crashes with or without seatbelts is also not feasible. "For these examples, and many more, I ask the students to imagine how they would feel. I ask them to close their eyes and think about the situation, and then visualize what they would see, how they would move, and what they would feel" (p. 19). Daniels lectures and demonstrates, yet "the students gain a better understanding of the concepts from visualization and imagery" ([26], p. 20). She encourages students to use their imaginations when concrete experiments that use the senses of sight, hearing, and touch are not possible.

Stephenson [27] taught music to young children, and she believed that the songwriting experience with them was one of the most "inestimable" ([27], p. 146). She had several tips for writing songs with children:


Two teachers of physics [28] talked about the improvisation needed in order to teach so that the students could trust their own observations and theories. The teaching style in such an active setting must be flexible and adaptable. They used the Socratic method so that students could proceed individually, finding answers, observing results, or having ideas that might be shocking, as well as intriguing, to their classmates and their professors. The professors often had to rethink their own preconceptions about the experiments. Michael related:

It is easy to walk into a classroom and tell the students what you know but it takes a lot of creative courage to walk into a classroom and to let the class be led by the students and to follow them as the professor ... It requires a confidence in your understanding of the material and a certain willingness to grasp the material deeper than you may have in the past.

([28], p. 62)

The nature of the subject matter of physics encourages design and experimentation as students build devices to illustrate the principles of physics. They said, "Throughout these experiments and projects, the students must use their intuition, visualization, imagery, and creative abilities to transform ideas into plans, then build actual devices using their plans" ([28], p. 71).

#### **3. Summary**

In summary, organic creativity rises from the creator who has self-knowledge and who is not afraid to express it. Certain exercises help to enhance this by focusing on the various processes such as the Eight I's: (1) Insight; (2) Intuition; (3) Incubation; (4) Imagination; (5) Improvisation; (6) Inspiration; (7) Imagery; (8) Intentionality; the Five Core Attitudes: (1) Openness to experience or naivete; (2) Risk-taking; (3) Tolerance for Ambiguity; (4) SelfDiscipline; and (5) Group trust. Additionally, there are several general practices: (1) the need for solitude; (2) creativity rituals; (3) meditation; (4) exercise, especially walking; (5) the quest for silence; (6) divergent production practice; and (7) creativity as the process of a life ([1–3,5,29–32]). With these suggestions, those who want to teach creativity will find many avenues to explore.

Experienced teachers who have not only extensive subject matter knowledge, but also extensive pedagogical knowledge have various ways of teaching for organic creativity. This article has shared a few of these ideas.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Education Sciences* Editorial Office E-mail: education@mdpi.com www.mdpi.com/journal/education

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel: +41 61 683 77 34

www.mdpi.com

ISBN 978-3-0365-5640-6