Fostering collaboration and creative thinking through extra-curricular challenges with primary and secondary students (2023)

The rhetoric of the OECD's 4Cs as 21st century skills (21CS) occupies a range of global educational and economic interests with STEM education (AustralianAcademy of Science,2021; Lummisetal., 2021; OECD,2017, 2019, 2020; STEMLearning 2023; Tytleretal., 2008). Global economies realise complex challenges with diverse contexts seeking cognitive dexterity to develop solutions through teamwork within the digital techno-political corporate or government systems, to secure economic growth, whilst protecting the biosphere (Greenland etal., 2022; UnitedNations,2022).

The Australian Curriculum embeds the 4Cs as general capabilities of critical and creative thinking; personal and social capability; and information and communication technology capability (AustralianCurriculum,Assessment and Reporting Authority(ACARA) n.d.). Research reports collaborative innovation being common in the workplace but not a priority in education (Venteretal., 2022). Although the OECD emphasises an instrumental narrative of future skills fostering (Dalyetal., 2019; OECD,2017, 2019, 2020; Schleicher,2012) these underscore high level relational skills and/or emotional intelligence required to negotiate complex systems. Research suggests that collaboration varies between disciplines and purposed contextual tasks (Halverson & Sawyer,2022). Problem-solving and inquiry-based strategies and pedagogies for STEM contexts vary (Artigue & Blomhøj,2013; AustralianAcademy of Science,2021; Dawsonetal., 2019; STEMLearning,2023; Tytleretal., 2008; Vincent-Lacrinetal., 2019). The rhetoric of the OECD needs to be interpreted explicitly to a diverse curriculum inclusive of the arts and humanities (Morris & Coleman,2019; Swanzy-Impraimetal., 2022). Therefore, the 4Cs should not only be embedded in policy but part of a successful teacher's repertoire to facilitate authentic learning that is flexible, critically reflective, and innovative (Alismail & McGuire,2015).

Tournament of Minds (TOM) invites teachers and students to prepare for challenges across the four disciplines of: Arts (A); Language Literature (LL); Social Sciences (SS); and Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) with A/LL/SS/STEM being the compound acronym. This research investigated how teachers from different learning areas embed three components of the 21CS and capabilities (21CS-4Cs) across a common Spontaneous Challenge.

The 4Cs can be developed via school experiences and extra-curricular activities such as team challenges (Kashani-Vahidetal., 2017; Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee,2004). TOM challenges do not have the structural limitations found in schools (Lingardetal., 2016; Lummisetal., 2021). Importantly, collaborative problem-solving activities can enhance innovative primary and middle year students (Kashani-Vahidetal., 2017), which can motivate post-secondary interests in STEM (Chanetal., 2020; Shields & Chugh,2018), and equally applies to other learning areas such as the Arts (Halverson & Sawyer,2022; Swanzy-Impraimetal., 2022). Extra-curricular challenges (Alismail & McGuire,2015; Drew,2013; Eguchi,2016), have shown positive impacts on student learning within a contextual focus (Nugentetal., 2011).

TOM challenges encourage students in Years 3–10 to develop critical thinking and teamwork for seeking creative outcomes. The 21CS-4Cs cannot be adequately nurtured merely through the memorisation of content (Eguchi,2016) or formal examination (Lummisetal., 2021). Successful teachers understand the relevant disciplinary skills and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman,1986, 1987) in developing students (Kashani-Vahidetal., 2017; Vincent-Lancrinetal., 2019).

Creativity is an innate and complex human attribute with its own established discourse and variance (Swanzy-Impraimetal., 2022). The historical rhetoric of creativity is often associated with imagination, founded in the creative arts and self-expression, and is the cornerstone of innovation in STEM (Eisner,1972, 2004; Vygotsky,1978). Creativity often has a socio-cognitive relationship across learning areas (Halverson & Sawyer,2022) but this social aspect varies according to the context of the inquiry. In both developing and developed economies creativity is linked to the rhetoric of economic outcomes (OECD,2017, 2019, 2020, 2020; Swanzy-Impraimetal., 2022). However, there is a great deal of variance ranging from purely intrinsic aesthetic exploration, decorative and function design through to the projection of ‘big ideas’ associated with socio-psychological and historical-cultural discourse (Eisner,1972, 2004).

Researchers (Halverson & Sawyer,2022; Morris & Coleman,2019) emphasise that authentic arts practice, combined with the humanities, and languages have a transformative and complimentary socio-cognitive functions, which also applies to diverse STEM learning (Halverson & Sawyer,2022). Frequent themes include innovation, and collaborative problem solving (Stewart,Mueller, & Tippins, 2019). The common assumption is the facilitation of a student's imagination through arts practice (Morris & Coleman,2019), or through inquiry STEM experiences (AustralianAcademy of Science,2021; STEMLearning,2023; Tytleretal., 2008). The common pedagogical assumptions are to provide primary and secondary students novel ways to enhance their cognitive, linguistic, socio-cultural, and historical perspectives during a challenge (Halverson & Sawyer,2022).

Group creativity is viewed as the simultaneous creation of work by two or more people who depend on an intangible relationship between individuals during the improvisation phase of product development (Sawyer,2003). This is seen in both ensembles of musicians and casts in theatre production, with improvisation emphasised as “shared creative acts rather than the manifestation of the director's vision” (Copeau in Sawyer,2003, p. 5) whereby collective group creativity is quite different to the cognitive processes of the individual. Sawyer(2003) describes these group creativity characteristics as the “process, unpredictability, intersubjectivity, complex communication and emergence” (p. 5).

The intent of TOM A/LL/SS/STEM challenges is to elevate the imaginative over the factual, valuing participation over measuring, where the quality of the journey is the educational priority rather than the prize of the destination (TOM,2020), demonstrating consistency with the literature (Eisner,1972, 2004; Halverson & Sawyer,2022). The challenges disrupt the formal school processes to focus on cognitive and social constructivist experiences supporting potential careers linked to complex economic, environmental, social, political, and corporate challenges (Alismail & McGuire,2015; Greenland etal., 2022; Lombardi,2007; Shields & Chugh,2018; UnitedNations,2022; Vincent-Lancrinetal., 2019).

TOM values expert teaching and age appropriate PCK that facilitates innovation in its teams, serves as role models, and build confidence to realise creative outcomes (Shulman,1986, 1987). TOM supports STEM learning (Tytleretal.etal., 2008) as well as visual and creative processes (Morris & Coleman,2019; Swanzy-Impraimetal., 2022), with opportunities for social constructivist learning (Basbug,2020; Vygotsky,1978). Therefore, creativity and teamwork are an expectation (Joynesetal., 2019; Leggett,2017; Runcoetal., 2017; Swanzy-Impraimetal., 2022); however, creativity in STEM or the Arts needs to be framed by an authentic context to transform learning. Inquiry-based approaches for STEM education or other disciplinary inquiry requires multiple skills and understandings across integrated disciplines (AustralianAcademy of Science,2021; STEMLearning,2023; Tytleretal., 2008). Collaborative activities stimulate critical thinking that is communicated through authentic problem-based projects. For example, in literature covering the United Kingdom and Australia, many schools have clubs that see teams engaged in robotics or engineering solutions (Lummisetal., 2021; Nadelson & Seifert,2017; STEMLearning,2023) with diverse levels of collaborations. It has been found that the creative arts support individual expression in a social constructivist setting (Morris & Coleman,2019), STEM pedagogies often pursue collaboration to solve a problem over an individual's imaginative outcomes. In the creative arts research claims cooperative expressive works are often restricted to large scale murals, sculptural installations, costume design, architecture, and curatorial activities (Basbug,2020), and a similar variation applies to musical performance, dramatic interpretations, and digital artefacts. Expression is an aesthetic and interpretative process that is inclusive of the humanities and language and therefore is involves a collaborative component that is relatively open, fostering a multiplicity of value-based creative solutions. In contrast, groups of students engaged in STEM solutions with robotic or engineering problems are intently focused over extended periods of time (Lummisetal., 2021; STEMLearning,2023) contrast to personal imaginative expressive activities (Basbug,2020).

Research (Thibautetal., 2018) reports five integrated STEM teaching and learning models which is supported by some TOM challenges. The integration of STEM content is often discussed as being problem-centred, inquiry-based learning, design-based learning, and cooperative learning teamwork (AustralianAcademy of Science,2021; STEMLearning,2023), usually guided by an expert STEM teacher. TOM extra-curricular challenges direct small teams to consider how these skills are facilitated in students to develop a solution within a given challenge unlike the formal school-based learning expectations (Alismail & McGuire,2015). TOM challenges shift the pedagogical learning ecologies away from the school timetable and disciplinary centred contexts (Lummisetal., 2021), which impede interdisciplinary collaborative approaches to STEM (Nadelson & Siefert,2017). Research suggests successful teachers employ pedagogical strategies to enhance critical thought processes (AustralianAcademy of Science,2021; Drew,2013; STEMLearning,2023; Tytleretal., 2008). Finally, despite diversity of approaches across learning area pedagogy, research reports cooperative learning develops reflective and critical thinking by sharing team members’ strengths, for innovative outcomes (Alismail & McGuire,2015; Basbug,2020).

Research reports that creativity is the first stage of innovation (Somech & Drach-Zahavy,2013) where new ideas are generated for potential application (Amabile,1988; Amabileetal., 1996; Oldham & Cummings,1996; Scott & Bruce,1994). For the problem-solving process to progress, the creative ideas need to be applied to a context (Hansen & Levine,2009; Hülshegeretal., 2009; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,2013). This transformation requires critical reflection, where the most suitable ideas from a small team rather than an individual are evaluated and selected (Amabileetal., 1996; George,2007). Importantly, innovation is an outcome from cognitive and motivational processes that might accommodate small groups or an individual as shown across the imaginative play in creative expression (Mumford & Gustafson,1988).

This study underscores the sharing and construction of ideas within a team as the catalyst for extending selected ideas into innovation (Baruah & Paulus,2009; Dugoshetal., 2000; Nijstad & Stroebe,2006; Paulus & Brown,2007). Idea generation is akin to a chain reaction (Osborn,1957) during the process of cognitive stimulation (Dugoshetal., 2000). Sharing ideas within a team activates a network of ideas that otherwise would not be possible (Dugoshetal., 2000).

This study investigated how A/LL/SS/STEM challenges, fosters collaborative behaviours, using the General Thematic Areas (GTA) Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity (Baer & Kaufman,2005). This allowed comparisons of three components of the 4Cs: critical thinking processes, teamwork/collaboration, and creativity/innovation. Each challenge addresses the teamwork and critical thinking processes to produce a creative outcome for Tournament Day.

In addition, all teams were rostered to undertake a non-discipline specific Spontaneous Challenge. The teams were judged using disclosed weighted criteria by a group of experienced educators focussing on thinking processes (TP), teamwork (TW), and creative outcome (CO) (TOM,2019).

The Spontaneous Challenge was designed to accommodate a direct comparison of how different teams of students worked together to produce a creative outcome and explore how the teams might be operating differently across the four disciplines (i.e., A/LL/SS/STEM). The data provided the researchers with an opportunity to interpret the application of three 21CS through a particular disciplinary lens. Research (Baer & Kaufman,2005) claims differences of GTAs in the application of 21CS of TP, TW, and CO. The researchers hypothesised potential differences in the way the various disciplinary teams approach the Spontaneous Challenge and how the perceptions of the 21CS might be interpreted by a teacher's specific learning area PCK culture (Heardetal., 2020).

The Tournament of Minds Ltd Board was interested in having research completed to look at the educational impact of its challenges. One of the researchers was on the Board and agreed to explore the impact of the challenges. Following Australian ethics approval, archival data from the 2019 TOM Ltd regional challenges was released. This was used to assess any relationships or differences between the four disciplines.

Methods

A non-experimental explanatory correlational research design was used to determine possible relationships without the manipulation of variables or researchers’ input into the intervention (Creswell,2021). After university ethics approval, archival data from the 2019 TOM Ltd challenge was made available to the researchers to determine if any relationships or differences between A/LL/SS/STEM.

Results

Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to test for normality, linearity, and homogeneity of variance matrices. Any notable violations are mentioned within the hypothesis testing as below. Table2 presents the descriptive data for A/LL/SS/STEM in respect to the judging/scoring data criteria (thinking processes, teamwork, creative outcome).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the development of 21CS in primary and secondary students, via participation in a collaborative team challenge. TOM challenges, provide relevant data to show whether out-of-school extra-curricular activities have the capacity to develop 21CS. Data reports that TOM can be effective in assisting students in developing and displaying 21CS. The data indicated differences in how these skills are demonstrated in team responses between disciplines, which

Limitations

As this research is an exploratory model of TOM data, it is important to acknowledge the collection of the creativity data in a quick spontaneous challenge is a potential limitation. The process of divergent thinking is founded on the requirement of time to allow for the discovery and construction of new ideas (Runco,2016). For example, research in industrial design found that time pressure constraints are realistic in the workplace, however, a designer's creativity and cognition can be

Conclusion

Problem solving challenges foster 21CS, provides a pathway for teachers to facilitate the learning of collaborative critical and creative thinking in their students. This study demonstrated that teachers could promote 21CS in their teaching practices if they are aware of what critical and creative thinking entails, through student participation in extra-curricular challenges. Furthermore, problem solving in teams enhances the critical thinking and creativity outcomes.

Finally, the process of

Disclosure statement

The key author is a Board member with Tournament of Minds Ltd. This paper did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Christina M. Norris: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Tracy A. Taylor: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Geoffrey W. Lummis: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Acknowledgements

At the time of conducting the research one of the authors was also a representative on the international Board for TOM Ltd. The other authors have been involved as judges during the tournament presentation days. The authors would like to thank the TOM Ltd Board for access to the competition data to investigate the nature of 21C skills.