While creativity is a concept commonly used, it is nevertheless elusive, complex, and difficult to define. Creativity has been defined as “… a process of developing and expressing novel ideas for solving problems or satisfying needs” (Harvard Business Essentials, 2003, p. 82). Creativity is also defined as reasoning that produces imaginative new ideas and that creativity is an individual process, relating facts or ideas in new relationship and is discontinuous and divergent (Maravilhas and Martins, 2018). Craft (2000) identified possibility thinking as the core of creativity and that insight is a part of creativity. To harness creativity requires having “agency,” defined as the control individuals have over their actions and lives that enables them to “actualize” their choices (Craft, 2000). Creativity is about applying “agency,” the ability and capacity to act and work in order to come up with ideas or products that are original and innovative in their context (Jeffrey, 2005). However, creativity has also been described in relatively simple terms which we adopt here: creativity is the ability to flexibly produce work that is novel, high in quality, and useful (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999; Sternberg et al., 2003; Runco and Jaeger, 2012).

The importance of creativity and innovative competencies in modern societies has been increasingly acknowledged in recent decades, emerging as aims in many curricula internationally. In the Icelandic curriculum for compulsory schools (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014) creativity is said to involve “forming tasks and communicating them, to make something, make something new or different from what the individual knows or has done before” (pg. 22). Implementing creativity in formal education makes demands on teachers, as they are key players in designing opportunities for learners to develop such skills. Classroom contexts matter and external pressures can limit student creativity (Tan et al., 2016). It can be challenging for teachers to apply the kinds of approaches that support learner creativity (Lin, 2014; Jónsdóttir, 2017). Creative work often involves risks and failures. To make students comfortable with open ended and ambiguous tasks, teachers need to be proactive in supporting them to self-regulate and be reflexive (Henriksen et al., 2021; Jónsdóttir and Guðjónsdóttir, 2021). Teachers need to be aware of the tendency to take conservative approaches when making changes in their teaching, especially if they intend to support creativity in student learning and go beyond rote learning (Leroy and Romero, 2021). A recent systematic review reveals certain features that are characteristic of creative pedagogical practice: generating and exploring ideas; encouraging autonomy and agency; playfulness; problem-solving; risk-taking; co-constructing and collaborating; and teacher creativity (Cremin and Chappell, 2021). The findings also indicate that documenting the complexities creative pedagogical practices is challenging. The authors recommend that practitioners join researchers as co-participants, to enable a more nuanced examination of the impact of creative pedagogies on student creativity (Cremin and Chappell, 2021). Such joint efforts can be seen in participatory action research (PAR) where researchers and practitioners work together in doing research. PAR can be an empowering way to deepen understanding of issues in education and directly influence practice. PAR offers a framework for generating knowledge centered on the belief that those who are most impacted by research should be leading in framing the questions, methods, and analysis (Torre and Fine, 2006).

Entrepreneurship education [In Iceland referred to as Innovation and Entrepreneurial Education (IEE)] is one area of teaching and learning that has offered valuable opportunities to foster and enhance creativity and competence for action (Jónsdóttir and Macdonald, 2013, 2019; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2021). A broad view of entrepreneurship education (EE) has been developed such that EE is not just about starting a new business, but about enhancing two of the core elements of such education: action competence and creativity. Creativity is a competence that is at the core of EE, as it is very much about problem-solving and action (Jónsdóttir and Gunnarsdóttir, 2017). EE is relevant for all levels of education, from kindergarten, through primary and secondary school, to vocational, higher and professional education (Lilischkis et al., 2021). We see EE as providing affordances that can be used in different educational contexts to inculcate creativity and action competence.

The EntreComp report from the European Commission is meant to support the assessment and evaluation of the goals of EE. The report presents EE as learning framed around three overarching areas of competences: (1) Ideas and opportunities (including creativity), (2) resources (realizing what is needed), and (3) into action (getting things done) (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). Entrepreneurship education has been seen as a way to unleash human potential to tackle complex societal, economic, and environmental challenges (Lilischkis et al., 2021). It seems that the overall aims of EE are in line with what is needed to change education so it can empower learners to tackle challenges that sustainability education needs (Weicht and Jónsdóttir, 2021). Jónsson and Macdonald (2021) conclude that in order to develop practices that could support sustainability, the focus in education needs to shift from what to teach, to how to teach. Such a shift requires teachers to be aware of how they teach and to be ready to analyze different activities.

To understand how Bernstein’s theories were used to lay the foundation for our model we explain here which of his concepts we used. Bernstein (2000) examined a series of rules internal to pedagogy and identified how these rules affect the knowledge chosen to be transmitted, as well as how those rules select those who can successfully acquire knowledge. Bernstein’s conceptual framework offers ways to recognize how knowledge is distributed and how it changes as it is recontextualized from one field into another. Bernstein introduced two concepts, classification and framing, that are important for this study. Classification and framing explain power and power relations and the forms they take in the control of relationships. Classification is a concept to categorize the construction of a social space; e.g., by school subjects or by roles such as teachers vs. learners and home vs. school (Bernstein, 2000). Power is fixed within a classified category, which can be strongly or weakly classified. The power of a school subject is reflected in the amount of time it is allocated and the space it gets in the curriculum. Control describes the establishment of legitimate forms of communication that are appropriate to different categories, such as who controls communication in the classroom and what forms are proper. This is important as supporting student creativity requires teachers to relinquish control in order to give students freedom and agency, which is often the opposite of traditional teaching (Jónsdóttir, 2017).

Framing refers to where control is located within a social context. Strong framing is when the transmitter has explicit control; in weak framing, the acquirer has more control (Bernstein, 2000). Strong framing indicates that control is located in a category that has power – for example, a teacher’s traditional role – whereas weak framing indicates that control is shared between categories, for example, between a teacher and a learner or among curricular subjects (Macdonald and Jóhannsdóttir, 2006). Framing regulates relations within a social context, referring to the relationship between transmitters and acquirers (Bernstein, 2000, p. 12). Framing is about who decides the location of work (in the classroom, the hallway, or outside; at school, at home, virtually, or out in nature), time restrictions, or social and emotional communication (unequal or equal roles; strict or relaxed communication) (Jónsdóttir, 2017).

Criteria using these concepts were developed into an analytical model to identify control in the classroom and how much freedom and agency learners were allocated in the research on the 13 IEE teachers’ practice. Bernstein’s theories are sensitive to context and can thus be applied in different settings to reveal how and where respect, power and responsibility are located in social interactions (Jónsdóttir, 2011). Curricular processes and the social interaction of teachers and learners in IEE have shown that supporting learner creativity needs a balance between freedom and structure. Applying the criteria in the model and using Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing revealed three modes of pedagogy present among teachers working with IEE:

The teachers displayed different strengths of framing in IEE lessons, with an inherent tendency toward strong framing. From the data we designed a table with descriptors to identify different strengths of framing and classification. Bernstein’s (2000) approach to coding the behavior and language of teachers and students enabled us as researchers to break down the interactions between the parties involved in order to form units that were the smallest category defined by Bernstein. Thus we created an analytical tool built on Bernstein’s concepts and on the data from the IEE research (Table 2) to identify framing of interactions in the classroom and classification of power. Table 2 shows the elements using Bernstein’s indicators, with some of them divided up in more detail than Bernstein did. The table shows explicatory texts that indicate who controls which elements and in what way.

Using the framework from Table 2, the analytical tool Who is in control? was developed (Figure 1). It has empty spaces to fill in where teachers or researchers identify the strength of framing in teaching and learning that is to be scrutinized. One of the exercises of the teacher group was to apply the tool to examples of their own teaching, to help them become aware of power relations in the classroom. Bernstein’s theories can help to identify and understand different forces that are at work and that are not visible until they are recognized and analyzed. The tool can help to identify different elements that can be controlled by the teacher or the learner, or that can be negotiated between them. By looking at different elements of teaching and learning in the classroom, the teachers could identify who had power over each part.

The first element in the tool is knowledge, which can be a curricular subject, specific content, and/or a specific theme. Specific knowledge can comprise various topics and tasks. This was just one element with Bernstein but we found it important to split it up. We broke knowledge up into sub-elements such as themes and tasks. An important part of learning and creating is the development of ideas – who has a say in how they pan out and in what direction and can be a part of the student’s knowledge creation. Is the teacher the specialist in the development of the student’s creative idea, or is it actually the student who is the specialist, as is emphasized in IEE pedagogy (Jónsdóttir, 2011)? Methods of working in the classroom can differ. They can be fully controlled by the teacher (very strong framing) or the learner (very weak framing), but may fall somewhere between these two extremes. Pacing denotes how quickly work is finished in the classroom – another issue that can influence the creative process. The sequence of how to do processes in creative work also impacts outcomes – e.g., can the student decide what to work on first, and then move on to another part as they wish? Or does the teacher decide that students must start with a certain part, move on to the next, and end with a specific one? The communication in the classroom can be informal, with students and teachers interacting like colleagues – or it can be strictly formal, where the teacher is in total control and learners ask for permission to speak, stand up, or talk to each other (very strong framing)? Related to communication is the location of work – where can the learner work on tasks? Can they decide to sit on the floor, or work in the hallway? Or is location strictly determined by the teacher – e.g., students must sit at their own desks (strong framing)? Who chooses which materials to work with on tasks is also an issue that can restrict or support creativity? Evaluation of the schoolwork is important, but traditional knowledge assessment methods are not well-suited to creative work. It is interesting to find out how teachers go about evaluating learner creativity and whether the learners are included in that process.

Well into the second year of study two, the PAR with the teachers in traditional subjects they used the tool to analyze their own teaching and scrutinize who had control in the classroom. This helped them understand how that framing influenced learners’ autonomy and creativity. I (the first author) explained the tool (in the form of a table) and they each got an empty table (Who is in control? Figure 2) to mark their analysis of each of the elements in the table. The analysis helped to identify in detail the kinds of learning spaces or opportunities for creative work the teachers had designed for their students (see Jónsdóttir, 2017). The findings indicated that the teachers became more aware of the opportunities for creativity they were offering their students in lessons and showed that the tool had helped them focus on when and how they offered learners control and agency over their creativity in their learning processes. The tool was thus one element in the research that helped them to analyze their own teaching and the opportunities for student creativity.

All the teachers in the arts and crafts PAR used the framing tool to analyze a specific part of their teaching. The patterns of their entries into the framing table show how their students had influence on different elements of their learning. The teachers all explained their results using the tool. We present an example here from one of the textile teachers.

Erla Dís was a textile teacher with a master’s degree and had only been teaching for 3 years. She was very ambitious in her teaching and found it helpful in a demanding job to keep a detailed journal about her teaching. Using the framing tool, she provided an example from her teaching about patterns and printing with a mixed age group of students in grade 8, 9, and 10 (14, 15, and 16 years old) (Figure 2).

Erla Dís felt that she sometimes had to locate the marks near the vertical lines in the tool (see Figure 2) or even on a line to indicate that it was not always either/or. Sometimes she chose to make two marks in the same line to indicate that sometimes she had a say and sometimes the student, depending on the negotiation between her and the students. The project she used as the unit of analysis is rather extensive and is the only one the students work on in this module. The module spans 10 weeks and students attend classes for 80 min each week. Erla Dís explained the lessons she analyzed in writing using the framing tool, and referenced framing in discussions during the research group meetings. The introduction to the module started with a general presentation on pattern-making followed by textile prints and basic methods for printing patterns. The knowledge or theme of learning is thus decided by the teacher (very strong). She described the process:

On their return from the fieldtrip, Erla Dís gave a presentation with slides about pattern making. She presented work of known designers and designer studios that use patterns in original ways (e.g., Timorous Beasties, Marimekko, and others) (strong framing of knowledge). Then the students scrutinized the photos they took during the field trip and chose one to work with (some teacher control). The textile printing portion of the project also began with a traditional teacher presentation supported by a slide show on printing methods from potato- and leaf-print to silk print. The students watched videos from different corners of the world displaying printing using different approaches.

The other teachers in this PAR project showed different zig-zag patterns in their analysis of their practice. They were seldom far to the left (teacher control), and often near the middle or to the right side of the table (students significant control over some elements of their learning). Two other examples from the teachers in this PAR are presented next and can be seen in Figure 3.

The examples from Ása (Á), a drama teacher at the School of Education, at the University of Iceland, and from Sverrir (S), a crafts and information technology teacher at the compulsory level (5–16 year old students) are presented in Figure 3.

Sverrir analyzed a unit he taught in woodwork to 9-year- old students, where the task was to design and create a picture frame (Figure 3). The project and task are decided by the teacher and consider the aims for skills in the national curriculum for this age (mainly strong framing). Once the teacher has presented the project and tools that students might need as well as different types of frames, the students get a paper where they design the look they want for their frame (development of ideas, very weak framing). The methods are partially set, as students must follow a logical process, but they do have some influence on some of the steps and pace of their work (framing varies from considerably strong to weak). To get the teacher’s assistance, students take a clothespeg with their name on it and fasten it to a line by the teachers’ desk. The teacher can then see who is next and finds the student (strong framing of communication). The students each have their own workbench and can execute their projects there; alternatively, they can go over to a common space where they can paint, sitting or standing as they please (weak framing). The materials students can choose from are limited, although they are offered wood of varying thickness to choose from. The teacher evaluates various elements of the process such as whether the student can draw a design for a frame and transform an idea into a finished product. Students can influence one part of the evaluation process when they assess their own product and describe what they are pleased with and what not. This means that evaluation is mainly in the hands of the teacher (very strong to strong framing).

The unit Ása analyzed is a course called From idea to play. The students were a mixed group of in-service teachers and student teachers taking the course as an elective. Ása described the location of her marks in her table (Figure 3) and analyzed her unit of teaching as follows:

Even though the teachers use of the tool revealed some differences, some similarities are also evident. They all marked certain parts of their practice as strongly framed or very strong – usually knowledge, topics, and tasks. Other elements varied a bit, but often tended toward weak or very weak framing. The purpose of using the tool was not to nail down precisely what kind of pedagogy was most successful in supporting student creativity, but rather to give the teachers a heuristic to look carefully at their own teaching to identify where they controlled student learning and creativity and where they gave them freedom and agency to be creative.

The teachers valued the tool as a supportive way to analyze and discuss their own teaching practice. They concluded that sometimes they needed to be in control, but also that they could sometimes give students more choice and freedom to support their creativity. The teachers also used other exercises during the 2-year research project to identify and analyze how they worked, such as interviewing each other, making collages about their professional working theories, and relating stories about their practice. After using the tool, the stories they told were often related to how they used framing. They described examples of both strong and weak framing, and explained how they had become more aware of when they would like to give students more agency to be creative. All eight participating teachers wanted to give students more agency and control, and found ways to do so by analyzing the different elements in their lessons. However, they also realized that they had to offer some strong or even very strong framing for some elements of a project, and that it was important that the affordances of their specific subject could offer the students special knowledge and skills that were unique to the subject.