Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

A model of flexible thinking in contemporary education

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rapid global changes and fast advancements in technological innovations highlight the need
Received 12 January 2016 for flexible thinking among learners of all ages. Flexible thinking has many definitions, but
Received in revised form 1 September 2016 it is yet lacking reference to contemporary technology-enhanced education. Guided by the
Accepted 7 September 2016
grounded theory approach, this study was set to generate a model of ‘flexibility’ by linking
Available online 9 September 2016
past definitions to present conceptions. The study was conducted through three phases of
data collection, via an online survey and semi-structured interviews, among one-hundred
Keywords:
thirty-three educational instructors, university lecturers, and student teachers. Findings
Flexible thinking
indicated three main themes that underline the conceptualization of flexible thinking in
Grounded theory
Open-mindedness contemporary education: Open-mindedness to others’ ideas – the ability to learn from
Technology-enhanced learning others, manage teamwork, listen to multiple perspectives, and handle conflicts; Adapting
to changes in learning situations – the ability to find multiple solutions, solve unfamiliar
problems, and transfer knowledge to new situations; and Accepting new or changing learn-
ing technologies – the ability to adjust to advanced technologies and effectively use them
for meaningful learning. Our qualitative data indicated links between the three themes;
identifying ‘open-mindedness to others’ ideas’ as fundamental for contemporary flexible
thinking. This study presents a unified theoretical model that may assist educators and
learners to self-evaluate flexibility. It may also assist in promoting ideas for pedagogical
interventions that enhance this important thinking skill.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Rapid changes occurring in our global world pose a challenge for education to prepare high-skilled learners to cope with
new problems and changing situations (Bentley, 2014; Mercier & Higgins, 2013). Among the required 21 st century compe-
tencies, flexibility together with adaptability and intellectual openness are key skills (NRC, 2012; OECD, 2013). Flexibility
(i.e. flexibility of thought) seems to be intuitively easy to define; however, the literature shows that there is a range of
overlapping definitions and related concepts (Ionescu, 2012). Studies in the realms of cognition, neuroscience, and social
sciences, refer to flexibility, cognitive flexibility, and flexible thinking interchangeably while providing different definitions
for each concept (e.g. Barak & Levenberg, 2016; Ionescu, 2012; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Flexibility is reflected in diverse human
behaviors, such as generating innovative ideas, multitasking, and creative and problem solving, but it is difficult to identify
a single prototype (Deak, 2000; Ionescu, 2012). A recent study indicated the need for a comprehensive conceptualization of
flexibility, depicting the fragmentation in the study of flexibility as “a puzzle with scattered pieces” (Ionescu, 2012, p. 193). In

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Barak), [email protected] (A. Levenberg).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.003
1871-1871/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85 75

the realm of educational research, this need is reinforced in light of recent developments in information and communication
technologies.
Since they were first launched, information and communication technologies are harnessed to enhance learning in for-
mal and informal settings (e.g. Barak et al., 2009; Barak & Ziv, 2013; OECD, 2015). Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) is
conceptualized as learning activities or environments that are mediated, supported, or facilitated by web-based and mobile
technologies (Barak, 2007; Plesch et al., 2013). TEL is inherently affected by constant advancements in technologies toward
mobile, ubiquitous, and social learning. These advancements are characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty, derived from
the variety of applications and devices that one can choose from (Barak & Levenberg, 2016; Grübler, 2003). Instructors and
learners are expected to be aware of technological advancements, be open-mindedness toward changes, and adapt innova-
tions (Barak & Dori, 2011; Barak & Levenberg, 2016). They are also expected to have adaptive expertise and respond flexibly
to complex problems (Mercier & Higgins, 2013; OECD, 2013). However, the term ‘flexibility’ should be better defined and
distinctly conceptualized in the realm of contemporary technology-enhanced learning.
Motivated by this idea, the current study’s objective was to generate a model for the conceptualization of ‘flexibility’
in the context of technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Accordingly, this paper includes two main parts. First, we introduce
a thorough literature review that analyzes the way flexibility is conceptualized in previous studies, suggesting a unified
theoretical model. Second, we present a grounded theory study that proposes an additional theoretical layer for modeling
flexible thinking in technology-enhanced learning (TEL).

2. Conceptualization of flexibility and cognitive flexibility

Although flexibility (i.e. flexibility of thought) and cognitive flexibility are often used interchangeably, the two terms can
be differentiated in order to reduce confusion. Flexibility is perceived as a ‘personality trait’ – an enduring mental structure
that characterizes a person’s nature (Gough, 1987; Guilford, 1959). It is viewed as an individual’s capacity for changing the
way information is interpreted or used, or the strategy of doing things (Barak & Levenberg, 2016; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). It
reflects a person’s inclination to change direction of thinking, see things from different points of view, and view a situation
or a problem from various perspectives (Deak, 2000; Mercier & Higgins, 2013; Vernon & Hocking, 2016). The term ‘cognitive
flexibility’ derived from the work on flexibility. It is thought of as an ‘ability’– a skill or proficiency that may assist in handling
changes or unexpected events (Martin & Anderson, 1998; Morrison & Hall, 2002; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). This ability entails
processes or actions such as adapting to new situations or shifting attention from one task to the other.
Ionescu (2012) conducted a literature review on flexibility and cognitive flexibility, sorting the definitions of the two
constructs into four categories: set-shifting, higher-order ability, property of cognition or mental states, and measure for
divergent thinking. While the first two categories derive from studies on cognitive flexibility, the latter are more associated
with studies on flexibility (Ionescu, 2012). Based on the literature, this study differentiate between the two terms, viewing
flexibility as a personality trait and cognitive flexibility as an ability to do things. The following sections discuss the common
underpinning and the evolvement of the two concepts as driven from cognitive and social studies.

2.1. Flexibility from a cognitive perspective

From a cognitive perspective, flexibility was conceptualized as one of the four basic functions of divergent thinking,
together with elaboration, fluency, and originality (Guilford, 1967; Torrance, 1974). Guilford regarded flexibility as a quality
in which a person cognitively modifies or redefines information or conceptions in order to see them in new situations. In
testing the function of flexibility, Guilford (1959) distinguished between “spontaneous flexibility” and ‘adaptive flexibility’.
Spontaneous flexibility occurs when a person quickly and easily takes new directions with or without apparent good cause.
Adaptive flexibility occurs when a person changes mental sets while facing a complex task or an unconventional problem.
Whereas spontaneous flexibility tends to be related to tasks of relative simplicity, adaptive flexibility occurs in relatively
difficult tasks, demanding a modified product. The subsidiary qualities of these two factors were considered as adaptability
to changing instructions and freedom from inertia of thought.
Flexibility as a personality trait is mostly associated with openness to experience (Gough, 1987), and as one of the
basic functions of divergent thinking (Guilford, 1959; Karakelle, 2009; Torrance 1974). Flexibility as openness to experience
appears in the Five Factor Model (Gough, 1987). This model suggests that human personality holds five main traits: openness
to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Gough, 1987). Openness also appears in
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1990), as part of the fifth subscale − Resistance to Premature Closure. It refers
to the degree of psychological openness; based on the belief that creative behavior requires a person to keep an “open mind”
and to consider a variety of options when processing information (Torrance, 1990). Openness to experience reflects the
degree of intellectual curiosity and a preference for novelty (McCrae & Sutin, 2009).
With regards to divergent thinking, a component of creativity.

2.2. Flexibility from a social perspective

From a social perspective, flexibility is regarded as an inter-personality trait. It is conceptualized as ‘openness to others’
and the inclination to adjust one’s views to suit changing interpersonal situations (Baron, 1991). It is a multifaceted construct
76 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85

that includes the willingness to change one’s beliefs or views in the face of contradictory evidence (Baron, 1991). According
to this approach, flexibility can be reflected in the degree to which a person is capable of receiving information from others
and developing insights into their thoughts and feelings (Osipow, 1969). In a more recent study, Hare (2003) conceptualized
flexibility as the ability to be critically receptive to alternative possibilities and new ideas of others (Hare, 2003). Similarly,
McCrae and Sutin (2009) perceived flexibility as a facilitator of interpersonal communication, associated with perspective-
taking and tolerance of different opinions.
As a social component, flexibility was often operationalized as a characteristic required for effective teamwork (McComb
et al., 2007). This inter-personality trait has gained attention in the last three decades with the proliferation of web-based
technologies (OECD, 2013). It signifies a person’s inclination to flexibly deal with praises, setbacks, and criticism, while
working with other partners. In other words, flexible individuals, working in international and multicultural teams, are able
to assess their own behavior in the group, act constructively when given feedback, and make the required adjustments
for effective functioning (McComb et al., 2007). When an individual displays flexible behavior, it is perceived as cognitive
flexibility.

2.3. Cognitive flexibility

Cognitive flexibility has many definitions, but in general, it can be conceptualized as an ‘ability’ – a skill or proficiency to
handle changes. While flexibility is perceived as a personality trait that one is born with, cognitive flexibility is an ability that
can be enacted and improved with a proper stimuli (Martin & Anderson, 1998; Morrison & Hall, 2002; Spiro & Jehng, 1990).
In the past seven decades, researchers aimed at identifying and conceptualizing the mental processes that occur when a
person displays flexible behavior, that is, cognitive flexibility (Ionescu, 2012). The literature indicates three main approaches
for conceptualizing cognitive flexibility – as a set-shifting ability (Diamond, 2006; Scott, 1962, 1966), as an ability to adapt
to new situations (Cañas, Quesada, Antolí, & Fajardo, 2003; Martin & Anderson, 1998; Spiro & Jehng, 1990), and as an ability
to solve ill-defined or unfamiliar problems (Deak, 2000, 2003; Cañas et al., 2003; Deak, 2000; Vernon & Hocking, 2016).
The first approach conceptualize cognitive flexibility as a set-shifting ability, referring to the ability to switch one’s think-
ing and attention between tasks (Morrison & Hall, 2002). Five decades ago, Scott (1962, 1966), defined cognitive flexibility
as “the readiness with which the person’s concept system changes selectively in response to appropriate environmental
stimuli” (Scott, 1962, p. 405). Specifically, Scott referred to the degree of response variability and the mental ability to switch
between concepts, in the continuum of flexibility-rigidity. Accordingly, cognitive flexibility can be perceived as the ability to
shift one’s direction of thinking as a function of changing tasks (Ionescu, 2012). This ‘set-shifting’ approach views cognitive
flexibility as part of executive functions − a general term for mental abilities that are necessary for formulating goals, plan-
ning how to achieve them, and carrying out the plans effectively (Ionescu, 2012; Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, Sanz de Acedo
Baquedano, & Villanueva, 2012). Set-shifting reflects the ability to flexibly switch between different responses, perspectives,
and mental setts (Diamond, 2006; Ionescu, 2012).
The second approach conceptualize cognitive flexibility as a person’s ability to adapt to new or changing situations
(Cañas et al., 2003; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). According to this approach, cognitive flexibility involves the ability to adapt to
new situations, and as result, adapt mental processing strategies to manage the new situations (Cañas et al., 2003; Martin &
Anderson, 1998). Martin and Anderson (1998) defined cognitive flexibility as to dealing with new situations in three terms:
awareness that in any given situation there are options and alternatives available, willingness to adapt to a certain situation,
and self-efficacy in the ability to be flexible. Consequently, individuals that are cognitively flexible are adaptable as well.
Adaptability is characterized by the tendency to cope with unfamiliar situations, such as learning a new topic, solving a new
problem, or finding new solutions to a problem.
The third approach conceptualize cognitive flexibility as a person’s ability to find new solutions to ill-structured or
unfamiliar problems (Deak, 2000, 2003; Vernon & Hocking, 2016). Cognitive flexibility is conceptualized as the human
ability to adapt the cognitive processing strategies to face new or unexpected conditions of the environment (Cañas et al.,
2003). Study indicated that people with high levels of cognitive flexibility can solve problems better than those who are
less flexible, because they tend to consider alternative solutions rather than useing familiar methods (Cañas et al., 2003).
Dynamic and creative problem solving was identified as significant in the process of learning and knowledge construction
(Deak, 2003; German & Defeyter, 2000).

2.4. Cognitive flexibility and education

Within the context of education, the understanding of cognitive flexibility can serve as a basis for instructional theories
and recommended practices (Brown & Campione, 1981). It may add to the discussion about the way learning is studied
and understood, and thus underlie curricular design and instructional decision-making which occurs in education. In this
context, the well-recognized cognitive flexibility theory holds an educational perspective that is based on cognitive theories
that emphasize cognitive processes during learning (Spiro & Jehng, 1990; Spiro et al., 1991). Specifically, the researchers
conceptualized cognitive flexibility as “the ability to spontaneously restructure one’s knowledge in many ways, in adaptive
response to radically changing situational demands” (Spiro & Jehng, 1990, p. 165).
Flexibility and knowledge have a varied relationship − knowledge can facilitate flexibility, but it can also inhibit it, if
it becomes a ‘habit of mind’. For instance, flexible equation solving can be promoted through the acquisition of domain
 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85 77

knowledge (Rittle-Johnson & Star, 2009). Knowledge allows learners to make various types of mental connections and
inductive inferences (Deak, 2003; German & Defeyter, 2000). It seems that the more knowledgeable a person is, in a certain
discipline, the more flexible she or he are in solving problems (Deak, 2003; Rittle-Johnson & Star, 2009). A study that examined
chess players and their problem solving ability, showed that previous knowledge induced inflexibility among ‘ordinary’
experts; but ‘super’ experts in chess were not affected by previous mental sets and were flexible in finding unfamiliar
optimal solutions to various problems (Bilalic, McLeod, & Gobet, 2008).
Flexibility is required when learners are facing a dynamic problem solving assignment. In dynamic problems, the learner
is required to solve a problem while facing certain constraints such as time, pace, or location (Cañas et al., 2005; De Obeso &
Wood, 2012). It requires fast decision making which may effect the learning process. Good dynamic problem solving, involves
both selection and execution of a chosen strategy (De Obeso & Wood, 2012). Dynamic problem solvers are expected to be
flexible in thought and ready to change strategy when the situation demands (Gonzalez et al., 2005). However, the degree of
cognitive flexibility in problem solving tasks varies depending on the training participants undergo. For example, Cañas et al.
(2005) found that participants who trained repeatedly on the same problem scenario developed a routine strategy, becoming
faster and more fluid in their actions over time. When later tested on a different scenario, their behavior was inflexible in
adapting to the new test conditions. Contrary to this, those trained on a series of varying problem solving scenarios indicated
an ability to adapt their problem solving strategies in a flexible way to new situations. Overall, dynamic problem solving
brings to the forefront the importance of flexibility in formal and in formal education (De Obeso & Wood, 2012; Gonzalez
et al., 2005).
The premise of flexibility in the educational perspective as viewed by Spiro and colleagues, refers to cognitive structures
that can be realized in ill-defined online environments of hypertext and hyper-media (Jacobson & Spiro, 1993; Spiro & Jehng,
1990; Spiro et al., 1991). Correspondingly, Jacobson and Spiro (1993) suggested a five instructional principle approach to
develop flexible cognitive structures that would enhance the ability of learners to transfer their previously acquired knowl-
edge to new applications. The principles include: using multiple knowledge representations, linking abstract concepts to
different cases, introducing domain complexity, stressing the interrelated and web-like nature of knowledge, and encourag-
ing knowledge assembly. However, since the 1990’s both pedagogy and technology have evolved to facilitate constructivist,
collaborative, and adaptive learning environments (Barak & Ziv, 2013; Barak, 2014, 2016).
Summarizing the views presented in our literature review, ‘flexibility’ can be conceptualized as a social or a cognitive
trait. In the cognitive perspective, it is viewed as a function of divergent thinking and as a person’s inclination to be open to
new experiences (Gough, 1987; Guilford, 1959). In the social perspective, it is viewed as openness to others’ ideas (Baron,
1991). ‘Cognitive flexibility’ can be thought of as an extension of ‘flexibility’ in that it describes the abilities and behaviors of
a flexible person. Our review revealed that cognitive flexibility can be conceptualized, as an ability to restructure knowledge
in adaptive response to changes (Spiro & Jehng, 1990), as an ability to solve unfamiliar problems (Deak, 2000), and as a
set-shifting ability (Diamond, 2006). Fig. 1 summarizes the different approaches to the conceptualization of flexibility and
cognitive flexibility, as presented in our literature review.
Cognitive flexibility is significant for living, working, and learning in our rapidly changing world (OECD, 2013). Today,
people are expected to be flexible in solving new problems, managing new job requirements, adapting to new technologies,
and communicating in diverse cultural settings. However, our literature review revealed a theoretical gap related to the
conceptualization of ‘flexibility’ in terms of contemporary learning. The term ‘flexibility’ should be further studied and
better understood in light of recent developments in advanced technologies. Since this study examines educational aspects
of flexibility we use the term ‘flexible thinking’, which was used in previous studies that focused on learning (Brown &
Campione, 1981).

Fig. 1. A summary of the different approaches to the conceptualization of flexibility and cognitive flexibility.
78 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85

Table 1
Research participants’ description and demographics.

Participants N Description Mean Age (Range) Gender distribution

Educational instructors 14 Expert school teachers who are also teachers’ instructors M = 48 (32–67) Women 43%
Men 57%
University lecturers 46 Lecturers who teach in teacher education courses M = 44 (35–57) Women 87%
Men 13%
Student teachers 73 Undergraduates studying for their teaching diploma M = 33 (18–60) Women 71%
Men 29%

3. Method

3.1. Research goal, questions, and participants

The goal of this study was to generate a model for the conceptualization of ‘flexibility’ in the context of contemporary
technology-enhanced learning (TEL). This goal raised the following research questions:

1 Is adapting to change perceived as a necessary skill for 21 st century learning?

Guided by the ‘theoretical sampling’ process (Staruss & Corbin, 1998), the study purposefully targeted three types of
participants, each represented a different aspect of teaching: a. Educational instructors, who are expert school teachers and
instructors (N = 14); b. University lecturers from diverse disciplines, such as: Computer science, Mathematics, English, and
Literature (N = 46); and c. Student teachers (N = 73) who studied for their teaching diploma. The participants were recruited
by sending more than 250 email messages to workers in the education system, schools, and teacher training colleges, through
general or personal mailing lists. One hundred and thirty-three participants positively responded and agreed to participate
in the study. Participants’ confidentiality was maintained by using pseudo-names and by cautiously concealing personal
details. The research participants’ description and demographics are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Methodology

The grounded theory method was used, as the current study attempted at adding a new theoretical layer to the body of
knowledge on flexibility of thought, with relation to contemporary education. Hence, we applied an inductive investigative
process, by systematically gathering and analyzing data according to protocols suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1994, 1998).
We used the ‘theoretical sampling’ process (Staruss & Corbin, 1998), by selecting participants with different educational
expertise, to maximize the opportunities for exploring emerging themes and developing new insights. Accordingly, our study
included three succeeding research phases. The first phase was an exploratory study that was conducted among educational
instructors. The second and third phases included university lecturers (i.e. teacher educators) and student teachers, as two
sides of the academic teaching and learning. Data was collected until we reached a ‘theoretical saturation’ – the point at
which additional data did not add to the categories or themes that were previously developed (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss &
Corbin, 1994).
The study utilized an online survey and semi-structured interviews. The online survey included one general open-ended
question, enabling the examination of open views and participants’ personal experience. In phase one, the survey included
an exploratory question: How and why is adapting to change a necessary skill in the 21 st century learning? It was administered
among 14 educational instructors. In phases two and three the survey included the question: What in your opinion is flexible
thinking in learning? Give at least one example from your experience. It was administered among 46 university lecturers and
73 student teachers.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted in phase three, with a representative sample of 18 student teachers
(25%). Guided by the work of Corbin and Strauss (2014), the interviews, 40-to-60 min long, were administered to explore,
corroborate, and deepen the insights about ‘flexible thinking in learning’ as emerged from the previous phases and from the
participants’ answers to the online survey. The personal interviews indicated the end point of this study; the point at which
additional data did not add to the themes that merged in the previous phases of the study.
The written data, collected from the online survey and the interview transcripts, were systematically analyzed for each
phase separately (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The analysis followed the grounded theory general procedures (Corbin & Strauss,
2014). It involved thematic analysis, recognizing patterns across our data sets that are important to the description of
flexible thinking in TEL. Our thematic analysis was performed through the process of coding, which included: reading and
rereading the transcripts, marking/highlighting important sentences, generating initial codes, searching for themes among
codes, collecting and reviewing the themes, and naming and defining the final themes.
Our analysis included three types of coding: open – identifying themes; axial – finding links between the themes; and
selective – defining the core themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Open coding is a first-tier process, providing a wide review
of the themes, such as emerging domains or significant phrases. Next, axial coding is a second-tier process by which the
 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85 79

general themes are rearranged according to the relationships between them. Then, selective coding, the third-tier, is applied
for merging significant phrases into core themes, assigning names and definitions to present a unified theoretical model.
After a preliminary analysis of each phase, two reviewers, experienced in qualitative research, analyzed independently
approximately 30% of the transcriptions. Following their analysis and comments, the preliminary analysis inferences were
refined and written as results. The analysis continued until no new category/theme emerged from the transcripts and
theoretical saturation was reached (Charmaz, 2006). Accordingly, our study included two types of triangulation: investigators
and methodological, in the analysis process (Denzin, 2009). Investigator triangulation involved the use of two reviewers in the
analysis process, as described above. Methodological triangulation involved the use of two different sources of information
− semi-structured interviews and an online survey, in order to increase the validity of the study by obtaining similar results
from each tool.

4. Findings

In this chapter, findings are presented in consistent with the three research phases, describing the way flexible thinking
in contemporary learning is perceived by educational instructors, academic lecturer, and student teachers. As a summary,
we present a theoretical model that represents the conceptualization of flexible thinking in technology-enhanced learning.

4.1. Flexible thinking in contemporary learning as perceived by educational instructors

The thematic analysis, conducted in phase one, indicated that all the educational instructors (N = 14) viewed ‘flexible
thinking’ as necessary for meaningful teaching and learning, due to our rapidly changing and technology-centered world.
The open coding analysis raised several themes that explained this necessity, including: the need to manage situations of
uncertainty when using computers and the need to adapt to technological changes and flexibly accept them. The following
paragraphs are selected examples of participants’ assertions that support the emerging themes described above (all names
are pseudonyms).
Hannah holds a masters’ degree in educational technologies. She works as a mathematics teacher for six grade students
and as an instructor in a teachers’ college. Her answer reflects a reality that requires the ability to adapt to changes in face
of the dynamicity of technological development:
“...Due to the swiftness and dynamics of our lifestyle, there is a need to be relevant. In order to adapt to changes we learn
new skills and deepen existing ones like the ability to change dynamically while working. This skill is derived out of reality
of the learner’s life, surrounded by technology. . .” (Hannah, survey transcripts)
Isaac is a primary school teacher and an educational instructor who holds a masters’ degree in educational administration.
He works as a humanities and home class teacher for fourth grade students, and as a teachers’ instructor. He emphasized
situations of uncertainty that derive from the extensive technological possibilities:
“ . . . The use of computer technology places people in general and learners in specific, in situations of uncertainty. . . since
there is a huge amount of applications, and no one can really take a “course” of learning any application, website, or anything
else. That demands perpetual learning, adapting to changes and flexibility.” (Isaac, survey transcripts)
Tom is a high school teacher and an educational technology mentor for teachers. He added to the idea described above:
“Because these frequent changes do not pose a surprise but rather a routine, I think I’m just used to not being accustomed. If
an application is running as did yesterday, it’s fine. If it changes, I immediately learn about the changes and flexibly accept
them.” (Tom, survey transcripts)
Subsequent to the first-tier process – the open coding analysis, we applied the second-tier – the axial coding process
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998), in which we identified links between flexibility and two emerging themes: ‘the ability to accept
changes’ and ‘the ability to adapt’, for example: ‘immediately learn about the changes and flexibly accept them’ and “perpetual
learning, adapting to changes, and flexibility”. This led to the third-tier – the selective coding process, in which two core
themes emerge: the ability to adapt to changes in learning situations and the ability to accept new or changing technologies.
In order to examine whether these themes recur in different situations and to deepen the understanding of flexible thinking
in contemporary learning, we conducted the next two phases among university lecturers and student teachers.

4.2. Flexible thinking in contemporary learning as perceived by university lecturers

The open coding analysis of phase two transcripts of university lecturers (N = 46), identified three main themes. Two
themes were similar to those indicated in phase one: adapting to changes in learning situations and accepting new or changing
technologies. However, a third theme emerged: open-mindedness to others’ ideas. The first theme – adapting to changes,
was related to learning situations that include: transferring knowledge to new situations, solving unfamiliar problems, and
finding multiple solutions. The second theme – accepting new or changing situations, was related to learning situations
that include the use of information and communication technologies. The third – open-mindedness, was related to learning
situations that include social interaction, collaboration, and openness to others’ ideas, views, and experience. The following
80 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85

paragraphs are selected examples of academic lectures’ assertions that support the three emerging themes (participants’
names are pseudonyms).
Sarah, an English lecturer, perceived flexible thinking in learning as an ability to adapt to new learning situations:
“A person that is flexible in mind must be able to change her/his mind according to what s/he encounters. Flexible thinkers
also adapt to situations in life more easily and therefore have the ability to learn from previous situations and bring their
experience to new situations. I think learners that are flexible thinkers attempt to address and resolve problems in different
ways.” (Sarah, survey transcripts)
Mansour, a lecturer and a pedagogic advisor asserted that the ability to cope with the changing learning environments
may even require a deep perceptual change:
“Flexible thinking in learning is the ability to adapt to changes in the learning environment that may affect the teach-
ing/learning method. It requires a change in perceptions and attitudes about ourselves as learners and teachers.” (Mansour,
survey transcripts)
Similarly, Layla, a computer science lecturer, perceived flexible thinking as the ability to adapt to changes:
“I believe flexible thinking in learning occurs when the learner needs to change his line of thought based on the learning
tasks” (Layla, survey transcripts).
The examples presented above indicate that flexible thinking is perceived as the ability to adapt to changes in various
learning situations. Flexible thinking was also perceived as the ability to accept new or changing technologies, as presented
in the following examples.
David a computer science lecturer perceived flexibility as the ability to accept and manage changing technologies:
“Today we learn and work in technological environments that are constantly changing. In cloud technology, for example,
the service provider changes the application version with no prior notice. . . . we have no choice but to accept changes and
learn to manage them.” (David, survey transcripts)
Similarly, Ann, a lecturer in science education programs, perceived flexibility as the ability to accept changes:
“As we all know, information is growing in an exponential way. In order to succeed in the workplace one has to be mentally
flexible. It is not enough to manage data. . . we need to be able to accept changes and use the most up-to-date tools in an
efficient manner.” (Ann, survey transcripts)
The examples presented above indicate that flexible thinking is perceived as the ability to accept new or changing
technologies. Further analysis indicated that flexible thinking was also perceived as related to open-mindedness to others’
ideas, as presented in the following examples.
Arline is a construction engineering lecturer. She emphasized open-mindedness and ‘listening to others’ as a starting
point to flexible thinking, and explained that there is a non-dichotomist space in which this can exist:
“It [flexible thinking] means listening to the others, and others’ different opinions, considering different thoughts and ideas,
even if they don’t comply with my thoughts. Not to insist, to negotiate and to examine other options. Not to look at things
only in two colors: black and white, or right and wrong, the flexible thinking space is wider and more diverse.” (Arline,
survey transcripts)
Ruth, a lecturer added that flexible thinking is accepting different opinions:
“Accepting the fact that there are opinions different than mine is a kind of ‘intellectual tolerance’. The informed distinction
between ‘I’ and the ‘world ‘-perhaps belongs to an early stage of development, but I think it is the basis of the previously
mentioned characteristic.” (Ruth, survey transcripts)
The axial coding process that followed the open coding analysis identified links between open-mindedness to others’
ideas and the two other themes: the ability to adapt to changes in learning situations and the ability to accept new or
changing technologies, as presented in the following examples:
“. . . Indeed, open-mindedness is an important trait that precede the ability to accept or even adapt to changes.” (Ann,
survey transcripts)
“A person who is open-minded will surely be able to use advanced technologies, even if they are completely new to him.”
(David, survey transcripts)
“In order to adapt to new situations, one has first to be open-minded to changes.” (Dina, survey transcripts)
According to the participants’ assertions, open-mindedness can be thought of as prerequisite to adapting to changes and
accepting new or changing technologies. This findings were corroborated in the third phase of this study, as presented in
the next section.
 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85 81

4.3. Flexible thinking in contemporary learning as perceived by student teachers

This section presents the results of phase three open coding analysis of student teachers’ assertions (N = 73). In this phase,
the analyzed transcripts of the online survey and personal interviews, supported and corroborated the three main themes
that emerged in the previous phases. Since no new themes were found, this stage was indicated as the end point of the study.
The following paragraphs are selected examples of student teachers’ assertions that support the three themes (all names
are pseudonyms).
A. Adapting to changes in learning situations
Ahmet, a science education student, perceived flexible thinking in terms of reflection and adaptability:
“Flexible thinking is the ability to reflect upon the process of thinking and adapt your thinking according to the situation.”
(Ahmet, survey transcripts)
Heidi, a science education student, perceived flexible thinking as requiring adaptability:
“Flexible thinking is the ability to adapt to any situation in order to act in the most appropriate way possible” (Heidi, survey
transcripts).
Samir, a computer engineer, studying for his teaching diploma, asserted similar ideas:
“We must get used to the idea that we do not have full control over the files we create. . . All this progress requires adaptability
and flexibility of thought. It is a process that develops and changes over time.” (Samir, survey transcripts)
B. Accepting new or changing technologies
Sami, a first year physics education student, addressed the issue of rapid technological changes, conceptualizing flexible
thinking as the ability to accept innovations:
‘The 21 st century encompasses rapid technological changes, and therefore there is a need to be flexible and to jump to new
things, leaving the old ones behind’ (Sami, survey transcripts).
Dora, a first year biology education students, asserted that our fast paced technology-centered world cause a stimuli
overload and that flexible thinking is actually a fast respond to it:

¨.. . things change in a very fast pace. . .information is growing fast and becoming accessible. There are many stimulations
around us, therefore we need to think flexibly and respond quickly” (Dora, survey transcripts).
Similarly, Masha, a science education student, emphasized that flexible thinking is coping with technological changes:
“The technology is changing all around us in a dizzying manner, which necessitates constant updating. . .. This means flexible
thinking” (Masha, interview).
C. Open-mindedness to others’ ideas
Rayna, a first year student of science education, referred to the need to be open minded as a prerequisite of flexibility:
“Flexible thinking in learning refers to the degree of compromise of group members and their openness to new opinions even
if they contradict their own.” (Rayna, interview)
Ziva, a first year student of physics education, asserted that:
“You need to pause and listen to others and maybe change your way of thinking, in order to attain a mutual goal.” (Ziva,
survey transcripts).
Yael, an engineering education student, asserted that:
“Naturally, in a group, there is more of a possibility that different ideas will come up for a solution. Agreeing over a solution
is the part that requires flexibility of the group members” (Yael, survey transcripts).
The axial coding process that followed the open coding analysis identified links between ‘open-mindedness to others’
ideas’ and the two other themes, as presented in the following examples:
Paul, a computer science education student, indicated a link between open-mindedness and adaptability:
“It is necessary to be flexible, be open minded, and be able to adapt. . .” (Sam, survey transcripts)
John, a physics education student, provided a similar link between the two themes. He also referred to the link between
open-mindedness and adaptability:
“While preparing the digital mind-map, I was able to perceive things through the eyes of other team members. S.A. for
example had a very particular order in her writing and I had to learn to see things from her point of view so that we
can complete the task together. When we designed the experiment we tried to be flexible. Adapting to the new learning
environment and to group work was relatively easy and we consolidated ideas more and more as time went on.” (John,
survey transcripts)
82 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85

Fig. 2. The three emerging themes that conceptualize flexible thinking in contemporary learning.

Michael, an engineering education student, pointed at a link between open-mindedness and acceptances of new tech-
nologies:
“...I had to learn how to use a new video software, I had to improvise and learn how it works. At the beginning, I did not
understand it because it was new to me. I had to be flexible and open-minded . . .overcome my inclination to see learning
as a process of studying facts.” (Michael, survey transcripts)
Similarly, Samuel, who is also an engineering education student, referred to the link between open-mindedness and
acceptances of technologies:
“Because of the variety of technologies that are in hand, it is important to keep an open mind and to know how to accept
and integrate them according to the circumstances.” (Samuel, survey transcripts)
This may suggest that: ‘open-mindedness to other’s ideas’ is fundamental for flexible thinking in contemporary education.
It can be thought of as a significant personality trait; a precondition to adaptability and the acceptance of new or changing
technologies.
Overall, our grounded theory analysis identified three main themes: Open-mindedness to others’ ideas – the ability
to learn from others, manage teamwork, listen to multiple perspectives, and handle conflicts while working with peers;
Adapting to changes in learning situations – the ability to find multiple solutions, solve unfamiliar problems, and transfer
knowledge to new situations; and Accepting new or changing learning technologies – the ability to easily adjust to new and
advanced technologies and effectively use them to promote meaningful learning.
In line with the grounded theory approach, the integration of the three themes, illustrated in Fig. 2, generated a unified
definition for flexible thinking in contemporary education. Accordingly, it can be conceptualized as: a higher order thinking
skill, comprised of open-mindedness as fundamental to the ability to adapt to changes in learning situations and to accept
new or changing technologies. Since contemporary education involves the use of technologies, this definition can be thought
of a conceptualization of flexible thinking in technology-enhanced learning (TEL).

5. Discussion

The continual development of information and communication technologies is characterized in uncertainty and dynam-
icity (Grübler, 2003). Uncertainty can, for example, derive from the variety of technological solutions to choose from, while
dynamicity is explained in the constant technological changes, including the continuous introduction of new versions,
improvements and modifications. More than before, these rapid changes necessitate flexibility on the part of instructors and
learners (Barak, 2014, 2016; Barak & Levenberg, 2016).
Previous conceptualizations of ‘flexibility’ hold a clear cognitive stance (Diamond, 2006; Ionescu, 2012; Spiro & Jehng,
1990). Flexibility is usually perceived as openness to experience or as a function of divergent thinking (Gough, 1987;
Karakelle, 2009). Only few studies focused on the social aspects of flexibility, viewing it as an inter-personality trait of
openness to others’ ideas and opinions (Baron, 1991). With regards to cognitive flexibility, it was perceived as the ability to
restructure knowledge in adaptive response to changing situations (Spiro & Jehng, 1990), find new solutions to ill-defined
or unfamiliar problems (Deak, 2000), or shift between tasks or mental sets (Diamond, 2006; Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, Sanz
de Acedo Baquedano, & Villanueva, 2012). Little attention was devoted to educational challenges that involve the use of
constantly updated technologies (Bentley, 2014). In light of the aforesaid, this study was set to generate a theoretical model
for the conceptualization of ‘flexibility’ in the context of contemporary education.
Based on the literature review and our findings, we developed a unified theoretical model for the conceptualization of
flexible thinking as: A higher order thinking skill that constitutes open-mindedness to other’s ideas as fundamental to the
ability to adapt to changes in learning situations and to accept new or changing technologies. Since contemporary education
involves the use of technologies, this definition can be thought of a conceptualization of flexible thinking in technology-
enhanced learning (TEL). Fig. 3, presents the unified theoretical model that emerged from this study. It presents a summary
of the literature (as presented in Fig. 1) and the three emerging themes (as presented in Fig. 2).
Fig. 3 presents a graphical representation of the three themes that construct flexible thinking in TEL as evolved from the
literature and the research findings. The arrows present theoretical links between the constructs. Findings indicated that in
order to be a flexible thinker, a learner has first to be open minded to ideas, views, and experience of others. On one hand, this
 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85 83

Fig. 3. A unified theoretical model for the conceptualization of flexible thinking in technology-enhanced learning.

theme follows the work of cognitive studies that associated flexibility with openness to one’s own experience (Gough, 1987).
On the other hand, it follows the work of social studies that associate flexibility with openness to others (Baron, 1991). In
this study, the first theme – ‘open-mindedness to other’s ideas’, is conceptualized as the ability to learn from others, manage
teamwork, listen to multiple perspectives, and handle conflicts while working with peers. This corresponds with the work
of other researchers who conceptualized flexibility as the ability to be critically receptive to the ideas of others (Hare, 2003)
and be tolerant to different opinions (McCrae and Sutin, 2009).
Open-mindedness to other’s ideas was identified as a recurring theme, directly related to the two other themes: ‘adapting
to changes in learning situations’ and ‘accepting new or changing technologies’. The latter two themes were found to be
mutually related. That is, a person who easily adapts to new learning situations will most likely be able to easily accept new
learning technologies and vice versa. This relationship was found in another study that indicated that teacher educators who
are technology experts (i.e. easily accept new learning technologies) adapt to innovative instructional methods more easily
than those who are technology novices (Barak & Levenberg, 2016).
The second theme – ‘adapting to changes in learning situations’, is conceptualized as the ability to find multiple solutions,
solve unfamiliar problems, and transfer knowledge to new situations. This corresponds with the work of other researchers
who conceptualized flexibility as the ability to restructure knowledge in adaptive response to changes (Spiro & Jehng, 1990),
as an ability to adapt to new situations and solve unfamiliar problems (Cañas, Quesada, Antolí, & Fajardo, 2003; Deak, 2000),
and as an adaptive set-shifting ability (Diamond, 2006). This also corresponds with recent reports, stating that flexibility as
adaptability to changes, is a required skill for learning and working in the 21 st century (NRC, 2012; OECD, 2013).
The third theme – ‘accepting new or changing learning technologies’, is conceptualized as the ability to easily adjust
to new and advanced technologies and effectively use them to promote meaningful learning. Accepting new technologies
requires the ability to switch between several versions of online platforms and various devices. This corresponds with the
work of other researchers who conceptualized flexibility as a set-shifting ability – the ability to shift between tasks (Diamond,
2006) or shift one’s direction of thinking as a function of changing assignments (Ionescu, 2012).
The three themes identified in this study describe flexible thinking in learning. They are associated to adaptive expertise
since they refer to the ability to use knowledge and experience while learning in changing situations. In the educational field,
flexible thinkers are thought of as learners who have adaptive expertise, thus able to efficiently solve ill-defined problems
and transfer knowledge to new situations (Mercier & Higgins, 2013).

6. Conclusions, limitations, and future studies

The current study was set to generate a model for the conceptualization of ‘flexibility’ in the context of contemporary
technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Throughout the years and across disciplines, a range of overlapping and sometimes
ambiguous definitions emerged (Barak & Levenberg, 2016; Ionescu, 2012). The current study addressed the problem of
overlapping definitions by presenting the different definitions and the context in which they were used. Guided by the
grounded theory approach, this study highlights ‘flexible thinking’ as a significant skill that has drawn the attention of
researchers in the past seven decades (e.g. Guilford, 1959; Karakelle, 2009; Mercier & Higgins, 2013; Torrance, 1990). The
generation of the three distinct, but related themes: open-mindedness to other’s ideas, adapting to changes in learning
situations, and accepting new or changing technologies, and their integration into the model, proposes a unified definition
84 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85

for flexible thinking. The method of grounded theory, and with it the emphases on theoretical sampling, seem to have
revealed an updated picture of the term ‘flexibility’ in contemporary education.
The theoretical model, presented in this study, was generated by building it on earlier studies, linking past definitions to
present perceptions. It connects between cognitive and social perspectives of learning, and between flexibility as a person-
ality trait and as a cognitive ability. These connections can assist in better understanding ‘flexible thinking’ with relation to
advanced learning technologies. It can assist, for example, in constructing tools to examine flexibility among teachers and
students, or inflexibility among those who oppose to pedagogical and technological innovations.
The proposed model does not refer to flexible thinking in general, but underlines flexible thinking in contemporary
learning, according to the assertions of university lecturers, school teachers and preservice teachers. Similar to all models,
our theoretical framework is merely a basis for change. It can be further modified in order to fine-tune the way flexible
thinking is perceived by different educational stakeholders.
Whilst the trustworthiness of our theoretical model was established through a rigorous process, limitations should be
noted as well as recommendations for further research. As like other qualitative methods, the grounded theory approach is a
complex process that has strengths and weaknesses and potential for errors (Charmaz, 1990). Recruitment of participants to
grounded theory studies can be problematic if participant sampling is selective (Charmaz, 1990). To overcome this problem,
we applied theoretical sampling in response to the developing categories as advocated by previous studies (Strauss & Corbin,
1994, 1998). We used open-ended questions and interviews as they were recommended for data collection in grounded
theory studies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In order to obtain rich data, we became familiar with the participants – university
lecturers, school teachers, and student teachers. While building the participants’ trust, we made best effort to stay objective
and to ascertain trustworthiness. In addition, we applied investigators and methodological triangulation in the analysis
process (Denzin, 2009).
Future research tied to flexible thinking in contemporary education should address questions, such as: How can flexible
thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments be measured? What factors may contribute to the promotion of
flexible thinking in learning? The study of these important questions may contribute to the growing body of knowledge on
education in the 21 st century.

References

Barak, M. (2007). Transitions from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48(1),
30–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.004
Barak, M. (2014). Closing the gap between attitudes and perceptions about ICT-enhanced learning among pre-service STEM teachers. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 23(1), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8
Barak, M. (2016). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism.
Research in Science Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Science education in primary schools: Is an animation worth a thousand pictures? Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 20(5), 608–620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9315-2
Barak, M., & Levenberg, A. (2016). Flexible Thinking in learning: An individual differences measure for learning in technology-enhanced environments.
Computers & Education, 99, 39–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.003
Barak, M., & Ziv, S. (2013). Wandering: A Web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactive learning objects. Computers & Education, 62,
159–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.015
Barak, M., Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). MOSAICA: A Web-2. 0 based system for the preservation and presentation of cultural heritage.
Computers & Education, 53, 84–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.004
Baron, J. (1991). Beliefs about thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 169–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bentley, T. (2014). Learning beyond the classroom. London: Routledge.
Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Inflexibility of experts – reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive
Psychology, 56, 73–102.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1981). Inducing flexible thinking: A problem of access. In M. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and
learning (pp. 515–529). New York: Plenum.
Cañas, J., Quesada, J., Antolí, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving
tasks. Ergonomics, 46(5), 482–501.
Cañas, J. J., Antolí, A., Fajardo, I., & Salmerón, L. (2005). Cognitive inflexibility and the development and use of strategies for solving complex dynamic
problems: Effects of different types of training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 6(1), 95–108.
Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine, 30(11), 1161–1172.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
De Obeso, O. A., & Wood, S. (2012). An account of cognitive flexibility and inflexibility for a complex dynamic task. In 11th international conference on
cognitive modeling. Germany: Technische Universität Berlin.
Deak, G. (2000). The growth of flexible problem solving: Preschool children use changing verbal cues to infer multiple words meaning. Journal of Cognition
and Development, 1, 157–191.
Deak, G. O. (2003). The development of cognitive flexibility and language abilities. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 31, 271–327.
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In E. Bialystok, & F. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 70–95).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
German, T., & Defeyter, M. A. (2000). Immunity to functional fixedness in young children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 707–712.
Gonzalez, C., Thomas, R., & Vanyukov, P. (2005). The relationships between cognitive ability and dynamic decision making. Elsevier Intelligence, 33,
169–186.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychological inventory administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Grübler, A. (2003). Technology and global change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14(8), 469–479.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Intellectual factors in productive thinking. In R. L. Mooney, & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in creativity (pp. 95–106). New York:
Harper & Row.
 M. Barak, A. Levenberg / Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 (2016) 74–85 85

Hare, W. (2003). The ideal of open-mindedness and its place in education. Journal of Thought, 38(2), 3–10.
Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190–200.
Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1993). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333.
Karakelle, S. (2009). Enhancing fluent and flexible thinking through the creative drama process? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 124–129.
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Reports, 11(1), 1–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367680
McComb, S. A., Green, S. G., & Compton, D. W. (2007). Team flexibility’s relationship to staffing and performance in complex projects: An empirical
analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(4), 293–313.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp.
257–273). New York: Guilford.
Mercier, E. M., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Collaborative learning with multi-touch technology: Developing adaptive expertise. Learning and Instruction, 25,
13–23.
Morrison, R. F., & Hall, D. T. (2002). Career adaptability. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Careers in and out of organizations (pp. 205–234). Thousand Oaks,C. A: Sage.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21 st century. Board on Science
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Trends shaping education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning – Making the connection. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osipow, S. H. (1969). Cognitive styles and educational-vocational preferences and selection. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16(6), 534.
Plesch, C., Kaendler, C., Rummel, N., Wiedmann, M., & Spada, H. (2013). Identifying areas of tension in the field of technology-enhanced learning: Results
of an international delphi study. Computers & Education, 65, 92–105.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what?: The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for
equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529–544.
Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L., Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T., & Villanueva, O. A. (2012). Critical thinking, executive functions and their potential
relationship. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 271–279.
Scott, W. A. (1962). Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry, 25(4), 405–414.
Scott, W. A. (1966). System structure, flexibility and creativity. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Experience structure & adaptability (pp. 39–65). Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex
subject matter. In D. Nix, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Explorations in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced
knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 5, 24–33.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms- technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service Inc.
Vernon, D., & Hocking, I. (2016). Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 153–159.