Understanding the Why.

Training 21st century entrepreneurs? Send them to an art class.

The breadth of the literature suggests that learning STEM is not complete unless it introduces some combination of 4C skills, sustainability teaching, and art elements into its framework. Researchers indicate the importance of sustainability training for teaching mathematics (Lafuente-Lechuga et al., 2020), 4C skills for teaching biology (Hiong and Osman, 2013) and physics (Sipayung et al., 2018), and art elements for teaching chemistry (Hadinugrahaningsih et al., 2017) and engineering (Connor et al., 2015). STEM subjects on their own do not trigger enough creative thinking, which continuously decreases among students, despite their IQ scores marking significant gains (Wheeler Happ, 2013). To the technical aspects of 21st century teaching, the question of “why” must be added.

21st century education must implement a curriculum that combines
knowledge with interpretation aligned with the sustainable paradigm.
Anything less would be to depart from the 2030 Agenda’s mandate.        

No one who has considered complex links between educational inputs and societal outcomes ever said: “For the planet to grow sustainably and humans to flourish, schools need to teach only entrepreneurship and innovation.” If, as many claim, we are witnessing the transformation from the knowledge age to the innovation age (Trilling and Fadel, 2009), I propose to view entrepreneurship and innovation as mere agents of the new era of understanding (Boy, 2013). 21st century education systems must implement an integrated curriculum, combining knowledge with interpretation, commensurate with the sustainable development paradigm. Anything less would be to depart from the 2030 Agenda’s mandate. The 21st century is exceedingly a time of unintended consequences and moral dilemmas, and innovation has contributed negatively to human well-being in the past (UNESCO, 2020c). The promise of STEM, namely to navigate a holistic and interconnected age with a reductive concept of cloistered subjects (Connor et al., 2015), eliminates shared responsibility for problem- solving (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017), in part due to STEM’s inability to identify which problems require to be solved. Arts education's unique offering lies in delivering the why of STEM, acting as a “relief” from technical focus (Watson, 2020), a mediator at the intersection of science, technology, innovation, and people (Gobble, 2019), clarifying where and why innovation should be heading (Gibson and Ewing, 2020), connecting it to the “real world” (Yager, 2002) in the “empathy gym” (SFPlayhouse, 2022) of “human dimension” (Braund and Reiss, 2019). A framework already exists that conceptualizes such an integrative model of education – in 2008, Georgette Yakman coined the original term “STEAM” where “A” stands for “arts,” or, as suggested above, for the “why” of STEM (Yakman, 2008).

If democracy is a verb, not a noun, then most certainly verbs that
guide democracy are not “add” or “subtract” but “communicate,”
“collaborate,” “contribute,” “understand.”        

A long lineage of scholarship identifies education as a “social function” (Dewey, 1916) with the primary goal of building democratic societies and states (Arendt, 1954; Chomsky, 2003; Edelsky, 1994; Edelstein, 2011; Portelli and Solomon, 2001; Price, 2007). Introducing art practice as a broker of understanding between knowledge, practice, and experience can create “humanity consciousness” (Nzewi, 2010, p. 3), the pluriverse of knowing (Drinkwater, 2014) released by lived emotions (Davis, 2008) and a state of unbounded possibilities (Greene, 1995) critical to establishing “social intelligence” (Dewey, 1938, p. 31). If “democracy is a verb, not a noun” (European Alternatives, 2013), then most certainly verbs that guide democracy are not “add” or “subtract” but rather “communicate,” “collaborate,” “contribute,” “understand,” to “regroup this scattered knowledge” of humanity (Morin, 1999, p. 21). Humans, including youth, possess exceptional capacity to interpret and influence their development by manifesting creativity and innovation towards matters that directly affect their livelihoods, including in destitute conditions (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Mandrona, 2014). Young people own profound knowledge about their circumstances and if provided participatory opportunities by adults, including through art-related activities, can shape the “how” of policymaking, development programming, and system solutions (Lundy, 2007), as well as the “why” of research questions and meanings (Lee et al., 2020) – because democracy is not only a verb but also an adverb: why.

Arts education’s unique offering lies in its propensity to prompt the “why” question by linking creative intellect with social vision (Broudy, 1979). In a two-way funnel, young people’s individual creative strengths are bolstered when immersed in social ecologies (Martin et al., 2013), whereas social imaginaries are released by collaborative and creative epistemologies preferred by art-related methods of teaching (Braund and Reiss, 2019). Hence a participant in an art class presents a more robust prospect of becoming an agent of societal change than it might initially appear.

If poorly designed, entrepreneurial education might conflate
creativity and innovation, effectively producing graduates who
generate ideas but no tangible solutions, or, even worse, who
generate solutions without clear reasoning behind conceiving them.        

It is necessary to consider the relationship between creativity and innovation, two domains essential for any entrepreneurial undertaking. While most scholarship takes the position that the two concepts are closely intertwined (Nakano and Wechsler, 2018), innovation has been viewed as closer to the implementation and end result stages of a process, with creativity being closer to the inception stage. Thus, innovation’s origin lives in creativity (Amabile, 1988; Connor et al., 2015). If every entrepreneurial undertaking has an arch of sequences from a creative idea to a working solution, it is critical to consider where the question of why does, or should, appear. Clydesdale (2016) and Cerne et al. (2013) state that creativity is conceived from internal, individual intention, while innovation arises from external, group stimulus. Such classification helps to understand the paramount importance of a thoughtfully designed entrepreneurial educational experience capable of sustainable development reflection, which should allow for: firstly, encouraging, capturing, and nurturing creativity at individual levels; and secondly, for arranging of individual creative ideations to be intercepted by socially oriented, group-driven motivations. Otherwise, if poorly designed, entrepreneurial education might conflate creativity and innovation, effectively producing graduates who generate ideas but no tangible solutions, or, even worse, who generate solutions without clear reasoning behind conceiving them (Isaksen et al., 2001).

“IT leaders should add an “A” for fine arts to the science, technology, engineering and math chapters – STEAM not STEM” – this declaration comes not from an art teacher’s utopian playbook, but, of all sources, a Deloitte report on business and IT (Deloitte, 2015, p. 104). To find a claimant that would accuse Deloitte company of not being pro-market, pro-practical, and pro-economic would prove an elusive quest. And yet, a targeted technical report from what is essentially an accounting firm could not be clearer: to possess creative ability is the principal educational objective behind training technical workers of the future (Taylor, 2016), and teaching art presents the best prospect to attain this goal.

Employers understand that in the 21st century each of their hires must be an entrepreneur. Employers' practical experience confirms literature's theories: creativity comes before innovation.         

Advisers to employers and employers themselves understand that in the 21st century, each of their hires must be an entrepreneur, and including arts in curricula is a more solid return on investment than omitting them. Employers’ practical experience confirms literature’s theories that creativity comes before innovation: hence, according to one research involving 155 business executives, 97% pointed to the growing value of creativity among the workforce, and 56% considered art degree as the principal creativity indicator (Lichtenberg et al., 2007). The same group of respondents (57%) reported challenges in finding appropriate creative talent, and unsurprisingly so, bearing in mind the systemic underfunding and underappreciation of the arts subjects mentioned earlier.

The question of “why” becomes especially meaningful and complex in the context of developing countries. Against the backdrop of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Drinkwater (2014) provides excellent perspectives from her work with Maasai communities and the Kenyan education system. In the global south, not only is the classroom an opportunity for creating a creative and democratic, but also a decolonial space (Nzewi, 2010) built on a “curriculum against domination” (de Lissovoy, 2010, p. 279), one that is de-linked from Eurocentric assumptions (Mignolo, 2007), reimagined back to indigenous practices, and, consequently, one that nurtures entrepreneurship whose roots are based in “repair, renewal and reparations” (Parater, 2021). Drinkwater and others (Martin, 2008) explain cosmologies and traditional African learning processes which are holistic and whole, rather than collections of finite pieces of knowledge captured within individual fields. In these native systems, arts have traditionally played a significant role in identity-building, social change activation, breaking down community taboos and harmful practices, conflict resolution, and collective responsibility (Drinkwater, 2014; Medina and Campano, 2006; Nasong'o and Risley, 2009; Urch, 1970), all notions at the heart of the social pillar of the sustainable development paradigm. However, to put it crudely, the very communities who inherently carry such knowledge are often the objects of the 2030 Agenda, including SDG 4, which puts them at the mercy of the Agenda’s dilemmas. There is a breadth of literature claiming that Western institutions, including the World Bank and OECD, impose hegemonic, neoliberal educational agendas on developing countries (Gyamera and Burke, 2018) and non-Western religious communities (Mfum-Mensah, 2005), often through STEM subjects (Abrams et al., 2013; de Freitas et al., 2017), by which they contradict indigenous learning traditions (Madjidi and Restoule, 2008), including through eliminating arts from the curriculum. An example of such an approach is Kenya’s education strategy “Kenya Vision 2030,” in which policymakers vow to build a nation not only skillful, competent, and productive but also one that reflects a collective of cultured citizens. The means Kenyan policymakers privilege are specifically STEM-focused. By adopting the Western blueprint, Kenya has also adopted its shortcomings, omitting wisdom of its native traditions, which, paradoxically, contain many attitudes related to 21st century skills and 4C skills that Western researchers identified as crucial for the STEM model to succeed. Indigenous cultures have the proverbial entrepreneurship art class embedded in their traditional practice. Unfortunately, instead of tapping into their indigenous rich resources, policymakers from developing countries passively adopt misaligned, limiting foreign frameworks.

It is critical that learning systems instill creativity rather than
“educate out of it”. Creativity reflects reasons, plans, ambitions,
and aspirations. We, humans, need the “why.”        

Much of this series of articles made a case for creativity understood not as a capacity for producing aesthetically and intellectually pleasing artworks but an ability to embrace ambiguity and contradiction, spot patterns, pose questions, draw conclusions, and repeat the process as soon as circumstances change. To a large extent, these competencies define the 21st century entrepreneur, as agreed by 21st century frameworks and attested to by private sector stakeholders and students themselves.

The private sector’s motivations are dictated by economic objectives. Ideally, corporations should also take social benefit and environmental sustainability into consideration. First and foremost, however, the reason why the private sector pays attention to and investigates 21st century skills (Salas-Pilco, 2013), at times more closely than policymakers (Voogt and Pareja Roblin, 2010), is because a 21st century company requires skills that are “balanced” (Gobble, 2019), based in inductive pedagogies (Connor et al., 2015), and fit for the continuously reshaped and readjusted workspace (Shtaltovna, 2021; Watson, 2020). It remains for education systems to assure that by the time the future entrepreneur arrives in the office, they are aware of the sustainable development paradigm’s all three bottom lines, not just the economic one. Systemic integration of arts education elements into 21st century learning systems is a low-hanging fruit which, if implemented correctly, satisfies two objectives: development agenda’s demand for citizens capable of contemplating the many complex “why’s” of this century, and employers’ need for qualified labor. Both dimensions derive from the notion of reality in which life problems do not have a single, fixed solution – just like art problems (Land, 2013). It is critical that learning systems instill creativity rather than “educate out of it” (Robinson, 2006), as creativity can be leveraged in any professional discipline. Students' lack of interest in learning science (Braund and Reiss, 2019) might be because they view the STEM framework as lacking creativity (Archer et al., 2013). Creativity reflects reasons, plans, ambitions, and aspirations (Fine, 2020). We, humans, need the “why.”

Over the past few weeks I have argued that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development entered the realm of entrepreneurship with flawed assumptions, conflicting narratives, and a reductionist implementation approach. I have postulated that introducing arts education into the 21st century curriculum, particularly as a complementary element to the universally promoted STEM framework, can resolve the many dilemmas and deficiencies of how the 2030 Agenda formulated entrepreneurial education and solidify the profile of the entrepreneur it seeks.

Educational systems must evolve from their neoliberal inclinations
into frameworks of values established on the desire to achieve a
civically-minded society living on a sustainable planet.        

SDG 4 was drafted in reaction to the “United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014” (ESD) initiative’s failure to integrate sustainable development paradigm principles into global educational systems (Taylor, 2016). However, the Goal remains inherently contradictory, with one of the three pillars of sustainable development, environmental sustainability, being excluded from the Goal altogether (Walid and Luetz, 2017). Educational systems must evolve from their neoliberal inclinations into frameworks of values established on the desire to achieve a civically-minded society living on a sustainable planet (Drinkwater, 2014), and the “Entrepreneurial University” should steer away from being subjugated to the market (Escotet, 2020; Mautner, 2005). The need for social and sustainable entrepreneurs is clear (UNESCO, 2020b), and for them to work collaboratively towards tackling the SDGs challenges (Schaltegger et al., 2018).

The international development community and national policymakers have hailed STEM as a cleverly conceived block of specializations aligned with the demands of the 21st century job market. However, as demonstrated abundantly in the above paragraphs, this block manifests significant gaps and leaks for the age distinguished by constant change, where a technology or a specialization might become outdated in only a few years (Watson, 2020). Paradoxically, because the 21st century anticipates the necessity to acquire multiple competencies throughout one’s career, the skill to quickly learn a new skill holds a more substantial value than possessing any isolated skill itself. In this regard, elements of arts education act as a vehicle for softening the rigidness of STEM with novel critical, epistemological, and interpersonal dimensions, which convert to cognitive, attitudinal, behavioral, and social benefits (Ewing, 2010), eventually increasing the ratio of ready-to-relearn budding entrepreneurs, including among those initially uninterested in STEM due to its narrow vision (Zhbanowa, 2017).

The UN System has maintained a tradition of supporting the incorporation of art elements into global curriculums mainly through UNESCO, which has stood its ground of humanistic principles against market-oriented currents. In 2000 the agency adopted a resolution promoting arts education and creativity, calling for art to hold equal rank with other fields in the curriculum (Glenn, 2011; UNESCO, 2000). In 2006 ‘Road Map for Arts Education,’ it presented policy recommendations and strategies which foresaw teaching arts as an element of 21st century education, rather than technical, aesthetic ability (Moore, 2020; UNESCO, 2006). In 2011 “Seoul Agenda” it agreed on an executable action plan. In 2020 it established the Futures of Education initiative and framework, pointing to “human flourishing” as the central purpose of education (de Ruyter et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2020c) that consists of six curricular domains: environment, culture, society, technology, interpersonal, and self (Ergas and Gilead, 2021). A stark contrast to STEM taxonomy, these domains affirm a humanistic approach to education and reach deeply into values that brought the international development community to the SDGs era – by attempting to develop the “whole child” (Upitis, 2011), they are heirs to Faure’s “Learning to Be” report (Cheng, 2014), Brundtland Commission’s work (Garrett, 2018) and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. The case for holistic education rather than specialized training has always been present, but it has become doubly consequential as we have entered the 21st century. If there is truth to the statement that “at the UN, arts emerge as a force for Sustainable Development” (Kabanda, 2020), then one of the main reasons for it is that arts attempt to develop a “whole entrepreneur.”

Adding to the many readily available tools for enhancing entrepreneurial learning that this paper has described, educational policymakers ought to seek guidance from the aforementioned WHO scoping review of arts applications for improving health and well-being. The need for a similar grand exercise assessing arts contributions to educational outputs seems long overdue, urgent, and essential. Several policy considerations from the health domain could be immediately adopted, such as the recommendation to compile and recognize evidence, identify knowledge gaps that align with the Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals and its specific targets, and emphasize the cross-cutting nature of arts teaching elements (Fancourt and Finn, 2019). Supported by a compendium of relevant research studies, such an addendum would reinvigorate theoretical frameworks put in place by UNESCO and others over the last two decades.

If "education is the point at which we decide whether we love the
world enough to assume responsibility for it” then it remains
questionable if our generation has had any sympathy for the world we
live in.         

If "education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it” (Arendt, 1954, p. 14), then it remains questionable if recent generations have had any sympathy for the world we live in. An argument could be made that quality education is the most important of the seventeen SDGs – as without achieving SDG 4, young cohorts might not comprehend what the 2030 Agenda stands for in the first place (Marti?nez-Samper and Vilalta, 2021). Yet OECD and the World Bank, two organizations that lead today’s funding for global education policies, do not even mention “education” in their respective founding Convention and Articles of Agreement (Elfert, 2016); UNESCO and UNICEF are sidelined; no clear division of roles and responsibilities among the four above entities has been defined (Burnett, 2010); nation-states have morphed into economic stakeholders rather than duty-bearers of the public goods (Rizvi, 2016); the STEM framework arose from a “non-educational rationale” (Williams, 2011, p. 31); and the idea of education as a global public good has eroded towards learning seen as a concept for maximizing the benefit of an atomized individual (Biesta, 2012). Global Partnership for Education (GPE), the world’s leading framework, multilateral partnership, and funding engine for learning systems strengthening in developing countries, originated from within the World Bank (Elfert, 2016) as an entity with questionable purpose, often profit-oriented stakeholders, little appetite for policy debate (Menashy, 2016) and a patronizing attitude towards Global South (da Silva and Oliveira, 2021).

If “the capitalist system depends fundamentally on the action of the entrepreneur” (Vaz-Curado et al., 2019, p. 615), then the success of the sustainable development project depends fundamentally on the action of the sustainable entrepreneur. In 2008 Root-Bernstein et al. published a study indicating that Nobel Prize laureates had shown an extraordinarily higher interest and involvement in arts than their less-recognized peers (Braund and Reiss, 2019; Gibson and Ewing, 2020). As curious as this finding appears, there are remarkably broader and stronger grounds for introducing arts education into the entrepreneurial curriculum. Certain moral aspects make a sustainable entrepreneur and education features as a critical factor in setting the groundwork for sustainability-driven entrepreneurship. If the UN System wishes for young entrepreneurs to become carriers of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, their education must be embedded in the 21st century skills framework delivered with tools readily available from arts education teaching practice.

Send 21st century entrepreneurs to an art class.

--

Abrams, E., Taylor, P. C., Guo, C. J. (2013), ‘Contextualizing culturally relevant science and mathematics teaching for indigenous learning,’ International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 1–21.

Amabile, T. M. (1988), A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press. pp. 123–167.

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., Wong, B. (2013), ‘ASPIRES: Young people’s science and career aspirations age 10-14’, London: ESRC / King’s College / TISME.

Arendt, H. (1954), The Crisis in Education.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2012), ‘Becoming Public: Public Pedagogy, Citizenship and the Public Sphere,’ Social & Cultural Geography, Vol. 13, No. 7, 2012, pp. 683–697.

Boy, G. A. (2013), From STEM to STEAM: toward a human-centred education, creativity & learning thinking. In Proceedings of the 31st European conference on cognitive ergonomics, pp. 1–7.

Braund, M., Reiss, M. J. (2019), ‘The ‘great divide’: How the arts contribute to science and science education,’ Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Vol. 19, Issue 3, 2019, pp. 219–236.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Eco-interactional developmental perspectives of human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Broudy, H. (1979), ‘Arts education: Necessary or just nice?’ The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 60, Issue 5, 1979, pp. 347–350.

Burnett, N. (2010), ‘How to develop the UNESCO the world needs: The challenges of reform,’ CICE Hiroshima University, Journal of International Cooperation in Education, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 2010, pp. 89–99.

Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., Skerlavaj, M. (2013), ‘Authentic leadership, creativity and innovation: A multilevel perspective,’ Leadership, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 63–85.

Cheng, K. (2014), ‘Re-Interpreting Learning,’ Education Research and Foresight Working Papers Series, No. 10. Paris, UNESCO.

Chomsky, N. (2003), Chomsky on democracy & education. Psychology Press.

Clydesdale, G. (2006), ‘Creativity and competition: The Beatles’, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2006, pp. 129–139.

Colucci-Gray, L., Trowsdale, J., Cooke, C. F., Davies, R., Burnard, P., Gray, D. S. (2017), Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies for 21st learning: how can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic, and inclusive form of education? British Educational Research Association.

Connor, A., Karmokar, S., Whittington, C. (2015), ‘From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education,’ International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 2015, pp. 37–47.

De Lissovoy, N. (2010), ‘Decolonial pedagogy and the ethics of the global,’ Discourse: Studies in the cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 31, Issue 3, 2010, pp. 279–293.

Deloitte (2015), Tech Trends 2015: The fusion of business and IT. London: Deloitte University Press.

Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and education.

Dewey, J. (1938), Experience & Education.

Drinkwater, M. A. (2014), ‘Democratizing and De-Colonizing Education: A Role for the Arts and Cultural Praxis: Lessons from Primary Schools in Maasailand, Southern Kenya’, Ph.D. thesis, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto.

Edelsky, C. (1994), ‘Education for democracy,’ Language Arts, Vol. 71, Issue 4, 1994, pp. 252–257.

Edelstein, W. (2011), ‘Education for Democracy: reasons and strategies,’ European Journal of Education, Vol. 46, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 127–137.

Elfert, M. (2016), ‘The Utopia of Lifelong Learning: An Intellectual History of UNESCO’s Humanistic Approach to Education, 1945-2015’, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia.

Ergas, O., Gilead, T. (2021), ‘A Curriculum for Education In and For Flourishing. A Research Brief by the International Science and Evidence Based Education Assessment’. UNESCO MGIEP.

Escotet, M. A?. (2020), ‘Pandemics, leadership, and social ethics,’ Prospects, Vol. 49, Issue 1, 2020, pp. 73–76.

European Alternatives (2013), ‘Democracy is a verb not a noun,’ 25 Aug. 2013.

Ewing, R. A. (2010), The arts and Australian education: Realising potential. Australian Education Review. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER Press/Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fancourt, D., Finn, S. (2019), ‘What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review’, Health Evidence Network synthesis report, No. 67, WHO Regional Office for Europe. Copenhagen.

Fine, S. (2020), ‘Humanity at Night,’ Aeon, 16 Nov. 2020.

de Freitas, E., Lupinacci, J., Pais, A. (2017), ‘Science and technology studies X educational studies: Critical and creative perspectives on the future of STEM education’, Educational Studies, Vol. 53, Issue 6, 2017, pp. 551–559.

Garrett, I. (2018), ‘Arts-driven sustainability and sustainably driven arts,’ Scene, Vol. 6, Number 1, 2018, pp. 63–79.

Gibson, R., Ewing, R. (2020), Transforming the curriculum through the arts. Springer International Publishing.

Glenn, B. (2011), ‘The Impact of Arts Education in the Developing World: A Case Study of a NGO in Kenya’, MA Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London.

Gobble, M. M. (2019), ‘Innovation Needs the Liberal Arts,’ ResearchTechnology Management, Vol. 62, Issue 2, 2019, pp. 51–55.

Greene, M. (1995), Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gyamera, G. O., Burke, P. J. (2018), ‘Neoliberalism and curriculum in higher education: a post-colonial analyses’, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 23, Issue 4, 2018, pp. 450–467.

Hadinugrahaningsih, T., Rahmawati, Y., Ridwan, A. (2017), ‘Developing 21st century skills in chemistry classrooms: Opportunities and challenges of STEAM integration’, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1868, No. 1, 2017, pp. 030008, AIP Publishing LLC.

Hiong, L. C., Osman, K. (2013), ‘A conceptual framework for the integration of 21st century skills in biology education’, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 16, pp. 2976–2983.

Isaksen, S., Treffinger, D., Dorval, K. B. (2001), ‘Clarifying our CPS vocabulary,’ Communique? Creative Problem Solving Group, Vol. 11, 2001, pp. 7–10.

Kabanda, P. (2020), ‘At the UN, the Arts Emerge as a Force for Sustainable Development,’ SDG Knowledge Hub, 23 Oct. 2020.

Lafuente-Lechuga, M., Cifuentes-Faura, J., Faura-Marti?nez, U?. (2020), ‘Mathematics Applied to the Economy and Sustainable Development Goals: A Necessary Relationship of Dependence’, Education Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue 11, 2020, 339.

Land, M. H. (2013), ‘Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM,’ Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 20, 2013, pp. 547–552.

Lee, L., Currie, V., Saied, N., Wright, L. (2020), ‘Journey to hope, self-expression and community engagement: Youth-led arts-based participatory action research’, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 109, 2020, 104581.

Lichtenberg, J., Woock, C., Wright, M. (2007), ‘Ready to Innovate: Are Educators and Executives Aligned on the Creative Readiness of the U.S. Workforce?’, Research Report R-1424-08-RR, 2007, The Conference Board.

Lundy, L. (2007), ‘’Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33, Issue 6, 2007, pp. 927–942.

Madjidi, K., Restoule, J-P. (2008), Comparative indigenous ways of knowing and learning. In K. Mundy, K. Bickmore, R. Hayhoe, M. Madden, K. Madjidi (Eds.), Comparative international education: Issues for teachers. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press, pp. 77–106.

Mandrona, W. R. (2014) ‘"What can we make with this?" Creating relevant art education practices in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’. Ph.D. thesis, Concordia University.

Martin, D. (2008), ‘Maat and order in African cosmology: A conceptual tool for understanding Indigenous knowledge,’ Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 6, 2008, pp. 951–967.

Martin, A. J., Mansour, M., Anderson, M., Gibson, R., Liem, G. A., Sudmalis, D. (2013), ‘The role of arts participation in students’ academic and nonacademic outcomes: A longitudinal study of school, home, and community factors’, Journal of Educational psychology, Vol. 105, Issue 3, pp. 709–727.

Marti?nez-Samper, P, Vilalta, J. M. (2021), ‘Education as a pillar of the 2030 Agenda. Evolution and perspectives in the context of the Covid-19 crisis’, IDEES, 02 Feb. 2021.

Mautner, G. (2005), ‘The entrepreneurial university: A discursive profile of a higher education buzzword,’ Critical discourse studies, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 2005, pp. 95–120.

Medina, C. L., Campano, G. (2006), ‘Performing identities through drama and theatre practices in multilingual classrooms,’ Language Arts, Vol. 83, Issue 4, 2006, pp. 332–341.

Menashy, F. (2016), ‘Private authority or ambiguity? The evolving role of corporations and foundations in the Global Partnership for Education’, World Yearbook of Education 2016, pp. 83–109.

Mfum-Mensah, O. (2017), ‘Education and Communities at the "Margins": The Contradictions of Western Education for Islamic Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Bulgarian Comparative Education Society Conference Books, Vol. 15, Part 1, 2017, pp. 45–51.

Mignolo, W. D. (2007), ‘Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality,’ Cultural Studies, Vol. 21, Issues 2–3, 2007, pp. 449–514.

Moore, A. (2020), ‘Arts Immersion: Using the Arts as a Vehicle for Interdisciplinary Learning,’ MA Thesis, University of Victoria.

Morin, E. (1999), Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO.

Nakano, T. D. C., Wechsler, S. M. (2018), Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21st Century’, Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), Vol. 35, 2018, pp. 237–246.

Nasong’o, S. W., Risley, A. E. (2009), From aesthetic creativity to political profundity: Popular music and politics in Kenya and Argentina. In F. Falola, F. Ngom (Eds.), Oral and written expressions of African cultures. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 69–89.

Nzewi, M. (2010), Reinstating the soft science of the indigenous musical arts for humanity- sensed contemporary education and practice. Paper presented at the UNESCO Second World Conference on Arts Education, May 25-28, 2010. Seoul, Korea.

Parater, L. (2021), ‘Beyond destruction: innovation as an offering for repair, renewal and reparations,’ UNHCR Innovation Service.

Portelli, J. P., Solomon, R. P. (2001), Introduction. In J. P. Portelli, R. P. Solomon (Eds.), The erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities, Calgary, AB: Detselig, pp. 15–27.

Price, J. (2007), ‘Democracy: A critical red ideal,’ Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer, 2007, pp. 9–25.

Rizvi, F. (2016), ‘Privatization in Education: Trends and Consequences,’ ERF Working Papers Series, No. 18. Paris, UNESCO.

Robinson, K. (2006), ‘Do schools kill creativity?’ TED Conference 2006. Monterey, CA.

Root-Bernstein, R. (2008), ‘Arts Foster Scientific Success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi Members’, Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, Vol.1, Issue 2, 2008, pp. 51–63.

De Ruyter, D., Oades, L., Waghid, Y. (2021), ‘Meaning(s) of Human Flourishing and Education. A Research Brief by the International Science and Evidence Based Education Assessment’. UNESCO MGIEP.

Salas-Pilco, S. Z. (2013), ‘Evolution of the framework for 21st century competencies’, Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 10–24.

Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., Hockerts, K. (2018), ‘Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development goals’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 10, Issue 2, 2018, pp. 131–152.

SFPlayhouse (2022).

Shtaltovna, Y. (2021), ‘Can a skill be measured or assessed? 6-level skills development approach to skill assessment’, GiLE Journal of Skills Development, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2021, pp. 12–24.

da Silva, R. D., Oliveira, J. (2021), ‘Global education policy in African fragile and conflict-affected states: examining the Global Partnership for Education’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp. 1–15.

Sipayung, D. H., Sani, R. A., Bunawan, W. (2018), ‘Collaborative inquiry for 4C skills’, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Vol. 200, 2018, pp. 440–445.

Taylor, P. C. (2016), ‘Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to the 21st century?’

Trilling, B., Fadel, C. (2009), 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

UNESCO (2000), Records of the General Conference. 30th Session, Paris 26 October to 17 November 1999, Volume 1: Resolutions. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2006), Road Map for Arts Education.

UNESCO (2020b), Humanistic futures of learning. Perspectives from UNESCO chairs and UNITWIN Networks. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2020c), ‘Visioning and Framing the Futures of Education’, UNESCO, February 2020.

Upitis, R. (2011), Arts Education for the Development of the Whole Child. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

Urch, G. E. (1970), ‘Africanization of Schools in Kenya,’ The Educational Forum, Vol. 34, Issue 3, 1970, pp. 371–377.

Vaz-Curado, S. F. L., Mueller, A. P. (2019), ‘The concept of entrepreneur of Schumpeter in comparison to Kirzner’, MISES: Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Law and Economics, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 2019, pp. 613–642.

Voogt, J., Pareja Roblin, N. (2010), ‘21st Century Skills. Discussion Paper’, University of Twente, 2010.

Walid M., Luetz J.M. (2018), From Education for Sustainable Development to Education for Environmental Sustainability: Reconnecting the Disconnected SDGs. In: Leal Filho W. (Ed.), Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham., pp. 803–826.

Watson, E. (2020), ‘STEM or STEAM?: The critical role of arts in technology education (and the critical role of art in technology)’, Irish Journal of Academic Practice, Vol. 8, Issue 1, Art. 8., 2020.

Wheeler Happ, D. (2013), ‘21st Century Skills of the 4Cs: Results of a Survey of 21st Century Skills of Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking and Creativity’, Ph.D. thesis, American International University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2013. 3575592.

Williams, J. (2011), ‘STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal’, Vol. 16, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 26–35.

Yager, R. E. (2002), Science education. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference, pp. 2158–2166.

Yakman, G. (2008), 'STEAM Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education'.

Zhbanova, K. S. (2017), ‘How the arts standards support STEM concepts: A journey from STEM to STEAM’, Journal of STEM Arts, Crafts, and Constructions, Vol. 2, Number 2, 2017, pp. 1–14.