___

• Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20265
• Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer.
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder.
• Andersen, M. F., & Munksby, N. (2018). Didactical Design Principles to Apply When Introducing Student-generated Digital Multimodal Representations in the Science Classroom. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.100
• Azevedo, F. S. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 443–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00053-0
• Bailey, L. M., Morris, L. G., Thompson, W. D., Feldman, S. B., & Demetrikopoulos, M. K. (2016). Historical Contribution of Creativity to Development of Gifted Science Education in Formal and Informal Learning Environments. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 3–14). Sense Publishers.
• Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Hampton Press.
• Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_3
• Besançon, M. (2013). Creativity, giftedness, and education. Gifted and Talented International, 28(1–2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678410
• Bock, Z. (2016). Multimodality, creativity and children’s meaning-making: Drawings, writings, imaginings. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 49, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5842/49-0-669
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE Publications.
• Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. In Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.
• Clifford, M. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten to twelve-year-old students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00875.x
• Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Belknap Press.
• Cox, M. (2005). The pictorial world of the child. Cambridge University Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge University Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge University Press.
• Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever (3rd ed.). Kendall/Hunt.
• Demetrikopoulos, M. K., & Pecore, J. L. (2016). Introduction to the interplay between creativity and giftedness in science. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. ix-xii). Sense Publishers.
• DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7
• Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press.
• Gebre, E. H., & Polman, J. L. (2016). Developing young adults’ representational competence through infographic-based science news reporting. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2667–2687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1258129
• Ginsburg, G. P. (1980). Epilogue: A conception of situated action. In M. Brenner (Ed.), The structure of action (pp. 313–350). Blackwell.
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 41(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00445.x
• Glǎveanu, V. P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.13
• Glǎveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528
• Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
• Hofstadter, D. R. (1985). Metamagical themas: Questing for the essence of mind and pattern. Penguin Books.
• Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
• Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001a). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753
• Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of Giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 71–93). Springer.
• Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. Routledge.
• Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153–161). Routledge.
• Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation
• Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multimedia literacy demands of the science curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 3(10), 247–271.
• Lubart, T., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du potentiel créatif (EPoC). [Evaluation of potential creativity]. Hogrefe.
• Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de la colin., créativité. [Psychology of creativity]. Armand.
• Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77–87.
• Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making. In Sawyer et al. (Eds.) Creativity and development, (pp. 61–90). Oxford University Press.
• Newfield, D. (2009). Transmodal semiosis in classrooms: Case studies from South Africa [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of London Institute of Education.
• O’Grady, J. v., & O’Grady, K. v. (2008). The information design handbook. OH: How Books.
• O’Halloran, Kay L. (2007). Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF–MDA): Approach to mathematics, grammar, and literacy. In Anne McCabe, Mick O’Donnell & Rachel Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education, (pp. 77–102). Continuum.
• Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Stenberg, J. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Who’s creative? (pp. 153–167). American Psychological Association.
• Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
• Plucker, J. A., Guo, J., & Makel, M. C. (2018). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 81–100). Springer Cham.
• Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). Cambridge University Press.
• Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. In Research in Science Education (Vol. 40, Issue 1, pp. 1–3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9153-x
• Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–280). Cambridge University Press.
• Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–311.
• Rui, N., & Feldman, J. (2012). IRR (Inter-Rater Reliability) of a COP (Classroom Observation Protocol)--A critical appraisal. Online Submission, 3, 305–315.
• Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 11(4), 212–218.
• Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative Research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
• Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology—What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–43). Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate stem (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
• Starko, J. A. (2014). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. In contemporary debates in education studies (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315563718-5
• Stein, P. (2003). The Olifantsvlei Fresh Stories Project: Multimodality, creativity and fixing in the semiotic chain. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 123–138). Peter Lang.
• Stenberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.
• Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01223.x
• Tang, K. S., & Danielsson, K. (2018). Global developments in literacy research for science education. In Global developments in literacy research for science education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8
• Tang, K., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students’ multimodal construction of the work–Energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.508899
• Torrance, P. E. (1976). Tests de pensée créative. Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
• Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6
• Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representational and the Scientific Understanding: Vol. XLVIII. Reidel Publishing Company.
• Wertsch, J. v., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 162–182). Cambridge University Press.
• West, E. A., Paul, C. A., Webb, D., & Potter, W. H. (2013). Variation of instructor-student interactions in an introductory interactive physics course. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010109
• Yeo, J., & Nielsen, W. (2020). Multimodal science teaching and learning. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1752043