The Role of Creativity in Education

The Role of Creativity in Education

“...studying, understanding, and improving our creativity is essential not just for our work in the creative economy of the 21st century, but a life skill that must be nurtured in our homes and schools, well before our future leaders reach the workplace.”

(Puccio et al, 2012, p. 26)

Creativity has become a commodity that holds marketplace and pop culture value across arenas of today (Harris, 2016). In education, however, creativity has taken a back seat to priorities such as standardization and testing in schools. In From the Dawn of Humanity to the 21st Century: Creativity as an Enduring Survival Skill, Puccio (2017) summarizes reports from a range of authorities including The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Bloomberg Business Week, and World Economic Forum, which include creativity as an essential skill, necessary for success in the 21st work environment. This notion is taken a step further in Creativity Rising by asserting that creativity is not only a workplace skill but a critical life and survival skill (Puccio et al, 2012). Florida’s research led to an assertion that economic growth is driven by human creativity (2002) while Sir Ken Robinson highlights creativity as the most crucial 21st-century skill capable of addressing the world’s most complex problems (Azzam, 2009). While society, technology, and the skills needed for jobs of the future are changing rapidly, public education has failed to keep up (Robinson & Aronica, 2015; Velez, 2015). Denervaud asserts that educational approaches must enable a workforce able to produce creative executions, the natural human ability to create independently, in order to combat the pace of advancements in technology and automation (2019).

Very few changes have occurred within the educational landscape since the beginning of public and free schooling of the American population. Murphy (1991) states that researchers turned their attention toward school reform in the 1980s after determining a distinct connection between economic stagnation and the failing educational system. While several school reform initiatives have come and gone over the decades, none have made a significant and widespread impact on improving student outcomes and thus in preparing students for the workforce and survival skills needed in the future. Perhaps creativity is the missing link. The real big question then is: If we know that creativity is an important part of preparing people for the complex way in which the world is changing, then how should creativity play a role in education and thus in the schooling of children?

A Holistic Approach

Schools present a unique opportunity to develop creativity at scale. In the United States, school is where the children are and it is the social system that exists to prepare students for the future. Schools are essentially responsible for what students should know and be able to do as a result of their education. Sir Ken Robinson states that education has four basic purposes (Robinson & Aronica, 2015). The first purpose is economic - schools should empower students to be economically responsible and independent. The second is cultural - schools should support students in appreciating their own cultures and respecting others’. Third is social - schools should develop active and compassionate citizens. The last purpose is personal - schools must support students in engaging with the internal self as well as with the external world. School is considered to be one of the greatest ways to develop creativity in a holistic and comprehensive manner (Alfuhaigi, 2014). Preparing students to be economically, culturally, socially, and personally successful adults requires creativity and looking at student needs through a holistic lens.

Rhodes’ 4 P Model of Creativity (1961) explains that creativity is a multi-faceted phenomenon that involves press (the environment), process, person, and product. This model proposes that creativity is heavily shaped by the environment, or press, in which the person exists. We cannot look at creativity in education without looking at all of the external influences coming from the immediate environment (ie., schools, classrooms) and the extended environment (ie., family/home, community, society) in which education, and students, are situated. Rhodes’ model illustrates that creativity involves cognitive processes such as motivation, learning, thinking, and communication - all of which are processes at the core of learning and student achievement. The model maintains that creativity concerns the person, which covers attitude, personality, value systems, behavior, etc. The final component of Rhodes’ model is the product. Products represent a record of ideas and are the result of thought. Student outcomes are the core educational product but products of education also include what students produce through their engagement with the curriculum. Creativity is holistic and pervasive as it is woven into every aspect of life, including education. We can therefore use the 4 P Model of Creativity to discuss ways creativity can, and should, play a role in the development of schools and the schooling of children.

Rhodes suggests that we can come to understand the nature of the creative process by starting at the realized outcome with the product, moving on to the person, to the process, and then to the press (1961). This is similar to the pedagogical concept of “backward design” lesson planning, put forth by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins. In this lesson planning technique, you begin with the intended end result - what students need to learn - and work your way back to how it will be taught. I propose that we explore the role that creativity plays in education by applying Rhodes’ framework, and order, to education. To that end, we will first address the product of creative education, then turn our attention to the persons within creative education, move on to the processes of creative education, which flows into the environment (press) of creative education.


On a surface level, it may seem that the product of education is student achievement. However, the product is much greater, broader, and deeper. If the purpose of education is to enable students to become economically, culturally, socially, and personally capable (Robinson & Aronica, 2015), then it stands to reason that the product of education is people who are actually prepared to become economically, culturally, socially, and personally capable and who are prepared to face the world taking shape around them.

Developing Economically Capable Students

Creativity plays a large role in driving economic growth, both personally and socially. Florida asserts that people whose work involves thought leadership and problem-solving are the ones driving innovation, wealth creation, and economic growth (2002). This group of people, he calls the “creative class”, makes up about 36% of the workforce. The concept of the “creative class” is similar to the idea of people who engage in professional-level creativity, or Pro-C, from the Four-C Model of Creativity (Helfand et al, 2016). This model states that there is a level of creativity at which creative endeavors are intentional, occur at a professional level, and are at the core of professional work. Helfand, Kaufman, Beghetto’s research also revealed, however, that women were underrepresented in creative fields (2016). Florida’s subsequent research acknowledged that non-white racial groups are underrepresented in these creative fields as well (2016). Creativity must therefore play a larger role in education in order to produce a wider impact on diversity in creativity-driven professions and thus a larger impact on widespread economic stability. It is a necessary component in producing and developing the broader society of people, not just a small group, who can drive innovation, personal wealth generation, and economic growth in the future.

Developing Culturally Capable Students

The Partnership for 21st Century Learning lists “Global Awareness” as a 21st century interdisciplinary theme and “Social and Cross-Cultural Skills” as essential to navigating complex life and career environments (Battelle for Kids, 2019). Schools are charged with ensuring that the product of education is students who appreciate their own cultures and respect the diversity of other cultures. Creative thinking processes rely on flexible behavior such as having a tolerance for ambiguity, risk-taking, thinking divergently and deferring judgment while remaining open. These behaviors can support the way in which we receive cultural diversity, allowing us to be more accepting and open to differences in values and beliefs. Creativity makes us more tolerant of other cultures and improves intergroup relations by promoting cognitive flexibility, openness to experience, and perspective-taking (Groyecka, 2018). Developing creativity from an early age will therefore result in adults who are better equipped to solve complex problems involving relationships and communication between different cultures (Braslauskas, 2021).

Developing Socially Capable Students

Education holds the role of ensuring that it produces students who become active citizens as well. Characteristics at the core of creativity, such as openness, cognitive flexibility, and tolerance for ambiguity are traits central to the development of global citizens (Glăveanu, 2020; Lilley et al, 2015). Voter turnout, a direct expression of democratic citizenship, has been severely lacking over the last century (Robinson & Aronica, 2015) while public protest engagement found its all-time high during the Black Lives Matter movement (Buchanan, 2020). Schools play a vital role in developing creative and immersive ways to engage students in civic education and in cultivating the ideals of citizenship and social responsibility within the population.

 Developing Personally Capable Students

Although education is focused on enriching the mind, it has largely focused on enriching the mind with knowledge about the external world and has neglected developing knowledge of the internal world. It is only within recent history that education has begun to embrace social-emotional learning as a way of understanding and managing the self. Learning about the internal self can involve motivation, meta-cognition, feelings, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, insecurities, mental health, etc. Education’s lack of addressing the need to engage with the inner self has led to disengagement, anxiety, boredom, depression, and dropout among students (Robinson & Aronica, 2015). Educators can support students’ motivation and persistence, however, by developing creative environments around them that give them the freedom to direct their own learning, and thus lead to greater creative abilities (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Creative learning environments can support students’ socially and emotionally as well (Davies et al, 2013). Infusing creativity into the culture of the school can support students’ self-actualization (Runco, 1997), well-being and mental health (Acar et al, 2020), and address the personal and internal development needs (Robinson & Aronica, 2015). Well-designed creativity training was also found to be effective in contributing to problem-solving, divergent thinking, performance, attitudes, and behaviors of younger and older students (Scott et al, 2004).


Person refers to the character traits, attitudes, values, behaviors, personality, and self-concept a person has (Rhodes, 1961). In the case of creativity in education, ‘person’ involves all of the people who drive education, including students, teachers, leaders, and policymakers. Creativity is essential for the learning and development of all parties involved in education. Creativity is an important concept in education because, like learning, research asserts that the phenomenon can be experienced by everyone (Acar et al, 2020; Miller et al, 2011; Puccio et al, 2012) and at varying degrees (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). The student as product has also addressed the student as a person and will therefore not be discussed in the following sections of the person domain.

 School Leaders

Persons in educational leadership will need creativity in order to envision and implement complex changes that are needed to support students’ life readiness. If the product of schooling is meant to be students who are prepared to navigate the challenges of a rapidly advancing society, then schooling is in need of creative reform. The current focus on rote learning, standardized curriculum, and testing can only prepare the large majority of students for mundane, repetitive work that is likely to become obsolete within the next ten to twenty years. Reforming schools to address the true purpose of education falls squarely within the sphere of leadership and requires multi-level creative thinking and action to ensure sustainable school effectiveness and development (Cheng, 2013). Creative leadership can be applied to education by leaders who have the core characteristics of creativity including openness, cognitive flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, problem-solving, risk-taking, and seeing challenges as opportunities. School leaders who wish to strengthen the role of creativity in their school setting must demonstrate an openness to flexible organizational structures, apply creative management and problem-solving, employ open and cooperative leadership, institute instructional and operational technology, foster 21st-century skills, and care for teachers as the foundation for the whole process (Alfuhaigi, 2014).

Strengthening principals’ visionary leadership and empowering teachers has a positive relationship with increasing teacher creativity (Makhrus et al, 2022). School leaders can move schools beyond the pitfalls of standardization of curriculum and assessments by supporting teacher risk-taking and pedagogical exploration (de Bruin & Harris, 2017). School leaders should foster an environment where teachers are encouraged to take risks and where feedback and support to improve practice is provided (Collard & Looney, 2014). Educators at every level, from teacher to administrator, must foster risk-taking as it is key to nurturing creativity and preparing learners for the complexities of a changing world (Henriksen et al, 2021).

For school leaders looking to asses the creative environment within their own schools, Harris (2016) recommends utilizing the Whole School Creativity Audit which focuses on area within a school environment leaders should examine to asses their environment for creativity. She also recommends that creative teaching methodology be at the core of professional development for teachers (Harris, 2016). It is also important for school leaders to ensure that they foster an environment where teachers and students can experience the curriculum in an interdisciplinary manner and where partnerships with outside institutions enhance learning opportunities (Alfugaigi, 2014; Harris, 2016).


Creative teachers are supportive of nurturing creativity within students (Davies et al, 2013). Teachers need training and support in being able to recognize creativity and nurture creative behavior and thought processes within students. Teachers need creativity training which helps them understand the nuances of creativity in various contexts, ways to develop students’ current creative abilities, and strategies to foster creative thinking skills and problem-solving (Newton & Newton, 2014). Perceptions of teacher preparation alumni who particated in a personal creativity exploration course convey that the long-term impacts of their participation include valuing their students’ creativity more, understanding expressions of student creativity better, increased openness to experiences, the ability to give up control and allow students to lead the way, as well as (Groman, 2022). Piirto (2021) argues that the creative personality is a natural part of being human and that creativity can be enhanced, repressed, or diminished. Her research of teachers’ perceptions of how creativity can be taught organically provides a holistic view of the mindsets and behaviors teachers need to teach for creativity and how teachers can nurture creativity in students. Some of these insights include: teachers should allow for instructional spontaneity when the situation changes, develop a climate of feedback, encourage students to learn from failure, including strategies like meditation and mindfulness, includes self-knowledge activities such as nature walks and reflection, and avoid focusing on the right answer in order to allow students to ideate (Piirto, 2021). Professional development is also needed to dispel and unlearn misconceptions about learning and creativity (Davies et al, 2013).


Rhodes’ process domain deals with motivation, learning, perception, thinking, and communication (1961). Education is closely linked with and involves these very same processes. Educators can improve students’ intrinsic motivation by giving them the freedom to choose what to work on and what to learn about. This organic and intrinsic interest leads to greater creative achievement (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Montessori education provides an example of centering self-directed learning and creative execution. This model gives students control over the direction of their own learning and improves academic outcomes in language, math, and working memory (Denervaud et al, 2019). Creativity is also an essential component in child development as is fosters experiences that nurture children’s curiosity, exploration, openness, divergent thinking, and innate problem-solving abilities (Vygotsky, 2004).

The Creative Problem-Solving process should also be considered for use by educational stakeholders as a way of addressing problems, and perhaps reforms, from the classroom level to the system level. The CPS process is designed to support the generation of ideas that serve a novel purpose in addressing ill-defined, ambiguous problems (Puccio et al., 2011) and has the power to connect and guide educator efforts for creative school reform.


The 4 P Model of Creativity’s final component is the all-encompassing environment, or press, which deals with the way in which the environment shapes the person (Rhodes, 1961). The environment surrounds the process, person, and product and is the main influence on whether or not creativity thrives or dies. Evidence across literature suggests that there are key characteristics of creative environments and conditions that are most effective in developing creative skills (Davies et al, 2013). We can think of the environmental press existing in two different domains: the pedagogy and the space. 

Pedagogical Press

In addressing the pedagogy, we are looking to the mindsets and practices of educators on learning and creativity. Recall that creativity necessitates openness, deferral of judgment, and flexibility of thought which supports an open mindset and attitude toward challenges. Noller put forth the “creativity equation” which illustrates that creativity is a function of a person’s attitude acting upon their knowledge, imagination, and evaluation (Wheeler, 1999). Attitude toward a given situation, regardless of the level of knowledge, imagination, or evaluation applied, can make the difference between a successful positive outcome and an unintended or undesirable outcome. Creativity plays an essential role in shaping the mindset and attitude of the person and must be instilled in all persons involved in education. Thankfully, creativity can be taught (Miller et al, 2011) and training in creativity has been found to contribute to creative behaviors (Scott et al, 2004).

Pedagogical approaches that have been found to foster students’ creativity include nurturing self-esteem and self-worth, creating opportunities for students to access higher-order thinking skills, encourages expression through a wide range of media, connects learning content to real experience, and having the time and space built in for creativity (Craft, 2001). Creative classrooms are student-centered and teachers serve as guides to learning rather than as gurus (Collard & Looney, 2014). In these classrooms, teachers have a mindset that is more open, flexible, and divergent toward the concept of authority and ownership over learning. Student creativity increases when the environment encourages explorations, independence, originality, and self-directed learning (Collard & Looney, 2014; Davies et al, 2013).

Educators, and policymakers, need to shift their mindset away from an environment of standards and testing to one where educators can slow down and allow students sufficient time to learn at their own pace and to explore creative executions (Davies et al, 2013). Schools should foster the type of mindsets within students that celebrates and supports intelligence, inclusivity, growth, and achievements for all (Alfuhaigi, 2014). Lower-achieving students show improved academic progress when immersed in creative environments (Davies et al, 2013). Relationships between teachers and students and amongst students should include open communication, be trusting, accepting, and supportive of risk-taking and new ideas in order to foster a creative learning environment (Richardson & Mishra, 2018). Moving towards creativity is related to being more spontaneous with instructional lesson planning and less prescriptive (Davies et al, 2013). Using humor (Piirto, 2021) and play (Davies et al, 2013) have been found to increase student engagement and support creative skills development. Educators must nurture risk-taking as a key factor in developing a creative educational environment (Henriksen et al, 2021). Environments where students, and teachers, can make mistakes is fertile ground for creativity (Miller et al, 2011). Instructional tasks that emphasize active, rather than passive, learning support creativity within the environment as well (Richardson & Mishra, 2018). Schools should work towards breaking down subject silos to allow for cross-disciplinary, high-level critical thinking, problem-solving, and divergent thinking (de Bruin & Harris, 2017).

Physical Press

The physical space also plays a major role in developing a learning environment that is ripe for creativity. Minimizing the amount of furniture to have a sense of openness and mobility allows students to feel more freedom and promotes creativity (Davies et al, 2013). Working in outdoor spaces and other environments outside of school has also been found to increase creativity as well as to provide contextual understanding of students’ unique environments (Davies et al, 2013). Spatial complexity (having a variety of shapes within a space), a view or inclusion of the natural environment, and the use of room and furniture design that invites social interaction and collaboration is perceived to stimulate and increase creativity (McCoy & Evans, 2002). Spaces should be open, provide flexible seating and furniture, allow for group work, and have a variety of materials and resources for student use (Richardson & Mishra, 2018). Natural light and colors that mirror nature such as light blue, yellow, yellow green and orange were found to stimulate alertness and creativity ​​(Barrett & Zhang, 2009).


Our society needs people who are economically, culturally, socially, and personally capable. Creativity can increase academic performance, motivation, the production of useful solutions, and students who have been holistically developed. Creativity in education must play a key role in producing a population of people who will be prepared to face this increasingly complex world. While there are many research-based recommendations for how to enhance the role that creativity plays in education, there are some core tenets worth highlighting. The literature reviewed in this paper is closely related to Goran Ekvall’s greatest stimulants and obstacles to creativity. Ekvall put forward the notion that challenge, freedom, idea support, trust and openness, dynamism and liveliness, playfulness, debate, idea time, and risk-taking were all stimulants to a creative environment (Miller et al, 2011). Creative learning environments present rich creative tasks, freedom to self-direct learning, freedom to take risks and from the burden of always having to supply the correct answer, positive relationships, and active/immersive learning. They are physical spaces with open areas for social connectedness, have flexible seating, and infuse natural elements. In order for creativity to play a major role in reforming and reimaging education, educators must also be allowed to explore, take risks, and develop into producers of creativity as well. These approaches require educators who are willing, and allowed, to make mindset shifts and to center creativity as the path to education reform. Schools can begin to transform their communities into dynamic educational environments that promote innovative learning and thinking, which in turn has an impact on future workforces and industries (de Bruin & Harris, 2017).

The synthesis of research related to the role creativity currently plays and can play in the future has led me to believe that there is perhaps a better question. I began this exploration by asking about the role that creativity plays in education. Is clear that creativity supports needed improvements in education. I also realize the possibility that there may be a bidirectional relationship between education and creativity. It is not only creativity that acts on education, but it is education that acts on creativity as well. Both constructs rely and build on each other to enhance their impact. Creativity relies on education to create the appropriate environment, for example, while education relies on creativity to be a force of divergence. They need each other and we, as a society, need to ensure that we allocate resources toward creating the space for both education and creativity to thrive in partnership.


Written for: SUNY Buffalo State College, CRS 625: Current Issues in Creativity

Pursuant to: Creative Problem-Solving Graduate Certificate



Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., Sman, C., & Uysal, R. (2021). Creativity and Well‐being: A Meta‐analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 738–751.

Alfuhaigi, S. (2014, March). School environment and creativity development: a review of literature. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1832-1837). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Azzam, A. (2009). Why creativity now?: a conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 22–.

Barrett, P. S., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Optimal learning spaces: Design implications for primary schools.

Battelle for Kids. (2019). Framework for 21st Century Learning.

Braslauskas, J. (2021). Developing intercultural competences and creativity: the foundation for successful intercultural communication. Creativity Studies, 14(1), 197-217.

Buchanan, L., Bui, Q., & Patel, J. (2020, July 3). Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History. The New York Times.

Cheng, Y. C. (2010). Multiple thinking and creativity in school leadership: A new paradigm for sustainable development. School leadership-International perspectives, 181-210.

Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 348-364.

Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 51(2), 1-37.

Collins, M. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 297-312), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking skills and creativity, 8, 80-91.

de Bruin, L., & Harris, A. M. (2017). Developing creative ecologies in schools : Assessing creativity in schools. Australian Art Education, 38(2), 244–260.

Denervaud, Knebel, J.-F., Hagmann, P., & Gentaz, E. (2019). Beyond executive functions, creativity skills benefit academic outcomes: Insights from Montessori education. PloS One, 14(11), e0225319–e0225319.

Florida, R. (2016, May 9). The Racial Divide in the Creative Economy. Bloomberg.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class : and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books.

Glăveanu, V. (2020). Creativity and global citizenship education. In Global Citizenship Education (pp. 191-202). Springer, Cham.

Groman. (2022). Considering the Long-Term Transformative Impact of Creativity Training on the Work and Lives of Teachers. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(1), 43–68.

Groyecka, A. (2018). Will becoming more creative make us more tolerant?. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 5(2), 170-176.

Helfand, M., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). The four-c model of creativity: Culture and context. In The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 15-36). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Carvalho, A. A., Cernochova, M., Dash, D., Davis, T., Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and risk-taking in teaching and learning settings: Insights from six international narratives. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2(2), 100024.

Lilley, K., Barker, M., & Harris, N. (2015). Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mind-set. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(3), 225–245.

Makhrus, M., Sunardi, O., & Retnowati, R. (2022). Increasing teachers' creativity through the development Of organizational culture, empowerment and visionary leadership of school principles. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 3(2), 20-33.

McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4), 409-426.

Miller, B., Vehar, J., Firestien, R., Thurber, S. and Nielsen, D. (2011). Creativity Unbound: An Introduction to Creative Process (5th ed.). Evanston, IL: FourSight, LLC

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena. Teachers College Press.

Newton, L.D., Newton, D.P. Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospects 44, 575–589 (2014).

Piirto. (2021). Organic Creativity for 21st Century Skills. Education Sciences, 11(11), 680–.

Puccio. G. (2017). From the Dawn of Humanity to the 21st Century: Creativity as an Enduring Survival Skill. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 330–334.

Puccio, G., Mance, M., Barbero Switalski, L., & Reali, P. D. (2012). Creativity rising: Creative thinking and creative problem solving in the 21st century. Buffalo, NY: ICSC.

Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2010). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change. Sage Publications.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi delta kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

Richardson, & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that's transforming education. Penguin books

Runco, M. A., Ebersole, P., & Mraz, W. (1997). Creativity and self-actualization. Eminent creativity, everyday creativity and health, 265-274.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity research journal, 16(4), 361-388.

Velez, A. (2012). Preparing students for the future—21 st century skills. University of Southern California

Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97.

Warner, S. A., & Myers, K. L. (2009). The creative classroom: The role of space and place toward facilitating creativity. Technology and Engineering Teacher69(4), 28.

Wheeler, R. (1999). Ruth Noller’s Creativity Formula. Russell A Wheeler.



Leave a Reply