Creativity and creative pedagogies: Exploring challenges, possibilities and potential

Teresa Cremin

Internationally, the first decade of the 21st century was characterised by considerable

growth in creativity research (e.g. Einarsdottir, 2003; Cremin, Burnard and Craft, 2006;

Beghetto and Kaufman 2007; Mirzaie, Hamidi and Anaraki, 2009; Chappell, 2007; Sawyer,

2010). While some researchers focused upon conceptual challenges (e.g. Beghetto and

Kaufman, 2007; Lin, 2011; Megalakaki, Craft and Cremin, 2012), others documented and

examined classroom practices; both those of teachers (e.g. Jeffrey and Woods, 2009; Craft,

Cremin, Hay and Clack, 2014) and of visiting subject specialists, often artists (e.g. Galton,

2010; Hall and Thomson, 2005). Empirical studies in this area, with an observational eye on

classroom practices, have tended to pay attention to both teacher and learner orientations,

to ‘creative teaching’ and ‘teaching for creativity’, thus encompassing Dezuanni and

Jetnikoff‘s (2011:265) assertion that creative pedagogies involve ‘imaginative and innovative

arrangement of curricula and teaching strategies in school classrooms’ to develop the

creativity of the young.

However whilst recognition of the role and nature of creativity, and interest in creative

pedagogical practice has grown, tensions persist at several levels, particularly in

accountability cultures where international comparisons such as the Progress in

International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA) frame and shape policy, practice and curricula. These ongoing large scale

surveys are seen as key reference points for policy makers across the world; students’

performance in them (in reading, mathematics and science in PISA for example) is

increasingly seen as a measure of individual country’s comparative success on a worldwide

scale. Yet neither encompasses attention to children’s lived experience of learning or

creativity within or beyond school. A focus on learners and their creative potential, and on

teachers and their innovative pedagogic practice, is absent. A focus on arguably narrow

notions of attainment dominates.

This book, based on a Special Issue of Education 3-13 which was planned with Anna Craft

before her untimely death, responds to this performative context (Ball, 1998) and draws

together the work of a number of eminent scholars of creativity and creative pedagogies. It

offers diverse perspectives from Colombia, Denmark, England, France, Poland, Hong Kong,

and the USA and highlights differences as well as similarities across cultural contexts.

Individually and collectively, the authors, framed by their own stances on creativity, reveal

both the complexities and the possibilities of creativity and creative pedagogies. Their work

indicates, that as the Australian researchers Harris and Lemon (2012:426) observe:

In diverse contexts, including at-risk learners, elite schools, community arts

interventions, in public pedagogies, or national level discourses about twenty-first

century learners, creative approaches to learning seems a topic that concerns almost

everyone.

Despite such interest, dilemmas exist and research reveals that discrepancies abound and

there is little consensual agreement about terms. The underpinning concept of creativity

remains complex, elusive and differently understood and instantiated. Banaji, Burn and

Buckingham (2010) question whether creativity in education is a globalised or culturally

specific phenomenon, where the balance between individual and collaborative creativity

lies, and whether it should be conceptualised as cognitive, play-based, ubiquitous, or

democratic. In addition multiple policy differences exist; in some countries curriculum policy

documents the term is liberally peppered throughout, often as an empty epithet, whereas in

others it remains noticeably absent. In terms of conceptualisations, the English scholar

Boden (2001) posits the notion of personal creativity, this is aligned with Craft’s (2001)

framing of ‘little-c creativity’ - the democratic life-wide creativity of the everyday. Boden

(2001) contrasts her notion of personal creativity with the idea of historical creativity which

is more aligned with ‘Big-C creativity’, evidenced for example by innovators such Einstein

and Picasso. Nonetheless, all such conceptualisations involve working imaginatively and

encompass the processes of exploration, combination and transformation (Boden, 2004),

although unlike personal creativity, historical creativity is recognised as domain changing

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). The American scholars Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) additionally

distinguish between ‘mini-c creativity’ (personal meaning-making) and what they view as

‘little-c creativity’ (everyday creativity shared with others). They also conceptualise

professional creativity (‘pro-c creativity’), and suggest this reflects the construction of

professional knowledge and understanding.

Research indicates that teachers as well as researchers have differing conceptions of

creativity (e.g. Dawson et al, 1999) and that this has consequences for their classroom

practice. They may feel socially obliged to claim to value creativity in the classroom even if

they do not (e.g. Runco and Johnson, 2002) and may return to a default mode of utilising a

more traditional transmissive style in order to retain order (e.g. Besançon and Lubart, 2008).

Additionally, there is reserach evidence to suggest they may be unaware that their

pedagogic practice actually inhibits creativity (e.g. Dawson et al., 1999). Thus in relation to

creative pedagogical practice, difficulties as well as potential can be identified in both

theorising and defining creative pedagogies.

One such difficulty relates to the dogged persistence of myths about creativity. It is widely

posited that creativity is an ability that people are born with or without and as such it is

presumed it is impossible to develop. As research has unequivocally shown however, this is

unfounded (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Nickerson, 1999). Another prevailing myth is that creativity

is the preserve of the arts or arts education, yet as still others have demonstrated, and this

book exemplifies, it can be applied to many domains (e.g. van Oers, 2010; Mirzaie, Hamidi

and Anaraki, 2009). Sternberg (2010:394) argues that in essence creativity is a novel

response - a habit - and like any other habit it can be encouraged and discouraged. He

suggests that in order to promote this habit of responding to problems in novel and

divergent ways: opportunities, encouragement and rewards are needed.

In educational contexts with high stakes testing systems and over-reliance on curriculum

controls, opportunities to practice the critical habit of creativity are inevitably constrained.

Limited encouragement is given to teachers (or younger learners) to adopt a creative

mindset and few rewards are offered for being creative in school. Working in western

cultures of performativity (Ball, 1998), teachers are subject to extensive accountability

measures, for example through imposed specifications of the knowledge to be ‘delivered’,

scripted instruction materials and ongoing inspections. This not only changes curriculum

content but alters how learning takes place and what is recognised and valued as learning in

schools. Practitioners, positioned as passive recipients of the prescribed agenda appear at

times to have had their hands tied, their voices quietened and their professional autonomy

constrained. The performative pressures of assessment and accountability have been

shown to adversely affect students’ experience of schooling (e.g. Assaf, 2008; Dooley, 2005)

and as many claim (e.g. Claxton and Lucas, 2015; Robinson, 2015), this fails to prepare the

young for the uncertainties of life, for the unknown world of tomorrow. Indeed, as Mottram

and Hall (2009:109) assert, the language of schooling has predominantly focused upon

‘oversimplified, easily measurable notions of attainment’ which, these scholars claim, has

had a homogenising effect, prompting children and their development to be discussed

‘according to levels and descriptors’, rather than as children, and as unique and potentially

creative learners (opcit). The relentless quest for higher standards may well serve to foster

professional and pupil mindsets characterised more by compliance and conformity than

curiosity and creativity.

The downward pressure of assessment threatens not only to undermine teaching

creatively ,which the National Advisory Committee for Creative and Cultural education

(NACCCE, 1990) in England saw as teacher oriented, but also teaching for creativity, which

the committee defined as learner oriented. Nonetheless there is evidence internationally

that despite the odds, ( and perhaps in response to the prescribed agenda ) creative

pedagogues, working against the grain, exercise the ‘power to innovate’ (Lance, 2006).

Many proactively seek ways to shape the curriculum responsively, appropriating national

policies in their own contexts and showing professional commitment and imagination in the

process (e.g. Comber and Kamler, 2011; Craft, McConnon and Matthews, 2012; Craft,

Cremin, Hay and Clack, 2014; Cremin, Barnes and Scoffham, 2009; Poddiakov, 2011; Hetland

and Winner, 2011; Woods and Jeffrey, 2009). The Creative Partnerships initiative in England

for example increased the attention paid by researchers, policy makers and practitioners to

creativity and creative pedagogic practice in primary phase schooling (e.g. QCA, 2005;

Galton, 2010; Bragg, Manchester and Faulkner, 2009; Thomson and Hall, 2007). This work

implicitly challenges the primarily neo-liberal rationale for creativity in education which

focuses on economic benefits, and instead asserts the value of creativity for self-

actualisation, whereby it is seen as an integral part of child development (Gibson, 2005).

Perhaps such creative practitioners recognise creativity as a ‘central source of meaning’

(Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) in their own lives and seek to expand their repertoires of

pedagogical practice in order to nurture younger learners’ creativity. As Robinson (2015)

asserts, developing learner creativity should be a core element of schooling:

Being creative is at the heart of being human and of all cultural progress.... The

answer now is not to suppress our creativity but to cultivate it more seriously and

with a greater sense of purpose. As the challenges that face students become more

complex, it’s essential that schools help them all to develop their unique capabilities

for creative thought and action. (Robinson, 2015:137)

In a systematic review of environments and conditions that enhance creativity in children

and young people (undertaken for Learning and Teaching Scotland) , Davies et al., (2011)

note that flexibility in the physical and the pedagogical environment is significant, alongside

diverse resources; working beyond the classroom, (e.g. outdoors and in museums); and

partnerships with outside agencies. In relation to the pedagogical environment, common

characteristics they identified included: teachers balancing freedom and structure, and

using playful/ games-based approaches which, the review suggests, help children exercise

control over their learning and offer ownership of activities. In addition, the researchers

identified strong evidence of mutual respect between staff and children, the modelling of

creative attitudes on the part of adults, high expectations and considerable dialogue and

collaborative work. Resisting the pressure to conform, it appears that the creative

practitioners in the 200 plus studies reviewed by Davies et al., (2011), took risks and

encouraged the young people to do likewise. Teachers involved students as co-participants,

offered work of personal significance and ensured there was time and space to experiment

– together. They also modelled creativity and took part as learners in the classroom;

experimenting with resources, engaging in problem-solving, taking up different roles, and

generating and critiquing their ideas. As teachers they were self-evidently exercising the

habit of creativity.

By being flexible, acting spontaneously and responding imaginatively to children’s interests

and questions, it is argued that such creative teachers temper the planned with the lived

(Cremin, 2015). In order to encourage learner creativity, it appears creative practitioners

leave space for uncertainty and the unknown, and build on unexpected contributions or

enquiries, fostering learner autonomy in the process. As Sawyer (2011) argues, creative

teaching and learning is fundamentally collaborative and improvisational, he also observes

that:

creative learning is more likely to occur when the rigid division between teacher and

student is somewhat relaxed, creating an environment where teachers and students

jointly construct the improvisational flow of the classroom. (Sawyer, 2011: 15)

Recognising and exercising one’s personal creativity appears to be an important part of

creative teachers’ professional and personal meaning-making (Prentice, 2000;

Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Craft, Gardner and Claxton, 2008). Those who play with new ideas

and ways of teaching, who are curious and reflective are, it appears, most likely to foster

student creativity (Tanggaard 2011). Recognition of the development of creativity and

originality, it has been argued, is the distinguishing mark of creative pedagogues (Cremin,

Barnes and Scoffham, 2009). In this study, which involved the observation of highly creative

UK professionals working with pupils from early primary through to the end of secondary

schooling, the creative teacher was defined as ‘one who is aware of, and values, the human

attribute of creativity in themselves and seeks to promote it in others’ (Cremin, 2014: 44).

Such creative teachers, these researchers argued, have a creative state of mind which is

actively exercised and developed in practice through the core features of creative practice

(see Figure 1). The researchers posit that creative teachers model, demonstrate and foster a

questioning stance, the making of connections, show a marked degree of autonomy and

ownership, and in the process value and nurture originality and the generation/evaluation

of ideas (Cremin et al., 2009). This work affirms earlier studies that highlighted creative

pedagogy was characterised by four components: children and their teachers being engaged

in innovation, ownership, control and relevance (Jeffrey, 2003; Woods, 2002). Critically

however, the more recent work which spanned across the age phases and was not just

undertaken in the primary years, highlighted that creative teachers actively seek to develop

the creative dispositions and habits of mind of their students (Cremin et al., 2009).

Figure 1. A model of creative practice and a creative state of mind (Cremin et al, 2009)

Myriad other educators, such as Claxton and Lucas (2015), Littleton and Mercer (2013), Craft

et al., (2012) and Robinson (2015) affirm that creativity is both enabled and constrained by

the kind of curriculum on offer and by the pedagogic practice employed. As Robinson (2015)

argues we are social beings and learn from the company we keep, and as creativity is

socially mediated, teachers need to ensure students learn both in groups and as groups, and

need to join them in this co-constructive endeavour in order to enhance the creativity of

younger learners. In schools with pedagogies which foster creativity, co-participative, co-

constructive approaches are often in evidence, (Craft, Cremin, Hay, and Clack, , 2014), such

approaches are resonant with the construction of ‘creative learning conversations’

(Chappell and Craft, 2011), which use differences as a starting point for transformational

change. They foreground collaboration within classes, within the staff team, and between

staff, children, parents and other adults engaged in supporting learning.

Connecting to this key theme of collaboration and co-construction, Vlad Glaveanu in the

first chapter of the book, reflects upon an ongoing conversation about creativity and

creative pedagogy with his Danish colleague Lene Tanggaard and Zayda Sierra from

Colombia. These authors consider the two cultural settings, highlighting areas of

commonality as well as difference and discuss the paradigmatic foundations of creativity in

education and in schooling (labelled here as ‘He, I and We’) which they perceive frame much

of the debates. They explore the resonances and consequences of these paradigms and,

linking to the work of Lin (2011), note for example that the ‘We’ paradigm relates to

creative pedagogies that focus upon the relationship between teachers and students;

between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Nonetheless, their North- South

deliberations cause them to question whether this paradigm in education is genuinely

inclusive, and whether difference and diversity are sufficiently foregrounded in such an

approach. This opening chapter lays down a gauntlet and challenges us to re-examine what

we have come to recognise as creative and valuable, who we recognise as creative, and,

significantly whose creativity we legitimise and encourage.

In the following chapter Baptiste Barbot, Maud Besançon and Todd Lubart, researchers from

the USA and France also assert that the construct of creativity is neither sufficiently nor

consensually understood and that methodological barriers to accurately measuring

creativity further constrain the development of students’ creative learning. Focusing on

creative potential, they examine the critical issues of ‘nature’, ‘measure’, and ‘nurture’,

arguing that this potentiality relies not only on a set of domain-general, domain-specific,

and task relevant resources, but also on the ability to transform one’s potential in a way

which is recognised as creative in the given context. These researchers highlight that

creative potential is not “fixed”; it develops and evolves over time and across different

settings in response to ‘natural’ and targeted interventions. In arguing for more accurate

assessment of creative potential in order to nurture or ‘train’ a child’s creativity and

evaluate the impact of educational contexts, they describe an ‘Evaluation of Potential

Creativity’ (EPoC; Lubart et al., 2011;2013). This instrument aims to offer a comprehensive

multidimensional evaluation of a child’s creative potential which can be used to develop

tailored programmes of support for learners. It affords a needs-based, formative way

forward, one which, as Barbot and her colleagues acknowledge, will also be influenced by

classroom ethos and teachers’ attitudes toward creativity.

Imagination is the focus of the next chapter. In this Dorota Dziedziewicz and Maciej

Karwowski both of whom work in Poland argue that it is important to analyse creative visual

imagination both as a cognitive process and typologically so that different types of creative

imagination are revealed. They commence with a brief but intriguing historical review of

studies of imagination, and then share a new theoretical model of visual creative

imagination which foregrounds three elements: vividness, originality, and transformative

ability. These elements whilst described in earlier theories are newly combined here and

analysed in a profile way. Vividness, originality, and transformative ability are thus posited

as the key characteristics for the effective functioning of imagination and the consequences

for assessment and developing imagination are considered. Their model is used as a matrix

for describing and evaluating various training programmes, including several fictionally

based programmes which seek to develop children’s creative imagination. Detailed

explanation of the imaginative training programme ‘Eureka’ for 5-9 year olds is given. This

aims to activate and stimulate development of creative imaging abilities as well as ‘release

the passion to create’. Dziedziewicz and Karwowski posit that in any activities designed to

stimulate children’s creative imagination, the aim should be to balance imagery, originality,

and transformativeness. They consider however that in developing the last feature, teachers

may need particular support. This may well be the case, since internationally, the concept of

the imagination, alongside that of creativity remains somewhat elusive> Yet in England in

the influential Cambridge Primary Review,(the largest review of primary education for over

40 years), ‘exciting the imagination’ was innovatively proposed as one of 12 core aims for

primary education. As the final report noted:

To excite children’s imagination in order that they can advance beyond present

understanding, extend the boundaries of their lives, contemplate worlds possible as

well as actual, understand cause and consequence, develop the capacity for

empathy, and reflect on and regulate their behaviour; to explore and test language,

ideas and arguments in every activity and form of thought … We assert the need to

emphasise the intrinsic value of exciting children’s imagination. To experience the

delights – and pains – of imagining, and of entering into the imaginative worlds of

others, is to become a more rounded and capable person.

(Alexander, 2010:199)

Augmenting the underlying argument that fostering creativity and the imagination is

possible through deploying creative pedagogies and tailored support, Anna Hui and her

colleagues from Hong Kong next consider how creativity in education in Asian societies is

positioned within educational policy and specific domains of knowledge.They reveal that in

Hong Kong, despite the fact that creativity is promoted at all levels of education, tensions

and challenges exist in transforming this formal policy requirement, into informal playful

learning opportunities. They report on two empirical studies both of which sought to enrich

creativity in young people: these focus upon infusing creative arts in the early childhood

curriculum, and employing creative drama in subjects such as Chinese, English, and General

Studies with young people aged 4-16. It is clear playfulness is a critical feature in the

pedagogies employed, the playfulness and creative self-efficacy of teachers as well as

students. In both studies, pre- and post-tests were employed to assess various aspects of

children’s creative thinking and potential, with the results tending to endorse the team’s

hypothesis that playfulness and arts-enriched learning can enhance creative performance.

Hui and her colleagues highlight in particular the potency of drama as a medium for

enriching teachers’ personal creativity and their capacity to teach for creativity, linking this

to the body of work on possibility thinking in the UK , that shift from ‘what is’ to what might

be’(Craft, 2002; Craft et al., 2012).This work has recently revealed that narrative plays a

foundational role in children’s possibility thinking, and that reciprocal relationships exist

between questioning, imagination and narrative, layered between children and adults

(Cremin et al., 2013).

Moving from a focus on arts based pedagogy to that of science; the following chapter draws

upon the EU project Creative Little Scientists. This three year study (2011-2014) which

encompassed partners from Greece, Romania, Germany, Finland, France, Belgium, Portugal

and the UK, explored the potential for creativity in the mathematics and science education

of 3-8 year olds. Whilst the project encompassed literature reviews, comparative studies of

policies and of teachers’ views, as well as case studies of classroom practice, the team

(Teresa Cremin, Esme Glauert, Anna Craft, Ashley Compton, and the project lead Fani

Stylianidou) focus here on pedagogical synergies between inquiry-based science and

creativity based approaches in early years. These, identified in the project’s conceptual

framework and in the later fieldwork in 48 sites, were documented as including: play and

exploration, motivation and affect, dialogue and collaboration, problem solving and agency,

questioning and curiosity, reflection and reasoning, and teacher scaffolding and

involvement. The team argue a dynamic relationship exists between inquiry-based and

creative based approaches to teaching and learning. Extracts from case studies in Belgium,

Germany and Northern Ireland seek to show that early years inquiry-based science

approaches link to the problem-finding/ problem solving approach developed by those who

teach creatively and teach for creativity. The chapter also highlights the often unrecognised

potential for creativity in exploratory science contexts across Europe and looks to the follow

up study Creativity in Early Years Science Education, (funded by Erasmus Plus) to respond to

this context.

The following chapter by Pat Thomson and Christine Hall also draws upon a single project:

the not insubstantial Signature Pedagogies project situated in England and funded by the

organisation Creativity, Culture and Education following the demise of Creative Partnerships

(2003-2011). Connecting to their earlier work documenting artists working with schools

under the Creative Partnerships initiative, (Hall and Thomson, 2005,2007), these reserachers

argue here that the creative pedagogies used by artists were in some way distinct, reflecting

their own ‘handwritten signature’. In this chapter they examine an aspect of the wider

project, namely the way in which artists approached the issue of inclusion, seen here as

catering for diversity and difference and changing the learning opportunities on offer as a

consequence. They focus on the work of a number of story-makers in nursery settings and

primary schools, and reveal the markedly democratic and participatory practices that the

artists adopted. These encompass a potent trio of beliefs: every child is capable of having

ideas; every child can contribute vitally to discussions; and every child is essential to a

collective ‘performance’. Although the snapshots from the children’s work with the artists

offer multi-layered evidence of these beliefs in action, it is, as Thomson and Hall

acknowledge, no simple matter for teachers to emulate artists’ alternative pedagogical

practices. Teachers are positioned differently; to some extent their hands are tied. However,

some of the research studies noted earlier in the introduction suggest that creative teachers

can exercise professional agency and find their own ways forward, and that many also seek

to be inclusive, recognising children as unique individuals and creative thinkers.

The final chapter in the book retains a focus on artists working alongside teachers. In this,

Maurice Galton draws on case studies of schools from a project in England concerning the

impact of Creative Partnerships (CP) on student wellbeing (McLellan, Galton, Stewart &

Page, 2012). In order to foreground the impact of artists on primary teachers’ thinking and

pedagogic practice, he uses the cases to explore differences in the ways teachers in Creative

Partnerships and non CP schools implemented the curriculum and interacted with their

pupils. The differences are telling, as are the features in common shared by all three

Creative Partnerships schools. Galton suggests the latter include the existence of positive

collaborative working relationships between teachers and Creative Partnerships

practitioners who planned together and regularly discussed children’s learning. The CP

school teachers appeared to want to learn from their artist partners, and, through working

alongside them, and engaging in reflective review-like discussions, gained confidence as

creative professionals who seemed more prepared to take risks. Galton also notes that

through this working partnership, the pedagogic focus shifted from learning outcomes to

learning processes and that as a consequence, thinking skills, emotional literacy,

communication skills, problem solving and collaboration were afforded attention in the

Creative Partnerships schools. Lastly he observes that the assessment of outcomes in these

schools foregrounded collaboration and joint products (such as exhibitions and

performances), rather than individual ones. Thus, he argues the opportunity to work for

extended periods with artists in schools can impact upon professional practice despite the

incessant pressures of the performativity culture.

Taken together the seven chapters in this book challenge researchers and practitioners to

re-examine what we recognise internationally as creativity and imagination in education,

particularly in our different cultural contexts, to re-consider how we assess/measure these

capacities and to reflect upon the ways in which we seek to foster them. Several highlight

the collaborative nature of creativity and the need to support children’s ability to work

constructively with others. In offering hope as well as challenge, the authors show that

creativity and creative pedagogies are not only of interest to all educators, but are central to

exploring and developing the purpose and value of education for tomorrow. The authors

also afford some degree of optimism that teachers can, and that some do, teach creatively

and assert their agency, confront their practice and risk transforming this in order to

develop the habit of creativity in their students. In this respect, McWilliam (2008) argues

that creative educators are neither the ‘sage on the stage’ nor the ‘guide on the side’, but

are more appropriately described as ‘meddlers in the middle’; educators positioned in the

midst of the learners. Such educators she suggests set aside time for problem solving

activities in which they too are involved, and prioritise experimentation, improvisation, risk-

taking, co-learning and critical collaboration. For creative pedagogues a sense of adventure

and autonomy attends the experimentation involved in making curricular changes and

‘going with the flow’, building on the children’s funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992),

passions and interests. Whilst this is not without tension, recognising their responsibilities to

the young, creative pedagogues seek, often in partnership with others, to create a balance

between structure and improvisation and, to borrow Anna Craft’s (2002) term, they work at

‘possibility thinking’ their ways forward. A habit worth forming.

References

Alexander, R (ed) (2010) Children, their World, their education: final report and

recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review London: Routledge

Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview

Assaf, L.C. (2008) The professional identity of a reading teacher: responding to high stakes

assessment Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 14 (3):239-252.

Ball, S. (1998). Performativity and fragmentation in the education economy. Australian

Educational Researcher 27(2): 1–23.

Banaji, S., Burn, A. and Buckingham, D. (2010) The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the

Literature, London, Arts Council England

Beghetto, R. A. (2007) Does creativity have a place in the classroom? Prospective teachers’

response preferences Thinking Skills and Creativity 2,1-9.

Beghetto, R. A. and Kaufman, J. C. (2007) Toward a broader conception of creativity.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12: 73-79.

Besancon, M and Lubart,T. ( 2008) Differences in the development of creative

competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments Learning and individual

differences 18. 381-389.

Boden, M. A. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and mechanisms (second ed.). London:

Routledge.

Boden, M. (2001) Creativity and knowledge in A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Liebling (eds)

Creativity in Education, London: Continuum

Bragg, S., Manchester, H., and Faulkner, D.(2009). Youth voice in the work of Creative

Partnerships. Milton Keynes: OU

Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2011) “Creative learning conversations: Producing living dialogic spaces?” Educational Research, 53(3): 363–385.

Chappell, K. (2007). The Dilemmas of Teaching for Creativity: Insights from Expert Specialist

Dance Teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2 pp39-56.

Claxton, G. and Lucas, B. (2015) Educating Ruby: what our children really need to learn Crown House: Carmarthen.

Comber. B. and Kamler, B. (2011) Redesigning school spaces: creating possibilities for

learning in In J. Sefton Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, and L. Bresler The Routledge

International Handbook of Creative Learning. London: Routledge. pp 253-263.

Craft, A. (2001) Little c creativity In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in

education pp. 45–61. London: Continuum.

Craft, A., and Chappell, K. 2009. “Fostering possibility through co-researching creative

movement with 7-11 year olds”. In S. Blenkinsop, (Ed) The imagination in education.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Craft, A. Cremin, T. Hay , P. Clack, J. (2014) Creative Primary Schools: developing and

maintaining pedagogy for creativity Ethnography and Education 9(1):16-34.

Craft, A. McConnon, L. and Matthews, A. (2012). Creativity and child-initiated play. Journal

of Thinking Skills and Creativity 71: 48-61.

Cremin, T., Craft, A. and Burnard, P.(2006) Pedagogy and Possibility Thinking in the Early Years, Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2): 108-119

Cremin, T., Barnes, J. and Scoffham, S. (2009) Creative Teaching for Tomorrow: Fostering a

Creative State of Mind, Deal, Future Creative.

Cremin, T. (2015) Creative Teaching and Creative Teachers in Wilson, A. (ed) (3rd edition)

Creativity in Primary Education (pp. 33-44) Exeter: Learning Matters.

Cremin (2014) Creative Teaching and Creative Teachers in Wilson, A. (ed) (2nd edition)

Creativity in Primary Education, Exeter: Learning Matters.

Cremin, T., Chappell, K., and Craft, A. (2013) Reciprocity between narrative, questioning and

imagination in the early and primary years: examining the role of narrative in possibility

thinking Thinking Skills and Creativity 9:136-151

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002) Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness. London:

Rider.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997) Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. NY: Harper

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., Howe, A.( 2013). Creative

environments for learning in schools Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8(1), 80-91.

Dawson, V.L.D., Andrea, T., Affinito, R. and Westby, E.L.(1999) predicting creative

behaviour: a re-examination of the divergence between traditional and teacher defined

concepts of creativity Creativity Research Journal 12, 57-66.

Dezuanni, M.and Jetnikoff, A. (2011) Creative pedagogies and the contemporary school

classroom in J. Sefton Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, and L. Bresler The Routledge

International Handbook of Creative Learning. London: Routledge. pp 264-272

Dooley, C.M. (2005) One teacher’s resistance to the pressures of test mentality, Language,

Arts, 82(3): 177-185.

Einarsdottir, J. (2003). Principles underlying the work of Icelandic preschool teachers.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1): 39-53.

Galton, M. 2008. The pedagogy of creative practitioners in schools. Faculty of Education,

Cambridge University, for Creative Partnerships.

Galton, M. (2010) Going with the flow or back to normal? The impact of creative

practitioners in schools and classrooms Research Papers in Education 25(4): 355-375.

Gibson, H. (2005) What creativity isn't: The presumptions of instrumentalism and individual justifications for creativity in education British Journal of Educational Studies 53(2):148-167

Hall, C. and P. Thomson (2007). Creative partnerships? Cultural policy and inclusive arts

practices in one primary school. British Educational Research Journal 33(3): 315-29

Hall, C. and Thomson, P. (2005) ‘Creative tensions? creativity and basics skills in recent educational policy’, English In Education, 39(3), pp. 5-18.

Harris, A. and Lemon, A. (2012) Bodies that shatter: creativity, culture and the new

pedagogical imaginary, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20:3, 413-433

Hetland. L and Winner, E. (2011)The relationship between creativity and studio thinking in J.

Sefton-Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones and L. Bresler, The Routledge International Handbook of

Creative Learning . Pp.226-233. London: Routledge.

Jeffrey, B. (2003). Creative learning and student perspectives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. http://opencreativity.open.ac.uk.

Jeffrey, B. and Woods, P. (2009) Creative Learning in the Primary School, London:Routledge.

Kaufman, J. C. and Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of

creativity. Review of General Psychology, 131: 1-12.

Lance, A. (2006): Power to innovate? A study of how primary practitioners are

negotiating the modernisation agenda, Ethnography and Education, 1(3): 333-344

Lin, Y-S. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education: A Conceptual Framework of

Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education 2(3):149-155

Littleton, K. and Mercer, N. (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work ,London: Routledge

Lubart, T. I., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du potentiel créatif (EPoC). Paris: Editions Hogrefe France.

Lubart, T. I., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement.

International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41-51.

McLellan, R., Galton, M., Steward, S., & Page, C. (2012). The Impact of Creative Partnerships

on the Wellbeing of Children and Young People. London: Creativity, Culture and Education.

McWilliam, E . (2008) Unlearning how to teach Innovations in Education and Teaching

International 45(3): 263-269.

Megalakaki, O, Craft, A. and Cremin, T. (2012) The nature of creativity: cognitive and

confluence perspectives Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 10 (3), 1035-1056.

Special Issue on Education for Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Mirzaie, R. A., Hamidi, F., and Anaraki, A. (2009). A study on the effect of science activities

on fostering creativity in preschool children. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3):81-90

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. and Gonzalez, N. (1992) ‘Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms’, Theory into Practice, 31, pp. 132-141.

Mottram, M. and Hall, C. (2009) ‘Diversions and diversity: Does the personalisation agenda

offer real opportunities for taking children’s home literacies seriously?’ English in Education,

43(2): 98-112.

National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). (NACCCE) All Our Futures. London: DfEE.

Nickerson, R.S. (1999) Enhancing creativity in R.J. Sternberg Handbook of human creativity

Delhi: Oxford University Press pp.392-430.

Poddiakov, N. (2011). Searching, experimenting and the heuristic structure of a preschool

child's experience. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(1), 55-63.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). 2005. Creativity: Find it, promote It!

London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Prentice, R. (2000) Creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education.

Curriculum Journal 11 (2):145 –158.

Robinson, K. and Aronica, L. (2015) Creative Schools: revolutionizing Education from the

ground up London: Allen lane.

Runco, M and Johnson, D.J. (2002) Parents and teachers implicit theories of children’s

creativity: a cross cultural perspective Creativity Research Journal 14, 427-438.

Sawyer, K. (2011) (ed) Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching New York,

Cambridge university press.

Sawyer, K. (2010) Learning for Creativity in. R. A. Beghetto, and J.C. Kaufman Nurturing

Creativity in the Classroom pp 394-414 Cambridge, Cambridge University press

Sternberg, R. (2010) Teaching for Creativity in R.A. Beghetto, and J.C. Kaufman Nurturing

Creativity in the Classroom pp 394-414 Cambridge, Cambridge University press.

van Oers, B. (2010). Emergent mathematical thinking in the context of play. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 74(1), 23-37.

Woods, P.( 2002) Teaching and Learning in the New Millenium.’In Developing Teachers and

Teaching Practice: International Research Perspectives, edited by C. Sugrue and C. Day.

London and New York: Routledge Falmer