The following is a copy of my dissertation prospectus, submitted October 2016 and approved by my committee members, Dr. Wyatt Evans, Dr. Gamin Bartle, and Dr. Rick Mikulski, at Drew University,.
Working Title: Historical Thinking and Digital Tendencies in a 21st-Century Undergraduate History Classroom
I. Problem & Thesis Statement
How do students derive meaning from and prescribe value to history in the digital age? This is a proposal to follow the responses of a small group of Singaporean undergraduates enrolled in an American university program as they articulate the value of historical content and practices through their engagement in a digital-heavy history course. Faced with historical material and assignments that task them with employing a historical lens to texts and their own writing, students often look for opportunities to interact with narratives, texts, and content through habits common to digital media. They express and debate their opinions, display a preference for sharable, useable materials, and articulate personal connections to people, stories, and ideas. In short, students employ a complex network of digital tendencies to create value from material and practices that are unfamiliar and seemingly insignificant to their major fields of study.
The ways students create value and meaning in their education is a primary concern for writers in the thematic fields of historical thinking and digital media and learning, the bodies of scholarship that respectively form the foundation and the theoretical lens for this project.1 The project incorporates historical thinking scholarship to establish the structure of the activities associated with the project as well as the themes worth investigating in students’ responses. Like many earlier studies, this project will explore how students interpret primary sources, evaluate the reliability of historical narratives, and construct historical accounts and will do so by collecting student responses to a variety of course assignments.
While scholars of historical thinking are increasingly concerned with the impact of digital media, a more robust theoretical lens for exploring interactions with digital content is found in the work of participatory cultures theorists, especially Henry Jenkins.2 The concept of appraisal, as articulated by Jenkins, Ford, and Green in Spreadable Media, is especially helpful for parsing students’ interactions with history. Appraisal, according to the authors, is the complex network of considerations people engage when deciding to interact with or share digital media and is comprised of both individual considerations (such as personal interest or relevance to identity) and broader social influences (media as connection to friends, family, and affinity groups). The complexity of appraisal sidesteps previous broad-stroke assessments of how “digital natives/millennials/young people” interact with media and allows for a more nuanced approach that brings students’ articulations of their processes and values to the fore.3
II. History of Research
The growth of the study of historical thinking is tied to periodic challenges to the role and value of history in the academy and in culture. The question of history’s place in the social sciences or the humanities in the 1960s and early 1970s, the history wars of the 1990s and early 2000s, and the digital turn of the past decade have prompted scholars to define the value of history to the broader culture. Through each crisis, the justification for the study of history has remained remarkably steady, often echoing Charles Keserich’s 1971 assertion, “History education involves less the acquisition of a set of facts and more a way of thinking.”4 Doing history, scholars argue, involves developing an epistemology that fosters critical thinking and creates better citizens/human beings.5 The specifics of the historical skill-set are up for debate, as Sam Wineburg aptly notes in Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts,6 but researchers generally agree that skills like critical thought about evidence, empathy regarding the situations of past peoples, and a sense of the complexity of cause and effect is good for society.7
Within the conversations regarding the benefit of historical thinking to society runs a strain of research focused on the value of historical study to students as individuals. Influential researchers Linda Levstik and Keith Barton, for instance, relate their study of fifth-grade students’ “History of Me” timelines, in which students composed brief chronologies of their own lives in preparation for a study of biographies.8 Although Levstik and Barton later used the “History of Me” activity as a springboard to connect students to practices akin to historians’ skills, their emphasis on personal histories first situates individual significance, exploration, and connection as primary goals in the study of history.
Concern for the individual and social value of historical study has increased with the rise of “Web 2.0,” an iteration of the internet characterized by instantaneous access to information, the constant potential for participation, a diverse array of social media platforms, and a blurry line between consumers and producers.9 Though some authors, such as James Goulding and T. Mills Kelly, worry that the participatory web exacerbates the ahistorical tendencies of popular and remixed history online, others express concern regarding the disjunct between the way people process the meaning and value of information on the web and the ways they are are asked to process content in classrooms. In Hacking the Academy, digital humanist Gideon Burton warns students: “Your college experience is likely to set back your education, your career, and your creative potential,” because attempts to confine content and practice to disciplinary or outcome-oriented boundaries are at odds with the unfettered combination of learning and play available to students on the web.10
Michael Wesch identifies the disconnect between higher education and students’ personally-motivated, self-directed learning on the web as a “crisis of significance,” in which students struggle to find meaning in a seemingly arbitrary progression of lectures, assignments, and exams.11 Wesch and fellow contributors to Hacking the Academy offer “participatory methodologies.”12 These methodologies include course activities and assessments that range from creating historical hoaxes to multiplayer global history games to more traditional primary source activities.13 The goal of these activities is to mesh familiar learning environments with practices and thought-processes central to historical thinking in an effort to make transparent the value (and the fun) of studying history individually and collectively.
The authors of Hacking the Academy cohabitate the thematic field of digital media and learning with participatory cultures theorists, many of whom share digital humanists’ optimism and concerns regarding contemporary digital culture and the creation of meaning. But while scholars writing on historical thinking or digital humanities have tended to accept relatively simple explanations of how students derive meaning from online content,14 participatory cultures scholars suggest that people are instead constantly appraising, curating, and filtering the data that comes their way.15 In Spreadable Media, Jenkins, Ford, and Burgess argue that, because content is now assumed to be shareable and adaptable, each person (consciously or not) approaches digital content through a complex web of questions about the content’s value to their individual identities and digital/social communities of acquaintances, friends, family, or affinity groups.16 This understanding of participation suggests a more complex process of meaning making for students online and, by extension in the history classroom.
III. Methodology and Research Design
This project will utilize material produced by students in a course I teach with the University at Buffalo undergraduate program in Singapore, which poses some challenges for the ethics and execution of the research. The ethical concerns of being a researcher and an educator in a single environment will be worked out in conversation with Drew University’s Institutional Review Board (Drew IRB). Recruitment and consent procedures as well as the specifics of the course/study activities will require approval by Drew’s IRB before the project can proceed. Kevin McKelvey, the program director of the University at Buffalo program in Singapore, has provided a letter of permission allowing the conduct of research with participants in the program to accompany the proposal to Drew’s IRB. Students will not be required to participate in the study and their participation will not impact their grades. (This will be ensured through a consent procedure that leaves me unaware of who is participating until after grades are submitted.)
Execution of the project is also complicated by my presence as both a researcher and educator. My interactions with students will have a substantial impact on the ways students express their perceptions of the significance, credibility, and relevance of historical content. This means that it will not always be possible to fully parse what elements of students’ responses can be chalked up to the influence of digital media and what elements are the product of the way I design and conduct the course. In an effort to account, at least in part, for my impact on students’ writing and discussion, I envision this project as a hybrid of a worked example and a case study.
A worked example in the humanities, as outlined by James Paul Gee and expanded by Barry Joseph and Kelly Czarnecki, attempts to outline for an audience the results of research as well as why and how the researcher set about their work.17 The study will be a worked example in that it will include some first person reflection about the nature of the course, the purpose of assessments and activities, changes made in the course, and my interactions with students. Such reflection ideally will provide greater transparency about the various elements within the course that might impact students’ evaluation of historical material.
The project, though, is still primarily about the ways students in a specific course appraise historical content individually and collectively. Data will be collected through a variety of course assignments and activities and is therefore also a multi-modal case study. The assignments will include completing brief writing assignments (typically via Twitter) at the beginning and end of class, commenting on primary sources via Twitter, discussing primary sources in class, writing and publishing blog posts, commenting on peers’ blog posts, and writing reflective essays about course content and primary sources. Past experience teaching classes with similar assignments has shown that students will participate and offer critical feedback to one another, especially when given opportunity to create their own guidelines. Assignments will be completed by all students in the course, but only the responses from students who consent to participation in the study will be used as source material for the dissertation.
Each assignment should elicit students’ impressions of the significance, credibility, or relevance of historical content as well as indications of their use of digital media tendencies as a framework for their understanding and expression of ideas about historical content. The entry/exit tweets, comments on primary sources, and and reflective essays are indebted to the “think aloud” methods utilized by Wineburg in that these activities aim to draw out the content of students’ thoughts as well as some of the patterns and processes involved in their expression of ideas. The blogging project bears some kinship to the hoaxes perpetuated by Kelly’s students.18 Although students will not be looking to deceive readers with their posts, they will likewise engage in similar forms of popular research, public scholarship and writing, and participatory critiques.
Responses will be collected throughout the semester from all students and then filtered to include only the data produced by students who agree to take part in the study. All materials will be stored online in Google Drive folders, which are password protected and SSL secured. Students’ responses will be analyzed both for collective patterns and individuals’ change or consistency over the course of the semester.
This project represents an effort to address two current gaps in research regarding historical thinking and the digital age. As a study of a higher education environment, it will address the continued dearth of historical thinking research focused on higher education. The foundational studies in the field of historical thinking are almost entirely based on research conducted with primary or secondary school students.19 Although some interdisciplinary research, most notably Hacking the Academy, addresses the impact of the digital age in higher education, few works directly address historical thinking in higher education.20
There is likewise a lack of studies about historical thinking or the intersection of historical thinking and digital media conducted outside North America, Europe, and Australia. Because the field of historical thinking is, at least in part, a product of the history wars in the United States in the 1990s, American scholars continue to dominate the field. The edited volume Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History, however, is intentionally international and contains studies from the United States, Canada, England, Germany, and Estonia.21 An extensive study of over 1400 undergraduates led by Nye in Australia in 2011 likewise represents an addition to the global scope of historical thinking literature.22 Thus far, however, I have not located any studies of historical thinking conducted in Southeast Asia. A study of Singaporean students could, therefore, either add to understandings of broader, global patterns of historical thinking or could add nuance and particularity to understandings of how students approach historical content.
V. Proposed Outline
The outline of the project will depend, in large part on the content of student responses and the themes that emerge from their interactions with course content and assessments. At this time, though, I would anticipate an outline similar to the following:
2. Literature Review: Historical Thinking + Digital Media and Learning
3. Project Outline: Course Structure + Learning Goals + Research Goals
4. Appraising Significance: How does student writing exhibit perceptions of what is or is not important or valuable in history? The chapter will draw primarily on student responses in the entry/exit tweets and their responses to primary sources via Twitter.
5. Appraising Credibility: How do students evaluate the credibility of historical narratives? This chapter will primarily utilize student blog posts and commentary about the creation of their blog posts, but may also include students’ responses to discussion questions about the reliability of primary sources and/or historical narratives presented during class lectures.
6. Appraising Relevance: How do students understand historical content in relation to the present, to their own lives, or to society more broadly? This chapter may examine the topics students choose for their blog posts, their commentary during class discussions, and/or the blog posts they choose to interact with and share from the class blog.
In each of the “appraising” chapters, students’ responses will be analysed with an eye toward how or whether student responses mimic or complicate current scholarship regarding how significance, credibility, and relevance are conceived of in digital realms as well as in history classrooms.
Ideally, the proposed chapters will be presented in fully digital form, potentially as a video series and blog akin to Raising Creativity, a dissertation presented by Rebecca Zak as a YouTube series and blog.23 This form of presentation would be useful as an experiment in presenting complex, academic material in a publicly accessible way and as a way to keep student participants apprised of the use of their data. I envision the dissertation blog and videos beginning as a “worked example” space open to comment from student participants or other readers. After data collection and analysis, work-space posts and videos could be archived in a separate section of the website from the final videos and posts. A plan for more permanent preservation of the project would need to be determined in conversation with Dr. Gamin Bartle.
VI. Selected Bibliography
Andrews, Thomas and Flannery Burke. “What Does It Mean to Think Historically?” Perspectives 45, no. 1 (January 2007). Accessed October 4, 2015.
Blakely, Allison. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Allison Blakely.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Brown, José Antonio. Teaching Naked. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Kindle Book.
Calder, Lendol. “Looking for Learning in the History Survey.” Perspectives 40, no 3 (March 2002): 43-45. Accessed April 6, 2015.
Calder, Lendol and Tracy Steffes. “Measuring College Learning in History.” Social Science Research Council, May 2016. Accessed June 6, 2016.
Clough, Michael P, Joanne K. Olson, Dale S. Niederhauser. The Nature of Technology: Implications for Learning and Teaching. Rotterdam: Sense, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2016.
Cohen, Daniel, et. al., “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” The Journal of American History 95, no. 2 (2008). Accessed June 15, 2016.
Cohen, Daniel J. and Tom Scheinfeldt, eds. Hacking the Academy: New Approaches to Scholarship and Teaching from Digital Humanities. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2016.
Davidson, Cathy N. and David Theo Goldberg. The Future of Thinking: Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Delwiche, Aaron and Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, eds. The Participatory Cultures Handbook. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Kindle Book.
Díaz, Arlene, Joan Middendorf, David Pace and Leah Shopkow. “The History Learning Project: A Department ‘Decodes’ Its Students.” The Journal of American History, 94, no. 4 (March 2008): 1211-1224. Accessed April 6, 2016.
Ercikan, Kadriye and Peter Seixas. New Directions in Assessing Historical Thinking. Florence: Taylor and Francis, 2015. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Foster, S.J., and E.A. Yeager. “The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding.” International Journal of Social Education, 13, no. 1 (1998): 1-17. Accessed November 16, 2015.
Frederick, Peter. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Frederick Peter.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Gee, James Paul. New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and “Worked Examples” as One Way Forward. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Goulding, James. “Historical Thinking and Social Media.” Agora 46, no. 3 (2011): 11-19. Accessed June 13, 2016.
Gutierrez, Robert. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Robert Gutierrez.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Hata, Donald Teruo and Nadine Ishitani Hata. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Donald Teruo Hata and Nadine Ishitani Hata.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Holt, Thomas C. and Dennie Wolf. Thinking Historically: Narrative, Imagination, and Understanding. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Boards, 1990.
Jenkins, Henry. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2013. Accessed June 9, 2016.
Kaufman, Linda. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Linda Kaufman.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Kee, Kevin B., ed. Pastplay: Teaching and Learning History with Technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2014. Accessed June 19, 2016.
Kelly, T. Mills. Teaching History in the Digital Age. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013. Accessed September 29, 2015.
Keserich, Charles. “Historical Thinking and History Teaching: A Bibliographic Essay.” The History Teacher 4, no. 2 (January 1971): 18-24. Accessed May 21, 2016.
Levstik, Linda S. and Keith C. Barton. Doing History. 4th edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 2011. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Lévesque, Stéphane. Thinking Historically. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008.
Martin, Daisy A. Teaching for Historical Thinking: Teacher Conceptions, Practices, and Constraints. Stanford University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2005. Accessed December 29, 2015.
Miller, Michelle. Minds Online: Teaching Effectively with Technology. London: Harvard University Press, 2014. Kindle Book.
Mork, Gordon. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Gordon Mork.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Nye, Adele, et. al. “Exploring historical thinking and agency with undergraduate history students.” Studies in Higher Education 36, no. 7 (2011): 763-780. Accessed May 21, 2016.
Palfrey, John, and Urs Gasser. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2010. Kindle Book.
Pixton, Carol. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Carol Pixton.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2016.
Rajendram, Christlin Parimalanathan. Critical pedagogy and the absent learner in media education: A sense-making intervention. The Ohio State University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1997. Accessed September 29, 2015.
Rosenzweig, Roy. Clio Wired: The Future of the Past in the Digital Age. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Kindle Book.
Rothschild, Eric. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Eric Rothschild.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Seixas, Peter. “Students’ Understanding of Historical Significance.” Theory and Research in Social Education, 22 (1994): 281-304. Accessed May 21, 2016.
Siemens, George. “Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.” 2014. Accessed September 29, 2015.
Stearns, Peter. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Peter Stearns.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed October 6, 2015.
Stearns, Peter, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg, eds. Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2000.
Thompson, Clive. Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better. New York: Penguin, 2013. Kindle Book.
Tosh, John. The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of History. 6th Edition. Florence: Taylor and Francis, 2015. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Townsend, Robert. “Assimilation of New Media into History Teaching: Some Snapshots from the Edge.” Perspectives 48, no. 9 (December 2010). Accessed June 2, 2016.
Trask, David. “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: David Trask.” Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995). Accessed December 27, 2015.
Trend, David, ed. Reading Digital Culture. 1st Edition. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.
Walsh, Ben. “Stories and their sources: the need for historical thinking in an information age.” Teaching History, no. 133 (December 2008): 4-9. Accessed October 6, 2015.
Weller, Toni, ed. History in the Digital Age. London; New York: Routledge, 2013. Accessed May 17, 2016.
Wineburg, Sam. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. Kindle Book. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.
Wineburg, Sam. “Crazy for History.” The Journal of American History 90, no. 4 (March 2004): 1401-1414. Accessed September 27, 2015.
- James Paul Gee defines a thematic discipline as a body of scholarship and practice “centered around a theme that cuts across many different disciplines and disciplinary specializations.” The definition is a fitting one for historical thinking as well as digital media and learning as both are comprised of research conducted by historians, social scientists, education researchers, anthropologists, computer scientists, and a number of other fields. See Gee, New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and” Worked Examples” as One Way Forward (MIT Press, 2009), 4.
- Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013), accessed June 9, 2016, 55.
- The most recognizable and widely read of this genre may be John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, Kindle Book (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2010).
- Charles Keserich, “Historical Thinking and History Teaching: A Bibliographic Essay,” The History Teacher, 4, no 2 (January 1971): 18.
- Introducing the Perspectives series, “Thinking Historically in the Classroom,” Robert Blackey asserts: that historical thinking involves “a way of thinking that can help our students to become better human beings.” See Perspectives 33, no 7 (October 1995), “Thinking Historically in the Classroom: Introduction,” accessed December 27, 2015.
- In his seminal work, Wineburg sums up the difficulty of pinning down a definition of historical thinking: “To researchers, historical understanding can mean anything from memorizing a list of dates to mastering a set of logical relations, from being able to recite an agreed-upon story to contending with ill-defined problems resistant to single interpretations.” Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts, Kindle Book (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), 29.
- For a concise definition of historical thinking, see Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke “Five C’s” in “What Does It Mean to Think Historically?” Perspectives 45, no. 1 (January 2007), accessed October 4, 2015. For an extensive definition, see T. Mills Kelly’s fifteen criteria in Teaching History in the Digital Age (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013) accessed September 29, 2015. The most recent effort to define historical thinking can be found in Lendol Calder and Tracy Steffes’s “Measuring College Learning in History” (Social Science Research Council, May 2016) accessed June 6, 2016. The Measuring College Learning project outlines five concepts and four competencies that can be tied to learning outcomes for history majors.
- Linda S. Levstik and Keith C. Barton, Doing History, 5th edition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 2015, 36-41. Levstik and Barton’s text was originally published in 1997, making the work contemporary with the “Thinking Historically in the Classroom” series from Perspectives.
- “Web 2.0” is common parlance for the more participatory and interactive web now in use, but I am skeptical of the continued usefulness of the term. For the students who will comprise the subjects of this study, it is simply “the web” or “the internet” or “the interwebs” if someone is feeling slightly ironic; they lack a reference point for anything that might be called “Web 1.0.”
- Gideon Burton, “Dear Students” in Daniel Cohen, et., al., Hacking the Academy (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2013).
- Michael Wesch, “From Knowledgeable to Knowledge-able,” in Daniel Cohen, et., al., Hacking the Academy (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2013).
- See Rey Junco, “Voices: Classroom Engagement” in Daniel Cohen, et., al., Hacking the Academy (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2013), by way of example.
- See Kelly, Teaching History in the Digital Age, “Making DIY History;” Compeau and MacDougall, “Here Lies Tecumseh in Kee, Pastplay; and commentary from Thomas in “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 95, No. 2 (September 2008): 452-491.
- See Charlotte Lydia Riley, “Beyond ctrl-c, ctrl-v: Teaching and Learning History in the Digital Age,” 152, in Toni Weller, ed., History in the Digital Age (London; New York: Routledge, 2013) and James Goulding, “Historical Thinking and Social Media,” Agora 46, no. 3 (2011): 17.
- Henry Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009) 64.
- Jenkins, Ford, and Green, Spreadable Media, 13.
- Gee, New Digital Media, 46; Barry Joseph and Kelly Czarnecki, “Leveraging Digital Media to Create a Participatory Learning Culture Among Incarcerated Youth,” in Delwiche and Jacobs Henderson, The Participatory Cultures Handbook, 221.
- Full details of “The Last American Pirate” hoax created by Kelly and his students can be found on Kelly’s blog, Lying About the Past.
- See Wineburg, Levstik and Barton, Seixas, and Lévesque, for a start.
- See Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke, “What does it mean to think historically?” (Perspectives 45, no. 1, 2007); T. Mills Kelly, Teaching History in the Digital Age (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013); the October 1995 Perspectives series, “Thinking Historically in the Classroom;” and Daisy Martin, Teaching for Historical Thinking: Teacher Conceptions, Practices, and Constraints (Stanford University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2005).
- Peter Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg, eds., Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2000).
- Nye, Adele, et. al. “Exploring historical thinking and agency with undergraduate history students,” Studies in Higher Education 36, no. 7 (2011): 763-780.
- Rebecca Zak, Raising Creativity (accessed June 30, 2016).