children’s perspectives on creativity and its role in ... · from active participants about the...
TRANSCRIPT
CHILDREN’S PERSPECTIVES ON CREATIVITY
AND ITS ROLE IN THEIR LIVES
Shelley Kara Radanovic
B Fine Arts (Film & Television Production)
Grad Dip (Early Years)
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education (Research)
School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
2020
2
KEYWORDS
Children; creativity; education; children’s voice; primary schooling
ABSTRACT
Creativity is a significant aspect of life in the twenty‐first century. It is present in international
government policy, government initiatives and educational reform. As creativity’s position in
society evolves, particular focus is paid to creativity in education. Developing this attribute in
children is seen to be educating our future change makers in a spread of fields including science,
innovation and entrepreneurship (Kemple & Nissenberg, 2000). However, there is little evidence
that creativity is being fostered successfully in schools. Governments, curricula and schools are
failing to provide future generations with the education they require (Robinson, 2017). Hearing
from active participants about the reality everyday schooling can help to make quality
improvements to teaching and learning creativity (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). This qualitative
interview‐based study contributes children’s perspectives on the role creativity plays in their lives.
Inductive thematic analysis was used to give weight to their definitions and descriptions of this
topic via focus groups. Using new sociology of childhood as the theoretical framework and The
Lundy Model of Participation (2007) to guide the methodology, Australian primary aged children
are positioned as capable and invaluable contributors, whose perspectives may move us forward
to more successfully fostering creativity in children.
3
Table of Contents
KEYWORDS .............................................................................................................................. 2
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP .................................................................................. 8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 8
TITLE ........................................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9
1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.1 Creativity, Society and Economics ................................................................................ 10
1.1.2 Creativity and Education ............................................................................................... 11
1.1.3 Current Disconnection and Challenges ......................................................................... 11
1.1.4 Children’s Voice ............................................................................................................. 12
1.1.5 Human Rights ............................................................................................................... 12
1.1.6 Citizenship ..................................................................................................................... 13
1.1.7 Benefits to Education .................................................................................................... 13
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 14
1.3 RESEARCH AIMS ....................................................................................................................... 14
1.4 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 14
1.5 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS .................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 17
2.1 DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY ......................................................................................................... 17
2.2 CREATIVITY’S ROLE IN SOCIETY .................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Creative Individuals and Happiness .............................................................................. 19
2.2.2 Creative Individuals as Agentive ................................................................................... 19
2.2 3 Creativity and The Advancement of Society ................................................................. 20
2.2.4 Creativity and Innovation in the Australian Context ..................................................... 20
2.3 CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION ......................................................................................................... 22
2.3.1 The Current Position of Creativity in Education ............................................................ 22
4
2.3.2 International Policies on Creativity in Education .......................................................... 23
2.3.3 Creativity’s Links to the Arts and Sciences .................................................................... 24
2.3.4 Australian Government Policy on Creativity in Education ............................................ 25
2.3.5 Curriculum .................................................................................................................... 27
2.3.6 Creativity within the Australian Curriculum ................................................................. 28
2.3.7 Challenges for Creativity Curriculum ............................................................................ 29
2.3.8 Schools and Creativity .................................................................................................. 31
2.3.9 Classrooms and Creativity ............................................................................................ 32
2.3.10 Teachers and Creativity .............................................................................................. 33
2.3.11 Students and Creativity .............................................................................................. 35
2.4 CHAPTER CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER 3 CREATIVITY, CHILDREN AND CHILDREN’S VOICE ................................................... 39
3.1 SOCIOLOGY OF CHILDHOOD ........................................................................................................ 39
3.2 NEW SOCIOLOGY OF CHILDHOOD ................................................................................................ 40
3.3 CHILDREN’S VOICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ...................................................................................... 41
3.4 CHILDREN’S VOICE AND CITIZENSHIP ............................................................................................ 41
3.5 CHILDREN’S VOICE AND EDUCATION ............................................................................................ 42
3.6 NEW SOCIOLOGY AS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 44
3.7 CHAPTER CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 45
4.1 LUNDY AS METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................................. 45
4.2 MODELS OF PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Hart’s Ladder of Participation ...................................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Shier’s Model of Participation ...................................................................................... 48
4.2.3 The Lundy Model of Participation ................................................................................ 51
4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 54
4.4 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 55
4.4.1 Qualitative Research Design ........................................................................................ 55
4.4.2 Interview‐based Study .................................................................................................. 55
4.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................. 56
4.6 RESEARCH SITE ........................................................................................................................ 57
4.7 PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................... 58
4.8 DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................... 59
5
4.8.1 Focus Group Alignment with The Lundy Model of Participation .................................. 59
4.8.2 Focus Group Advantages .............................................................................................. 60
4.8.3 Focus Group Challenges ................................................................................................ 61
4.8.4 Comfort and Trusted Relationships in Focus Groups .................................................... 62
4.9 PROCEDURE AND TIMELINE ........................................................................................................ 63
4.10 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 64
4.11 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 76
4.12 CHAPTER CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 77
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS & DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 79
5.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 79
5.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 – HOW DO CHILDREN DESCRIBE CREATIVITY? .............................................. 79
5.2.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 79
5.2.2 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 79
5.2.3 Children’s Creativity Definitions: Discussing What Creativity Is. .................................. 80
5.2.4 Children’s Ideas Around Creativity as a Concept: Discussing What Creativity Does..... 85
5.3 RESEARCH QUESTION 2‐ WHAT ROLE DOES CREATIVITY PLAY IN CHILDREN’S LIVES?............................ 109
5.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 109
5.3.2 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 110
5.3.3 The Role of Creativity in Children’s Internal World ..................................................... 110
5.3.4 The Role of Creativity in Children’s External World .................................................... 124
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 136
6.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 136
6.2 ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................... 136
6.3 REFLECTING ON THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS ............................................. 137
6.4 OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 138
6.5 CREATIVITY AND WHOLE CHILD DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 138
6.5.1 Life Skills ...................................................................................................................... 139
6.5.2 Altruism and Creativity ............................................................................................... 139
6.5.3 Social Justice, Equity and Creativity ............................................................................ 140
6.5.4 Developing Autonomy and Creativity ......................................................................... 141
6.5.5 Developing Self‐Knowledge and Self‐regulation through Creativity........................... 141
6.6 CREATIVITY AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS ......................................................................................... 142
6.6.1 School Enjoyment, Academic Success and Creativity .................................................. 142
6
6.6.2 Explicit Teaching About Creativity .............................................................................. 143
6.6.3 STEM Foundation and Creativity ................................................................................ 143
6.6.4 Ownership of Learning and Creativity ........................................................................ 143
6.6.5 Creative Assessment ................................................................................................... 144
6.7 LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ............................................................................................. 144
6.8 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ................................................................................................ 145
6.9 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 146
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 147
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 191
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................ 191
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................ 194
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Hart’s Ladder of Participation (1992)
Figure 4.2. Shier’s Model of Participation (2001)
Figure 4.3. Lundy’s Four Key Components of Article 12 ( 2007).
Figure 4.4. Braun & Clarke’s Six Phases of Thematic Analysis (2006)
Figure 4.5. Year Levels and Strongest Ideas
Figure 4.6. Example of Multiple Codes for a Single Quote
Figure 4.7. Early Codes for Creativity as a Concept
Figure 4.8. Early Thematic Map of Research Question 2
Figure 4.9. Research Question 2 Thematic Map Stage 1
Figure 4.10. Research Question 2 Thematic Map Stage 2
Figure 4.11. Research Question 1 Final Themes
Figure 4.12. Research Question 2 Final Themes
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Procedure and Timeline
Table 4.2. List of Identified Codes
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
GDP Gross Domestic Product
EU European Union
ICSEA Index of Community Socio‐Educational Advantage
ICT Information and communications technology
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
NHMRG National Health and Medical Research
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PMSEIC Prime Minister’s science, engineering and innovation council
R&D Research & Development
STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
8
UK United Kingdom
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
USA United States of America
WBPS West Brisbane Primary School
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an
award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief,
the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where
due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: 30/03/2020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Lyndal O’Gorman and Amanda McFadden for their time and support during
this project. To Megan Kimber, thank you for proofreading my work. Thank you to Molly, Mum
and Dad for their understanding during the busy times and thank you to Felicity Mc Ardle for being
an alright mentor and friend.
QUT Verified Signature
9
TITLE
Children’s perspectives on creativity and its role in their lives.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This study will explore children’s perspectives on creativity and the role it plays in their lives.
Thematic analysis will be used to analyse qualitative data collected from focus groups with primary
school children aged 5 to 12 years. Guided by new sociology theory, this study will offer insight
from children on the topic of creativity. Findings of this study will hold the potential to inform
improvements to Australian education with respect to creativity.
This chapter will begin by establishing the current position of creativity within contemporary
Western society. The context of creativity in education will be described; so too will the challenges
faced when balancing policy, curriculum and everyday schooling.
New sociology of childhood theory will frame this study. This theoretical perspective will enable
an exploration of children’s voice on creativity with rigour and sincerity. The three main factors
influencing the adoption of this theoretical framework will be explained in Chapter 3. Following
the background information, this chapter will describe the significance of this study and will
outline the research aims, design and context. The Lundy Model of Participation (2007) which
conceptualises Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United
Nations, 1989) will provide the methodological framework for this study. This model will ensure
all the methodological choices aligned with the core aim that the children in this study will be seen
as capable social actors.
This study will contribute new knowledge of children’s perspectives on creativity. It will explore
how children describe creativity and the role it plays in their lives and in education and society.
Children’s views on other aspects of education have already been explored; including science, the
arts, ICT and play (Littledyke, 2004; McArdle & Wong, 2010; Moorefield‐Lang, 2010; Nicholson,
Kurnik, Jevgjovikj, & Ufoegbune, 2015; Vekiri, 2010). Adolescents’ perspectives on creativity have
been studied by two Australian researchers, Lassig (2012a) and Harris (2017). However, primary
children’s perspectives on creativity have not yet been sought. Listening to primary children on
this matter offers teachers and policy makers new insight into children’s relationships with
creativity and possible new ways of working to support children to develop this attribute.
10
1.1 Background
A number of authors argue that, to succeed in the twenty‐first century, one must be creative
(Craft, 2001a; Robinson, 2017; Sternberg, 2016; Harris, 2017). The aim of producing creative
individuals has led to a greater focus on creativity in education and increased emphasis on
children’s creativity (Robinson, 2015). However, there remains weakness and complexity in the
relationship between creativity and education (Robinson, 2015). This research will investigate a
novel voice, that of primary school children, to contribute new knowledge about how children
view and describe creativity in their lives.
1.1.1 Creativity, Society and Economics
Creativity is an important aspect of modern society. Globally, creativity is referenced in a variety
of contexts including government policies, government initiatives, educational reform and
economics. It is linked to innovation, creative thinking, creative industries, entrepreneurial
endeavour, science, technology and information communication technology (ICT).
Governments internationally are making connections between creativity and the future success
of their region. The European Union (EU) released three initiatives between 2014 and 2019 that
relate specifically to the creative sector, creative economy, innovation and well‐being (European
Union, 2019). In 2015, the then President of the United States of America (USA) Barack Obama,
linked creativity and imagination to securing America’s future through innovation (Obama, 2015).
The United Kingdom (UK) official statistics, released by the Creative Industries Council in June
2016, stated that the creative industries or the creative economy outperformed all other
industries in the UK in regard to raised employment, job creation and export growth (Creative
Industries Council, 2016). The creative industries include advertising, architecture, art, crafts,
design, fashion, film, music, performing arts, publishing, research and development, software,
toys and games, TV and radio and video games (Howkins, 2001). The Hong Kong Government
released figures in 2016 showing that creative industries contribute greatly to the country’s future
economic growth (Hong Kong Government, 2016). The South Korean Government is also moving
in this direction with the opening of 17 innovation centres aimed to support start‐ups and research
and development (OECD Observer Korea, 2016). The creative economy has also become a policy
priority in Mongolia, with attention given to creative and cultural industries to move away from a
commodity‐dependent economy (UNSECO, 2018).
11
The Australian Government too has made clear its focus on creativity and innovation. The
Australian Federal Government rolled out its Innovation Agenda in 2015. Then Prime Minister,
Malcolm Turnbull, claimed that creativity and imagination are linked to innovation and, for the
nation to prosper, new ideas must be supported (Turnbull, 2015, para. 14). It is evident
governments internationally are focusing on fostering creativity, that supports future generations
and future economies. Although this push to create and innovate is futures oriented, there
remains a knowledge gap in relation to children’s perspectives on creativity. Investigating
children’s views on this topic and the role creativity plays in their lives, provides new knowledge
and, importantly, involves children in the current conversation.
1.1.2 Creativity and Education
As the role of creativity in modern society expands, so too does the focus on creativity in
education. Creativity is the foundation for educating the problem solvers of our future (Robinson,
2017). From the late 1990s onwards there has been an increased focus from policy makers
worldwide to invest in fostering creativity in schools (Craft, 2001a; 2006). There have also been
shifts in the aims of curricula prioritising developing creativity in children. This aim is evident in an
Australian context with the current National Curriculum aiming to deliver “creative individuals”
(Australian Curriculum Assessment Reporting Authority, 2019, para. 1). “Creative thinking” rests
equally with literacy and numeracy in regard to the capabilities needed by “young Australians to
live and work successfully in the twenty‐first century” (Australian Curriculum, 2019, para. 1). It is
clear that creativity is present in Australian education policy and curricula. This study will offer
children the opportunity to contribute their perspectives and experiences of creativity both within
and beyond their school life.
1.1.3 Current Disconnection and Challenges
While the value of creativity in education is widely acknowledged, there is a documented
disconnect between research supporting creativity’s benefits and imperative role within
education and the absence of it in the reality of everyday school life (Collard & Looney, 2014).
Many creativity commentators claim schools do not cultivate creativity in students but, rather,
cause its demise (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Robinson, 2015). More research is sought to understand
what educational approaches encourage creativity in children and why those approaches are
12
successful (Sawyer, 2006). Successful promotion of creativity within schools will demand serious
changes in practice and policy (Collard & Looney, 2014).
Prior to this study’s implementation, primary aged children’s experiences and understanding of
creativity were yet to be explored. The key to quality changes in policy and practice may lie in
listening to children’s perspectives on creativity and the role it plays in their lives. This study will
contribute in this area.
1.1.4 Children’s Voice
A current gap in creativity research is a specific focus on primary aged children’s views and
experiences. This study will use new sociology of childhood as the theoretical framework. The
Lundy Model of Participation (2007) to conceptualise Article 12 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was applied to guide the methodological approach. This rights‐
based approach ensured that the children’s participation in this research was meaningful.
There are three points to make in regard to this gap in the literature and the approach chosen for
this study. First, from a human rights perspective, as stated by the UNCRC, children have the right
to have their views attended to and acted on in all matters affecting them (United Nations, 1989,
para. 1). Second, from a citizenship perspective, children’s inclusion in educational research, as
competent social actors, is supported. Third, children’s involvement in educational commentary
and decision making improves the quality of education as a whole. Each point is now discussed in
turn.
1.1.5 Human Rights
As the United Nations (United Nations, 1989, para. 1) asserts, children are valued and respected
human beings with a specific set of rights. Smith (2007) argues that, when children’s rights of
participation are recognised, their concepts of citizenship and democracy are formed. Children
want to be more involved and responsible for decisions that are made about them (Cashmore,
2002). Not only does it matter to children to have their views heard and given due weight, is also
a legal obligation (Lundy, 2007). To date, creativity research has excluded the views of primary
age children. Listening to children on this topic is their right and their perspectives hold the
potential to contribute new knowledge to this topic.
13
1.1.6 Citizenship
The second argument in relation to the gap in creativity research and the chosen approach for this
study is the significance of citizenship. In line with a new sociology of childhood perspective, the
proponents of this perspective contend that children have a lot to contribute as competent social
actors (Roche, 1999). Adults and children share this world as “social partners” (Smith, 2015, p.
162). A society that employs a model of citizenship inclusive of children is more connected, more
interdependent and has a greater sense of community (Devine, 2002). Inclusivity shifts children’s
views of themselves and their role and importance within their family and society (Cockburn,
2013). Contributing to their communities has a positive influence on children’s social and
emotional development (DeWinter, 1997). Research into children’s citizenship continues to reveal
that children’s capabilities extend far beyond adult imaginings and expectations (Lansdown, 2001,
2005; Phillips, 2010; Stasiulis, 2002).
Therefore, research that involves listening to children on the topic of creativity may lead to
valuable knowledge and may have positive effects for the children themselves, their school
environment and their community. Many children in this study will describe clear ideas on how
they would like to integrate creativity into their schooling. They will express opinions on how their
own learning can improve. These notions link to children’s participation and the benefits to
education.
1.1.7 Benefits to Education
The third argument to address the research gap and approach relates to the benefits of children’s
participation to education. Only children can communicate their perspectives on their educational
experiences (Lloyd‐Smith & Tarr, 2000). Flutter and Rudduck claim (2004) that children’s
participation makes a difference to them as individuals and makes a positive difference to the
school community. Listening to children leads to educational experiences of greater quality
(Rinaldi, 2006). Making changes to curricula, standards or even relationships is futile if these
changes are not driven by reflection and feedback from children (Sarason, 1990).
This study will position children as important contributors to the understanding of the role
creativity plays in education and their lives in general, including their home lives and
14
extracurricular activities. Raising the profile of children as having a voice in this area may inform
future policy and enable richer thinking about the importance of creativity for Australian children.
1.2 Significance of the Study
This study will contribute insights into children’s perspectives on creativity. It will explore how
children describe creativity and the role it plays in their lives and in education and society more
broadly. This study will explain children’s understanding of the connection between creativity and
learning by listening to them describe their experiences of creative activities. It also will provide a
space for children to express views about their personal relationship with creativity.
Other Australian studies have explored children’s views on different aspects of education and
adolescents’ perspectives on creativity However, research on primary children’s perspectives on
creativity has not yet been undertaken. Listening to primary children on this topic can provide
teachers and policy makers with new knowledge that may benefit them when integrating
creativity more successfully into classrooms.
1.3 Research Aims
The purpose of this research is to explore the role creativity plays in children’s lives by asking 21
young children for their perspectives and giving their responses due weight. This aim will be
achieved by examining the child participants’ relationship to creativity through focus group
interviews. The research questions, “How do children describe creativity?” and “How do children
describe the role creativity plays in their lives?” will guide this study.
1.4 Research Design
To address the research questions this study will use an interpretivist research approach and will
employ a qualitative, interview‐based design in the form of focus groups. In these focus groups
children will be asked to define creativity and describe the role creativity plays in their lives.
Questions were designed to probe children’s creativity in the contexts of school, home and
extracurricular activities. The data will include encounters with creativity, ideas around creative
people and creative experiences and how the children view creativity’s role in education and
15
society. Focus groups will be chosen for the generation of data as topics that may not come up
naturally in conversation were able to be discussed (Danby, Ewing, & Thorpe, 2011).
The seven focus group interviews will be conducted on one school site. Each group consisted of
three students from the same class and grade. All grade levels (Preparatory Year‐Year 6) will be
included. There will be 21 participants in total ranging in age from 5 years to 12 years old.
A challenge of this study will be to uncover deep and specific knowledge within the focus groups.
Researching effective methods for conducting group interviews will ensure data will be rich and
meaningful. A space familiar to the children will be chosen to conduct the focus groups. The focus
group sessions will be between 45 and 60 minutes, with the older groups lasting longer than the
younger groups. The open‐ended questions will be carefully considered to maximise children’s
input and were guided by the developed focus group protocol.
The research design of focus groups and alignment with the methodological framework of The
Lundy Model of Participation (2007) is further discussed in Chapter 4. Analysis will be designed
and implemented based on Braun and Clarke’s (2006) Six Phases of Thematic Analysis. From the
recurring patterns within the qualitative data, themes will be identified systematically and a
description of children’s perspectives on creativity will be presented. Once the data will be
analysed the final report will be presented. This step in the study represents the ‘listening’’ and
“giving due weight” component of the theoretical framework (United Nations, 1989, para. 33).
1.5 Organisation of the Thesis
This chapter has provided background for the research including a focus on the importance of
listening to the voices of children regarding creativity. The research problem, aim, design and
context have been outlined. Chapter 2, the literature review, documents the definition of
creativity, the importance of creativity for society and the complex relationship of creativity in
education. A presentation of the corpus of knowledge on this topic analyses the position of all
factions involved including governments, schools, classrooms, teachers and students.
16
Chapter 3 provides the theoretical framework underpinning this study in the form of new
sociology of childhood theory. The chapter examines the theoretical evolution of children’s voice
over time including the development of the sociology of childhood, children’s rights and children’s
voice within education.
Chapter 4 will detail the methodology of the study, outlining the study’s methodological
framework, purpose, research site and participants. The framework of The Lundy Model of
Participation (2007), in which Lundy conceptualises Article 12 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, is discussed. This chapter also examines previous participation models
that have preceded Lundy’s, including Hart’s Ladder of Participation (1992) and Shier’s Model of
Participation (2001). The methods of data collection and data analysis will be presented and a
procedure and timeline are included. The ethical considerations are also outlined.
The research questions will be addressed in Chapter 5. The chapter is divided into two sections to
address each research question separately. Within each section, the findings and discussion are
integrated to present children’s perspectives as part of a greater conversation with the
perspectives of creativity commentators.
Chapter 6 will present the conclusions and recommendations. Conclusions relate to creativity and
whole child development. They also relate to creativity and academic success. The
recommendations for the first section focus on teachers and policy makers. Recommendations
for the second section focuses on teachers and the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority
(ACARA). The limitations are also discussed in Chapter 6.
This qualitative study will conduct research with children, not on children, to understand their
perspectives on creativity. New sociology of childhood theory will inform the approach, the design
of focus group interviews, data analysis and the presentation of findings. The objective of this
study is to present new understandings about the role creativity plays in the lives of children.
Relevant literature is now presented and discussed in Chapter 2.
17
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review explores three topics relating to children’s views on creativity. The first topic
is the definition of creativity. This section examines how the definition has changed over time and
examines the relationship of definitions with contrasting societal values. It also explores how
definitions of creativity relate to the individual or society. The definition adopted in this study is
also clarified. The second topic is the role of creativity in society. The third topic explores the role
of creativity in education. Segmented into the differing levels of influence in education, this
section includes foci on government policy, curricula, schools, classrooms, teachers and students.
Finally, this chapter explores the implications drawn from the literature and discusses this study’s
chosen theoretical framework.
2.1 Definition of Creativity
The idea of creativity has long been discussed and analysed. It is human nature to engage with
original ideas and novel products (Ryhammar & Brolin, 1999). When examining the definitions
presented in this review of the literature, two points are clear. First, that definitions of creativity
are influenced strongly by the societal context of the time; and second, that definitions value
creativity for the benefit of the individual or for the benefit of society as a whole. Exploring
previous definitions can further understanding of the role creativity plays in children’s lives.
Definitions of creativity shift over time and reflect the values held by individual authors. Each
commentator’s stance is shaped by the assumptions they hold, both politically and
philosophically, about human beings and society (Banaji, 2008). In 1950, Guilford presented his
first speech as president of the American Psychological Association (APA) on the topic of creativity.
This speech initiated a new wave of study on creativity as it repopularised the topic (Runco, 2001).
Guildford’s speech was delivered shortly after the Second World War and provided a definition
related to innovation through technology (Guilford, 1950). Guilford’s understanding of creativity
was heavily focused on innovative capabilities that were seen to be crucial to the survival of the
USA and its allies. By the 1960s and early 1970s definitions split into two lines of thinking. In the
year of the moon landing, Torrance (1969) defined creativity in a scientific fashion, deeming it to
be related to results found through problem solving, generating hypotheses, testing and retesting
(Torrance, 1969). Others gravitated towards a more liberal countercultural perspective. Getzels
and Jackson’s (1962) discussions about creativity were focused on following one’s own passions,
18
pushing for change and creating new social structures. Elliott (1971) continued this way of thinking
and was interested in individuals connecting with their imagination.
By the end of the century, definitions related to high creativity or everyday creativity (Craft,
2001b). High creativity definitions include notions of remarkability, transformation and significant
change (Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994; Rhyammar & Brolin, 1999). Everyday
creativity definitions describe new ways of doing to succeed at a goal that is valuable to the
individual (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999). Everyday creativity is often discussed in education (Craft,
2001b). The majority of definitions focus on both the value of creativity to the individual and to
society (Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Mayesky, 1998; Simon, 2001). In addition, the definitions
acknowledge how creativity is connected to and evaluated by those individuals or society (Mishra
& Henriksen, 2018). This study asked children to express their definitions of creativity and
explored their understanding of creativity as a concept.
The definition used in this study is Robinson’s (2015, p. 118): “creativity is the process of having
original ideas that have value”. This definition is based on the report published in the UK in 1999
for the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education submitted to the
Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport entitled All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education The report’s aim was to advise
those working in all levels of education in the UK on how creativity could be successfully and
practically fostered in both primary and high schooling systems (Robinson, 2015). Educators,
scientists, business leaders and artists worked on the report. This definition was chosen by the
researcher to frame this study due its broad range of contributors and practical focus. Multi‐
disciplinary and practical approaches to creativity are significant when considering creativity’s role
in the learning. Creativity research definitions including novelty and value remain prevalent in the
literature (Boden, 2004; Cropley & Urban, 2000; Osche, 1990; Sawyer, 2006; Seltzer & Bentley,
1999).
2.2 Creativity’s Role in Society
Creativity is valuable to the individual and to society (Amabile, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 2018).
Creative individuals and happiness and creative individuals as agentive are two prominent lines of
thought within the literature and are discussed in the following section. When relating creativity
to society today, innovation is often associated and therefore the relationship of the two notions
are explored. This international spotlight on innovation will lead to considering creativity and the
19
advancement of society and the role of creativity within the Australian context. Exploring these
concepts gives a meaningful context to children’s views around creativity’s role in their lives.
2.2.1 Creative Individuals and Happiness
That creative individuals are happy individuals is a common theme in creativity literature (Craft,
2003a). Engaging in creative activities promotes positive emotions such as joy and pride (Amabile
et al., 2005). Creative activites also build openness to experiences and conscientiousness (Helfand,
Kaufman, & Beghetto, 2016). Nurturing creativity leads to a life that is full and satisfying as creative
individuals find enjoyment in the process (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). There are strong links between
intrinsically motivated creativity and happiness (Ceci & Kumar, 2016). Personal creativity for most
will not lead to fortune or fame, but it can bring to life everyday experiences and by making the
day‐to‐day more vivid, people’s quality of life improves (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
How children experience creativity and happiness is under‐represented in the literature to date.
Understanding what makes children happy is a fundamental aim of positive psychology for those
working in many fields, as raising a happy child has many benefits (Holder, 2012). Over the last
twenty years, researchers have discovered that children experiencing high positive wellbeing have
greater success at school, longer attention spans, stronger social relationships and show more
resilience (Holder, 2012).
2.2.2 Creative Individuals as Agentive
In sociology, agency is described as the ability of individuals to make their own choices (Barker,
2011). Barker (2007, p. 236) argued that agency “consists of acts that make pragmatic difference”.
Within the literature, creativity and agency are strongly linked. Gaut (2018, p. 133) describes
creativity as “an agential disposition”. Those who are engaging with creativity are fuelled by
agency (Paul & Stokes, 2018). Agency gives us the ability to react to change within our lives with
resilience and flexibility (Craft, 1999, 2003). Agency is linked to successfully navigating society’s
ever‐advancing technology.
Emirbayer and Mische (1998) explain that agency is tied to social engagement and this connection
can be broken down into three parts. Agency is informed by past experiences and habits, it is
linked to the future through imagining alternative possibilities and it is connected to the present
20
due to meeting in the middle of both of those notions (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). The “agential
disposition” of creativity strongly influences the production of new and valuable things to society
(Gaut, 2018, p. 133). Therefore, creativity and the advancement of society are linked. This idea is
now explored further.
2.2 3 Creativity and The Advancement of Society
Creativity moves society forward through the production of novel and appropriate ideas (Amabile,
2018). Increasingly, individuals, companies and nations are required to be more creative (Craft
2003a; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Seltzer & Bentley, 1999). An argument presented in the
literature since 2006 is that the future belongs to right‐brain thinkers who can think critically and
creatively (Pink, 2006). Developments in technology are propelling unprecedented changes in
society both socially and economically (Robinson, 2017). The World Economic Forum lists
creativity as the third most important skill for future jobs by 2020, behind complex problem
solving and critical thinking (Gray, 2016). This study explored how children interpreted the role
that creativity plays in society. New knowledge around creativity can benefit researchers and
those working in education to communicate openly with children how they can best navigate a
complex and unknown future.
2.2.4 Creativity and Innovation in the Australian Context
In Australia today, the concepts of creativity and innovation are present in government policy and
discourses in varying fields including business and science. The Australian Government links the
influence of the creative economy to issues such as environmental sustainability, social inclusion,
cultural diversity and the advancement of technology (Australian Trade & Investment
Commission, 2016). It recognises that innovation has a major influence on the economy and that,
for innovation to occur, creativity must be fostered (Australian Trade & Investment Commission,
2016).
To arrive at innovation, first the processes of imagination and creativity must take place. Robinson
(2015) explains the differences in the concepts of imagination, creativity and innovation.
Creativity is the result of applying one’s imagination. Innovation is seen as taking creativity one‐
step further and gaining a practical result from those original ideas (Robinson, 2015).
21
In 2015, the Australian Government (Australian Government, 2015, para. 5) launched “The
Innovation and Science Agenda” claiming, “innovation is important to every sector of the
economy”, linking innovation to business, technology, economic growth, global competition and
national prosperity. Complementing this agenda, in 2016, the Australian Government introduced
“Innovation and Science Australia”, an independent statutory board responsible for guiding the
Government on innovation strategies. By the end of 2017, Innovation and Science Australia
released a 2030 strategic plan for Australia’s innovation, science and research system, aiming to
benefit the whole population through harnessing every innovation opportunity (Australian
Government, 2017).
Although these initiatives seem to provide support for the government’s value of innovation,
actions taken more recently have been contradictory. From 2015, there have been four different
Innovation Ministers, with the position being dissolved in 2018 when Scott Morrison became
Prime Minister and made changes to his cabinet (Palmer‐Derrien, 2018). The budget released in
2019 saw a cut of $1.35 billion to the research and development (R&D) tax incentive, which
innovation commentators claim is what drives innovation Powell, 2019).
One sector in Australia, however, that has recently shown solid innovation development has been
the creative industries sector. Since the mid‐1990s, the Australian creative industries sector has
seen three key government initiatives: “Creative Nation” in 1994, the Creative Industries
Innovation Centre established in 2007 and “Creative Australia” released in 2013. Cultural and
creative activity in Australia (which relates to the arts, media, heritage, design, fashion and
information technology) has shown a 30% increase in value from $86 billion in 2008‐2009 to
$111.7 billion in 2016‐17 (Bureau of Communications and Arts Research, 2018). This increase
equates to 6.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2016‐17 (Bureau of Communications and Arts
Research, 2018). According to Florida (2011), Australia is ranked fourth in world, with 44.5% of
the population in the creative class. The creative class is people working to produce new
knowledge and includes professions such as artists, musicians, designers, engineers and scientists
(Florida, 2002). Education is key to encouraging young people to join the creative class and
primary school education plays an important role.
This study discusses the concepts of imagination, creativity and innovation with primary school
aged children. The relationship of creativity to education will be explored in the following section.
A background to creativity in education globally and an examination of the relationship between
creativity and various educational stakeholders, is presented below.
22
2.3 Creativity in Education
In this section, creativity in education is examined from varying perspectives. A brief background
is provided for context. Following this context, international and Australian Government policy
around creativity will be presented and international and Australian curricula will be analysed.
Finally, what is known about creativity and schools, classrooms, teachers and students will be
investigated. Understanding the current role creativity plays in education will provide the context
that frames children’s views on and experiences with creativity. Examining the position of
stakeholders offers insight into the strengths and weaknesses of creativity in education currently.
2.3.1 The Current Position of Creativity in Education
Since the mid‐1990s, policy‐makers and commentators have agreed that creativity plays a
significant role in education. However, agreeing on its importance and achieving restructuring
within education has been challenging. Creativity researchers and observers address the divide
between the known value of creativity within society and education and the apparent lack of it
within schooling (Ahmadi, Peter, Lubart, & Besançon, 2019). In 1998 Dacey and Lennon (p. 69)
argued that, “schools suppress creativity”. Robinson (2006) pushed this idea further, asking in his
famous TED talk now viewed over 57 million times, “Do schools kill creativity?”.
Children’s imaginations and curiosity decline from the time they enter formal schooling as they
become more guarded and less innovative (Robinson, 2015). Through their research, both
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and Torrance (1995) concluded that the Western educational system
inhibits the creative expression and tendencies of children. From the early 2000s commentators
have been speaking about change. Sawyer (2006) claims that the US education system needs a
revolution, not just a curricular review. Much of the current foci in education is outdated and
drastically inadequate (Sawyer (2006). Sawyer (2006) calls on empirical researchers to investigate
the educational advances that encourage creativity in students and why.
Florez (2006) has called for the transformation of education to provide children with the skills to
imagine, create and innovate. Although the idea of testing for creativity is contested within the
literature, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) announced in 2017 that
their international tests, conducted every three years, will begin testing creativity in 2021
23
(Schleicher, 2017). This will see creativity tested alongside literacy and numeracy and will provide
results for 72 countries.
From an Australian perspective, the Gonski 2.0 report into Australian education, released in 2018,
outlined the importance of Australian children gaining quality creative thinking skills to “prepare
students for a complex and rapidly changing world” as we move away from automation and
towards higher level skilled jobs (Gonski et al., 2018, p. ix). One of the three priorities outlined in
Gonski’s (2018) recommendations was to equip every Australian child to be a creative learner.
It is appropriate for new voices to be heard on creativity, children and education. Listening to
children’s perspectives on creativity can shine light on the gaps in current approaches and may
provide direction for new ways of working.
2.3.2 International Policies on Creativity in Education
Internationally, governments are working to integrate creativity successfully into education. The
UK stands at the forefront of policy change in this regard. Over the past 50 years there have been
three major government initiatives that have resulted in key shifts for creativity in education. The
first was the Plowden report in 1967, which presented the push for constructivist teaching and
child‐centred pedagogy (Brundett, 2007; Craft, 2001a). In 1999, the UK Government
commissioned their second and most influential initiative, a report by the National Advisory Group
for Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE), entitled All Our Futures. This report led to
significant changes in policy relating to creativity in education and built the groundwork for future
policy shifts (Craft, 2006). The third initiative in 2005 saw the government heavily finance a
national program titled “Creative Partnerships”, in which creative professionals and teachers
collaborated on the development of creative pedagogy (Craft, 2006). This program was found to
increase attendance, motivation, engagement, wellbeing and aided the development of social
skills such as leadership, team work and collaboration (Thomson, Coles, & Hallewell, 2018).
More broadly, in 2018 the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD)
released OECD Learning Framework 2030 offering a vision and underpinning principles to guide
education successfully into the future (OECD, 2018). This framework described creativity as one
of its three core “transformative competencies” (OECD, 2018, p. 5). The framework presents a set
of specific constructs so that educators and schools can more easily turn policy into curricula.
24
In Europe there has been much discussion about innovation and creativity policy. Innovation has
been a priority of the European Commission since the early 2000s (European Commission, 2005).
However, focusing on creativity policy in education is a newer development (European
Commission, 2008). In 2008, the European Council announced three ways that Member States
and the European Commission could move towards education systems that harnessed creativity
and innovation (Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009). The suggestions included the push for evidence‐
based education policy that builds children’s creative and innovative skillsets, investing in research
which aims to support those skills and aiming to develop creativity and innovation in all levels of
schooling (Ferrari et al., 2009). The European Commission claims that in order to achieve lifelong
learning, creativity must be an intersecting element of all fundamental educational capabilities
(European Parliament & the Council, 2006).
Outside Europe, policy changes to support creativity in education from departments and
ministries have been taking place throughout Asia in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (Craft,
2007; Park, Lee, Oliver, & Cramond, 2006; Schwarz‐Geschka, 1994; Tan, 2000; The Ministry of
Education Singapore, 2016; The Ministry of Education Taiwan, 2014). To foster creativity in
children became China’s aim from 2006 when they announced creativity as a major focus in early
years education (Vong, 2008a, 2008b). In Hong Kong, creativity has become the keystone to drive
educational reform in order to align with the needs of society in the twenty‐first century (Leong,
2010). In the Americas, an Action Canada Task Force report, which focused on adapting Canadian
education systems for the 21st century, released in 2013, concluded that creativity and innovation
were two of the five competencies that their revised model of education aimed to prioritise
(Boudreault et al., 2013).
2.3.3 Creativity’s Links to the Arts and Sciences
Although creativity can be applied to every school subject (European Commission, 2009)
traditionally it has been linked to the arts. Within Australia, as recently as 2008 and 2010,
government policy has limited creativity to artistic domains in documents such as Australia 2020
Summit Report (Australian Government, 2008) and the Creative Connections Program (Western
Australia Department of Culture and the Arts, 2010) (Cropley, 2012).
25
Evidence in the literature also links creativity and science (Girod, Rau, & Schepige, 2003; Massoudi,
2003; McComas, 1998). Creativity within science education is a growing focus due to society
aiming to meet the needs of development and globalisation through scientific and technological
advancement (Daud, Omar, Turiman, & Osman, 2012). In 2011, the European Union (Creative
Little Scientists, 2017, para. 3) launched “Creative Little Scientists”, claiming that mathematics and
science play a significant role in European society and that innovation and creativity are equally
as important and must be supported more strongly within education. Australia too, launched
Turnbull’s “National Innovation and Science Agenda” in 2015, aiming to focus on science,
technology, engineering and mathematics through bold and creative thinking (Australian
Government, 2017).
2.3.4 Australian Government Policy on Creativity in Education
The importance of creativity is acknowledged in Australian commentary and government policy,
with an emphasis on its economic benefits. Through education policy considerations, Australian
policy makers acknowledge that creativity can impact significant aspects of society including social
justice, health and welfare and the economy (Cropley, 2012). Policy discussions and documents
released since the late 1990s emphasise the need for creativity to be prioritised in the national
education system (Cropley, 2012). These documents include the Melbourne Declaration on
National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty‐First Century (Ministerial Council on Education,
Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008), The Creative Connection Program (Western
Australia Department of Culture and the Arts, 2010) and the Australia 2020 Summit (Australian
Government, 2008). Also, The Department of Education and Training in Queensland labelled 2009
the Year of Creativity, with the aim of strengthening creativity at a community level and within
schools (Queensland Government, 2008).
The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) released
the Melbourne Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty‐First Century in 2008.
This document established a national approach to the purposes and role of schooling in delivering
high‐quality education to all Australian children, irrespective of socio‐economic position or
cultural background (Carter, 2018). It provides recommendations to schools to equip students
with citizenship skills to contribute to a democratic and peaceful Australia (Carter, 2018). The
Melbourne Declaration provided the foundation for the development of the National Curriculum
26
(Carter, 2018). The two main goals of the Melbourne Declaration are to promote equity and
excellence in Australian schools and that all young Australians become successful learners,
confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens (Choi, 2019). Ten years on, the
Education Minister in November 2018, Dan Tehan called for an update to the document and this
is being developed (Choi, 2019).
However, Australia’s interest in creativity in education is largely driven by its economic influence
(Burnard & White, 2008). Creativity is becoming commodified and this marketplace mindset is
merging into education (Harris, 2016). In 2005, a report published by the former Prime Minister’s
Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) linked creativity to the foundation of
Australia’s future based on “economic growth, research and development and commercialisation,
scientific innovation and discovery” (PMSEIC, 2005 p. 17). Some commentators see this business
perspective as an opportunity to teach children entrepreneurial skills and to create financial,
cultural or social value for themselves and their communities (Bacigalupo et al., 2016).
In both state and national policy, the importance of creativity for economic growth is presented.
In 2003, the Queensland Government’s Department for State Development and Innovation
released a report titled, Creativity is Big Business: A framework for the future (Department for
State Development and Innovation, 2003) and nationally, Creative Australia released by the
Australian Government in 2013 echoes this ”input” and “output” mentality with, “a creative
nation is a productive nation” (Australian Government, 2013, p. 3). Like that of many overseas
models, it is argued that Australia’s policy around creativity in education is too heavily focused on
economic productivity (Burnard & White, 2008). This ethos was borne out of business leaders
placing pressure on the government to develop in schools the skills necessary to deliver ‘creative
capital’ (Hartley, 2006, p. 60). Burnard and White (2008) argue the concepts of innovation,
invention and entrepreneurship being brought into primary education would only reap greater
rewards for Australian business in the future. This way of thinking about creativity in education
lacks sophistication and complexity (Burnard & White, 2008). As creativity gains more focus within
governments worldwide, attention must be paid to market‐driven models of creativity (Craft,
2006). Craft (2006) makes a case to develop “creativity with wisdom” (p. 337) in education and
discusses possibilities for prioritising the concepts of responsibility, expression and wisdom within
creativity policy.
27
Commentators also claim Australian education policy on creativity is hollow and unsuccessful
(Cropley, 2012). It is argued that Australian creativity policy is mere “lip service” (Cropley, 2012,
p. 9). Two waves of research conducted since the late 1990s confirms this “lip service” (Cropley,
2012, p. 9). Twenty years ago, Morgan and Forster (1999) concluded through their work within a
Queensland school and their review of relevant literature that creativity was failing to be fostered
in Australian schools. Around the same time the Australian Government presented evidence
(Australian Government, 1999) with a survey of employers determining that despite creativity
policy in education, three quarters of new graduates were unemployable due to lacking creativity,
problem solving and independent and critical thinking (Cropley, 2012). From their employer
survey Tilbury, Reid and Podger (2004) also concluded that Australian university graduates lack
creativity. The second wave of research was conducted in 2010 by Caldwell (2010), who reported
that Australia only just made the top 20 innovative nations from 2004‐2008. McWilliam and
Dawson (2008, p. 634), who concluded that, within education policy documents, creativity has
merely been “limited to rhetorical flourishes”. The literature and relevant policy context
presented thus far suggests there is room for improvement in Australian policy regarding
creativity and its place in education. Creativity within the context of education was an important
focus of this study and is further explored in the following section, which focuses on curriculum.
2.3.5 Curriculum
Over the past 20 years, successfully integrating creativity into school curricula has been a
challenge faced internationally. In 2015, Wyse and Ferrari examined where creativity fitted within
the national curricula for the UK and the 27 states of EU. They found the prevalence of creativity
was mixed, although its appearance in curriculua documents was common as it was present in the
national curriculum for all 27 states (Wyse & Ferrari, 2015). They also noted that the
representation of creativity was highly subject dependent. Stronger continuity between
education’s overall aims and creativity’s presence in curriculum texts is needed (Wyse & Ferrari,
2015). Creativity must be considered holistically within curricula and this consideration must be
done comprehensively by skilled individuals (Ferrari et al., 2009).
Within the UK itself, approaches to creativity in curricula are mixed. In England, since the All Our
Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education report was released in 1999 the National Curriculum
included creativity as a key aim that was gathering momentum for both primary and secondary
students until the revised version commenced in 2014 (Wyse, 2014). The new curriculum focuses
28
less on creativity than the 1999 version (Wyse, 2014). However, in both Scotland and Wales their
investment in creativity is increasing. In Scotland, they are using creativity as a base for shaping
their whole curriculum (Wyse, 2014). Education Scotland released an impact report in 2019
evaluating the practice of Scottish educators in developing learners’ creativity skills across
curriculum areas to ensure their creativity curriculum aims are being met (Education Scotland,
2019). In Wales, their National Curriculum’s commitment to creativity is shown through the
inclusion of a creativity‐specific thinking skills area of learning (Jones & Wyse, 2013). Wales also
released strategic objectives for creative learning (2015‐2020), aiming to “build a successful
education system which would directly contribute to greater innovation and creativity, to the
cultural capital of the nation” (Arts Council of Wales, 2015, p. 3).
Other nations within Europe are working to prioritise creativity in their curriculum. In 2003,
Greece launched a creativity curriculum framework aimed to foster imagination and creative
abilities through exploration (Kampylis, 2010). Many nations, including Estonia and the Czech
Republic, emphasise creativity within their national curricula (European Commission, 2010). Also,
through a teacher survey conducted with 7,659 participants from 27 EU states in 2009 the
European Commission (European Commission, 2009) claimed that throughout Europe, Italian
teachers believed the most strongly that creativity is key in curriculum development.
Asian countries are also revising their curriculum to include creativity as a key focus. In 2015, South
Korea released its Revised National Curriculum, which stated its key objective is to foster a
“creative and integrative learner” (Cho & Huh, 2017). Incorporating creativity into education
curricula is such a key priority in Taiwan that a researcher from Lunghwa University of Science and
Technology has developed an embedded importance performance analysis (IPA) to evaluate how
creative Taiwanese curricula are (Chang, 2014).
2.3.6 Creativity within the Australian Curriculum
Within the Australian Curriculum, the terms “creative” and “creativity” are present in curriculum
guidelines and syllabus documents that frame Australian children’s experiences in school. In the
opening sentence of the Australian Curriculum’s F‐10 Overview, the phrase “creative individuals”
is used to describe what the curriculum was designed to deliver (ACARA, 2018, para. 1). Creative
Thinking is also listed alongside Literacy and Numeracy in the curriculum’s General Capabilities.
29
These capabilities aim to provide the twenty‐first century skills necessary for young Australians to
prosper (Australian Curriculum Assessment Authority, 2018, para. 1).
2.3.7 Challenges for Creativity Curriculum
Internationally, commentators have criticised the current role creativity plays in curriculum. Craft
(2003b) claims fostering creativity in children and following mandated curricula are opposing
ideals. Using a curriculum “may pose challenges to stimulating creativity” as curricula are often
prescribed, mandatory and time consuming (Craft, 2003b, p. 123). Creativity is reliant on the
interactions and connections between thinking and feeling and pushing interdisciplinary
boundaries (Robinson, 2001). New curricula must evolve to be more interdisciplinary and
balanced, where ways of thinking and doing stretch beyond the traditional subject‐based
pedagogy (Robinson, 2001).
Beghetto (2019) poses a different view, that curricula mandates are not the antithesis to creativity
but a support to it, due to creativity always occurring within constraints. Creativity is not “in a
state of crisis” (Beghetto, 2019, p. 27); it “is always and already present in schools and classrooms”
(Beghetto, 2019, p. 38). The key is in educators deciding when and where creative opportunities
may arise in their program and taking full advantage of them (Beghetto, 2019).
Others argue that current curriculua models are too crowded and prescribed. Worldwide,
teachers agree curricula is overloaded; they rush through subjects to complete set work and they
have limited opportunities to plan or implement interdisciplinary projects or expose children to
more creative real‐world learning contexts (Collard & Looney, 2014). Prescribed curricula squash
time for creative thought and learning (Bore, 2006; Burns & Myhill, 2004). Longshaw (2009)
suggests it is not the prescriptive nature of the curriculum, which negatively affects creativity in
schools but the amount crowded into the curriculum. Kauper and Jacobs (2019, p. 339) propose
the practice of “slow curriculum”, similar to the slow food movement, to foster creative
expression in schools.
The Australian Curriculum has been criticised to be “a mile wide and an inch deep” (Dodd, 2017,
para. 21). Education Minister Dan Tehan proposes restructuring the curriculum to concentrate on
core subjects like maths and English (Hunter, 2018). Tehan reports that discipline‐specific
30
knowledge cannot come at the expense of cross‐disciplinary General Capabilities or “soft skills”
(Hunter, 2018, para. 9). Tehan states:
That is not to say there is not a role for developing skills like problem solving, critical
thinking, creativity and teamwork, but those skills cannot be applied if someone doesn’t
have the basic skills of literacy and numeracy. (Hunter, 2018, para. 10)
However, the OECD director for education, Andrea Schleicher, reports that, when analysing
Australia’s PISA results, it is clear Australian students test well in areas of memorisation, but are
weakest where they need “elaboration strategies, creative thinking or divergent thinking” (Dodd,
2017, para. 11). Schliecher agrees that Australia’s curriculum is overcrowded but advises that
Australia teach less but with greater depth allowing more critical and creative thinking skills to
develop (Dodd, 2017).
Cross (2012) asserts that creativity in the Australian Curriculum can be unclear and tokenistic. He
claims the inclusion of creativity is “vague and problematic”, due to the obscure nature of its
position in current models of pedagogy (Cross, 2012, p. 433). In the Australian Curriculum,
creativity is mentioned in Critical and Creative Thinking and although is a General Capability its
place is said to be embedded within other learning areas (Cross, 2012). As a result, the role of
creativity in the curricula remains difficult to define and the question of its depth is raised (Cross,
2012). When creativity is mentioned it is presented as an add on to core content (Cross, 2012).
Harris (2016, p. 8) agrees that creativity concepts are present, yet ACARA does not “say how [they]
can be practically achieved within the Australian Curriculum framework”. Harris (2017) examined
this lack of clarity and how the General Capability of Critical and Creative Thinking (ACARA, 2016)
can be supported through an environmental approach in Australian high schools. Harris’ report
found that school structures and the national curriculum obstruct creative freedom and that
creative pedagogies need more consistent institutional approaches. The children in this study did
not discuss creative thinking as being explicitly taught to them nor creativity being mentioned by
educators as a goal or priority of their learning.
Gonski et al. (2018) claims that, although the General Capabilities were designed to deliver
creative individuals, the presentation, implementation and focus of the curriculum needs
amending to successfully produce Australian students ready for life beyond school. It is reported
that a lack of creativity in our current curriculum will have a negative effect on young Australians’
31
future prospects if changes are not made (Cropley, 2012). For children to be creative, they must
be taught about creativity explicitly, including learning about the creative process, creative
individuals and creative skills and attitudes (Starko, 2017). Asking students for their insight gathers
valuable knowledge and encourages student engagement (Pollard, Thiessen, & Filer, 1997). High
quality early childhood curricula features child participation (Bennett & Leonarduzz, 2004;
Pramling, 2004; Rinaldi, 2006). This study provides accounts and experiences from a group of
Australian children discussing their understanding of creativity as a concept and their experiences
of creativity in their classrooms. Listening to children about their creative encounters at school
provides a unique snapshot into how creativity in the curriculum is being experienced on a daily
basis by the students for which it is designed. It is acknowledged that this snapshot is confined to
one particular school culture.
2.3.8 Schools and Creativity
Culture plays a major part in the success or failure of fostering creativity within schools. The role
of school culture cannot be underrated (Lassig, 2012b). A major factor inhibiting creativity within
education is the tolerance of failure being low in school culture (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Harris,
2017). This culture leads to students developing a foundational understanding that taking risks is
not accepted, nor appreciated (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Schools must make changes to expand
their creative risk taking (Harris, 2017).
Even if teachers themselves work against this risk adverse mindset and wish to foster creativity in
their classrooms they will not succeed without support from higher up in their hierarchical school
structure (Collard & Looney, 2014). School leaders need to encourage a culture of risk taking for
teachers and students to give them permission to be flexible learners (Collard & Looney, 2014).
High‐functioning schools support this way of working and their staff value curiosity, imagination
and openness (Collard & Looney, 2014).
Factors within schools which promote creativity, are authentic learning, child‐centred pedagogy
and students developing their own strategies for learning and personally contextualising
knowledge (Beghetto & Plucker, 2006). In their 2014 study of two English primary schools known
for excelling in creativity, Craft et al. found three characteristics were strongly present in both
school settings. These characteristics were the co‐construction of knowledge in real life‐contexts,
a strong focus on children’s agency and strong faith in children’s creative capabilities (Craft et al.,
2014).
32
Over the past 10 years, alternative schools have emerged around the globe, with curricula that
echo the formula above to successfully foster creativity in children. Examples of schools known
for their innovative methods in implementing such curricula for creativity include “AltSchool”
based in the USA. Operating with 11 schools nationwide, AltSchool’s founder Max Ventilla claims
its number one difference from traditional schools is that it personalises education through
embracing children’s agency by providing the opportunity for them to navigate their own learning
(Battelle, 2016, para. 38). This sense of agency is also evident in the ethos of “Brightworks School”
in San Francisco. At Brightworks School they show their value of more balanced relationships by
calling teachers ‘collaborators’ (Brightworks School, 2016, Charter, para. 1). “Blue School” in New
York City employs strong ideas of children’s capability. Head of School Allison Gaines Pell (2016)
explains that the teachers and students work together to discover, investigate and create through
an educational program where the joy of learning is valued alongside creativity. In the
Netherlands, Maurice de Hond, founder of the “Steve Jobs School”, claims their pedagogy
embraces the value of the individual by supporting each child to develop their own skills through
nurturing personal talents and interests (de Hond, 2016). Children navigating their own learning
and teachers acting as “guide by the side” rather than “sage on the stage” are both educational
approaches attributed to developing creative children (Collard & Looney, 2014; Jeffrey & Woods,
2008; King, 1993 p. 30).
Within an Australian context, both John Marsden’s primary school and high school in Victoria
claim creativity as a core component of the schools’ ethos. The primary school, Candlebark School,
founded in 2006, states creativity as one of the two pivotal building blocks for life (Alice Miller
School, 2016) and the high school, Alice Miller School, founded in 2016, shares Sir Ken Robinson’s
ideas on creativity and education (Alice Miller School, 2016).
The examples described here illustrate that alternative ways to integrate creativity into education
for the twenty‐first century are possible. There is a new wave of education emerging that values
both creativity and children’s capabilities at the heart of school culture.
2.3.9 Classrooms and Creativity
Classrooms play a significant role in fostering creativity. Learning environments strongly influence
whether children’s creative abilities develop or recede (Beghetto & Kaufman 2014). Recognising
this impact has led to research exploring how to successfully support creativity in classrooms
(Beghetto, 2019; Harris, 2017; Starko, 2017). An environment that is good‐natured and open will
33
result in the strongest promotion of creativity as sharing and critiquing can take place in a
supportive space (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). This supportive environment encourages positive
attitudes and self‐belief (Nickerson, 2010). In regard to creativity, attitudes and beliefs play a
much greater role in success than skills and knowledge (Nickerson, 2010). Attitude is said to
influence creativity more strongly than an innate characteristic of one’s personality (Maslow,
1967; Schank, 1988; Sternberg, 2010). Motivation too, is asserted to have great impact on
creativity (Baer, Kaufman, & Ebrary, 2012). There is clear correlation between supportive
classrooms, motivation and creativity (Scarlett, 2014). The optimal classroom is a setting in which
students navigate their own learning and are encouraged to follow their individual interests, thus
making their experiences in the classroom “inherently meaningful, interesting, challenging and
engaging” (Scarlett, 2014, p. 200). This is an environment in which creativity thrives (Scarlett,
2014).
The classroom needs to be supportive specifically of creative ideas (Sternberg, 2006; Starko,
2017). Without the genuine encouragement of creativity in the learning environment the
presence of internal resources is rendered useless (Sternberg, 2006). When an educator is aware
and responsive to how their students experience the environment of their classroom, they will
achieve a space that is ideal for both learning and creativity (Scarlett, 2014). Creativity requires
knowledge of a discipline and knowledge of creative thinking strategies and habits (Starko, 2017).
2.3.10 Teachers and Creativity
The educator’s position in fostering creativity is a significant aspect in creativity research and
commentary. The current literature revolves around techniques to achieve a creative classroom
but also examines two additional discussion points. The first point is why teachers are unable to,
choose not to, or attempt and fail to cultivate creativity in their classrooms. The second discussion
point is what happens when they do? Torrance (1995) explored why there are a lack of educators
in the UK who value and support creativity in their classrooms and his conclusions link to Collard
and Looney’s (2014) ideas of educators’ risk taking. Being a teacher who values and aims to foster
creativity in their students means relinquishing a certain level of control (Torrance, 1995).
Embracing discovery, pushing boundaries and the unknown are essential for the creative
educator; yet, for most, this way of teaching is very uncomfortable (Torrance, 1995). Due to this
loss of control, educators prefer students who are less creative and more conventional (Davis &
Rimm, 1994) as they see creative children as unruly and an obstruction to curricula aims (Brandau
34
et al., 2007; Scott, 1999). As a result, educators may intentionally shy away from teaching for
creativity (Schacter, Thum, & Zifkin, 2006).
Due to weighty curricula requirements, educators are most interested in ‘”ready‐made” methods
(Ingersoll, 2003) ,which are counterproductive to cultivating creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman,
2014). “Instant creativity” is a falsity (Barron, 1969, p. 3) and for students to become creative
individuals they need time (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014). For educators to move forward it is
suggested they analyse their existing teaching styles and make changes to support the positive
encouragement of creativity and recognise what choices they are making which impede it
(Beghetto, 2013). Even educators who acknowledge the true nature of creativity feel high‐stakes
testing mandates force them to forego their preferred teaching style and individual beliefs
(Olivant, 2015). Olivant (2015) reports teachers understand the importance of and the methods
necessary to foster creativity in their classrooms. They recognise an alignment with their teaching
philosophies and professionalism (Olivant, 2015). However, within the present education system,
they experience a “lack of fit” (Olivant, 2015, p. 126).
When teachers embrace creativity in their classrooms, they enable students to develop original
thinking skills by encouraging the concepts of experimentation and inquiry (Robinson, 2015).
Creative learning and creative teaching are meaningful to children as they meet both their needs
and interests (Jeffrey, 2006). Students benefit in terms of social skills, as they gain understanding
of social relations, identities and participation (Jeffrey, 2006). Students also improve academically,
as their self‐confidence grows (Jeffrey, 2006). Creative activities give children choice and therefore
the opportunity to explore their own interests, which develops autonomy and engagement
(Starko, 2017).
Making positive change in teaching creativity can be inhibited by educators’ lack of knowledge
and misconceptions (Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, & Kettler, 2016). Educators do not feel prepared to
teach creativity or how to recognise it in their classrooms (Mullet et al., 2016). Mullet et al. (2016)
completed a systematic review of creativity literature to understand educators’ perceptions of
creativity and how these perceptions influenced their teaching. They concluded teachers’
personal ideas and beliefs around creativity and creative students permeate into their classroom
environments (Mullet et al., 2016).
35
Teachers need practical help to implement creativity into their classrooms (Burnett & Smith,
2019). Teachers today are under pressure to prepare students for an uncertain future, focus on
the core skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and teach more content than ever before (Burnett
& Smith, 2019). Burnett and Smith propose a model which supports teachers to make small and
gradual changes to their practice rather than overhaul their teaching practice altogether (Burnett
& Smith, 2019). It is a five‐point star model presenting these five ideas; understanding creativity,
teachers recognising their own creativity, developing a creative environment, integrating
creativity into content delivery and teaching classes in creativity (Burnett & Smith, 2019).
Beghetto and Kaufman (2016) agree that importance of creativity has been inflated leading to
teachers feeling overwhelmed and underprepared to teach creativity in their classrooms
effectively. They too are looking to support teachers to fulfil curriculum requirements and foster
creativity in their students (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2016).
There are many issues at play in relation to teachers and creativity. Harris’s study (2017) found
the top three impediments to Australian educators teaching creativity in secondary schools were
having not enough time and space, holding narrow views of ‘academic success’ related too closely
with reproducing knowledge and lacking the necessary skills to teach creativity effectively. This
study offers student perceptions of creativity, rather than teacher perceptions. The classroom is
a co‐constructed environment and pupils’ views are important as they share in meaning and
experience with teachers (Jeffrey & Woods, 1997). Fostering creativity in education from the
ground up is a powerful way forward.
2.3.11 Students and Creativity
The focus of the literature is moving in a top down direction and there is little reciprocation from
students in the current dialogue. University and high school student perspectives on creativity in
education are evident to a small extent in the literature, however children in the early or primary
years have not been consulted. In 2013, Wang and Greenwood surveyed 100 Chinese university
students and interviewed 10 on their views of their own creativity and Western students’
creativity. They learned that generally, Chinese students saw Western students’ creativity as
superior to their own (Wang & Greenwood, 2013). In the USA, Jennings (2005) compared a
university’s apparel design teachers’ and students’ knowledge and awareness of creativity and
their opinions and beliefs of creativity via interviews and focus groups (Jennings, 2005). Jennings’
results emphasise the complex nature of creativity and high chance of misconceptions of it in the
36
classroom from both educators and students. In Hong Kong in 2011, Cheng completed a three‐
year study involving 30 local secondary schools and 30 secondary science teachers. For two years
creativity workshops ran with educators leading them to incorporate creativity into their daily
pedagogy. Cheng collected data from a questionnaire administered to 400 students aged 13 to 15
years old. Students observed advancement in their “attitudes, conceptions, abilities and
behaviours” towards science and that approaching their learning with creative pedagogy resulted
in deeper thinking and a growing respect for creative ideas (Cheng, 2011, p. 67). Their
engagement, curiosity and self‐confidence also developed (Cheng, 2011).
Jeffrey and Woods’ work, published in 1997 (Jeffrey & Woods, 1997), focused on English students’
perspectives on creative teaching. They spent two years gathering data from 140 pupils ranging
from seven to eleven years of age through observation of and discussion with students. Their
focus was on exploring creative teaching, not teaching for creativity however they observed an
alignment in pedagogy. Their results communicate a strong correlation between being a creative
educator and supporting creative learning (Jeffrey & Woods, 1997). Both encourage innovation,
student agency and independent recontextualisation of knowledge (Jeffrey & Woods, 1997).
In 2018, Kettler, Lamb, Willerson and Mullet studied teachers’ perceptions of creative students.
Their findings echoed studies conducted previously, that teachers view students with creative
traits as undesirable (Kettler et al., 2018). 371 teachers from five school districts in two states in
the USA, 142 elementary and 207 secondary teachers were asked to rate student characteristics
from very undesirable to very desirable. Results showed that characteristics related to creativity,
such as “who like to take chances”, “who experience deep emotions”, “who are non‐conformist”
or ‘who prefer ambiguity” were less preferred than those traits relating to responsibility, sincerity,
reliability and dependability (Kettler et al., 2018, p. 167).
In an Australian context, Lassig (2012b) presented an original theory and model of adolescent
creativity after working with 20 students from two academically selective Australian high schools.
Lassig (2012b) conducted focus groups, interviews, online discussion forums and email
communications to foster understanding around adolescents’ creative process. Her findings
explain “the complex, multifaceted phenomenon of adolescents’ creative experiences” (Lassig,
2012a, p. v).
37
In 2017, Harris released her study examining the current state of creativity in Australian secondary
schools and spoke to students about their creative experiences. She found, out of the 681 12‐16‐
year old’s surveyed, over 84% felt strong engagement with their experience and over 86% felt
happiness. Also, over 70% of students made strong connections with these experiences and their
own interests and personal effort and work satisfaction. Overall, these studies report the
student’s relationship to creativity as complex. They also assert that creativity and ideas of
creativity can be successfully fostered with highly beneficial learning results. These studies
suggest there is still much to understand about how children experience creativity and what they
know creativity to be.
Although Lassig (2012a) and Harris (2017) sought knowledge from Australian students, they both
consulted high school aged children. Hearing from primary aged children is rare in educational
research about creativity. However, as key contributors stress, it is in those early years that
children lose their natural curiosity (Craft, 2003a; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Robinson, 2015) and
schools suppress their growth as creative individuals (Dacey & Lennon, 1998; Florez, 2006;
Robinson, 2006). This discourse has existed in creativity literature for some time. In 1968, Land
and Jarman gave 1600 5 year‐olds the creativity test NASA used to select innovative engineers and
scientists (Land & Jarman, 1992). They discovered that 98% of them scored in the highly creative
range (Land & Jarman, 1992). They were re‐tested at 10 years old, with the results dropping to
30% and then at 15 years old, with 12% and at 25+ only 2% (Land & Jarman, 1998). Land and
Jarman concluded that becoming less creative is learned over time (Land & Jarman, 1998).
University students’ and adolescents’ views and experiences are valid. So too are the views and
experiences of primary aged children. This study investigated what Australian children aged five
to 12 years of age reported about creativity and the role it played in their lives. Thus far,
government and research foci have been invested in successfully fostering creativity in primary
education and yet listening to children of primary age in Australia has not yet been undertaken.
Gaining early and primary years children’s contribution on this topic offers a more balanced
conversation. The current study is well placed to contribute in this area.
38
2.4 Chapter Conclusion
The role of creativity in today’s world is expanding and the literature presented has explored the
varying reasons for this expansion, including that creativity is linked to happiness and agency. The
theme that creativity is attributed to the advancement of society was presented. Alongside the
push to promote innovation in varying sectors, governments globally are moving to include
creativity in education policy. Australia is no exception, with creativity appearing in Australian
curriculum documents. However, the current inclusion of creativity in the national curriculum is
seen as vague, tokenistic, unsuccessful and too heavily focused on economic productivity. As
presented in this literature review, alternative ways of integrating creativity into curricula and
school cultures is part of a global movement.
School culture, classroom environments and educators’ attitudes towards creativity play a vital
role in fostering creativity in students. The links between optimal learning environments and
environments in which creativity thrive have been presented. For teachers who hold positive
views of creativity and understand the teaching practice associated with cultivating creativity in
their classrooms, teachers reported that time pressures and alternative curricula foci make it
difficult to teach with autonomy.
Although children’s voice on educational topics related to creativity is present, understanding
primary school students’ relationships to creativity is new knowledge. Children want stronger
engagement in educational discussion and decision making (Cashmore, 2002) and when they are
given a voice, many affirm that their contributions are invaluable (Arnot et al., 2004; Jeffrey &
Woods, 1997; Flutter & Rudduck, 2004; Levin, 2000; Murphy, 2016; Sarason, 1990). Listening to
children on this topic shows respect to them as fellow citizens of our democratic society (Roche,
1999). Understanding children’s perspectives on creativity and the role it plays in their lives,
includes them in the conversation and offers them an opportunity for genuine participation.
39
CHAPTER 3 CREATIVITY, CHILDREN AND CHILDREN’S VOICE
This study is framed by new sociology of childhood theory as it took the position that children’s
voices should contribute to creativity research and commentary. This study aimed to understand
children’s attitudes, ideas and experiences of creativity in their everyday lives. Listening to young
children on a topic that is prominent in education policy and curricula documents enables them
to actively participate in their own schooling.
Understanding the evolution of the way children have been seen in society is central to
recognising why seeking their views is important. The purpose of this chapter is to document the
theoretical framework of new sociology theory that informed data collection, analysis and
discussion. In the following section the sociology of childhood and the new sociology of childhood
is explored. Discussion is presented on three key arguments within the literature as to why
children’s voice on education is significant. These include that it is a human right for children to
be heard on the topic of education, that children are valued citizens whose voice contributes to
the betterment of society as a whole and that children’s voice is highly beneficial to education.
Finally, an overview of how this theory framed this study is explained.
3.1 Sociology of Childhood
The concept of childhood has been explored over time. In 1962, Aries argued that childhood was
not a biologically defined natural state and presented it as socially and historically constructed.
His work noted that before the 18th century children were viewed and valued as small adults. They
dressed similarly, contributed to the workforce in similar roles and lived under the same set of
laws. Children were not seen as an independent group with individual needs or separate statuses
(Demos, 1970). Since Aries’ work, society’s view of children and adults’ relationship with them has
evolved (Jenks, 1992).
As schooling spread and the rate of child mortality declined, the concept of childhood shifted and
children were seen as individuals worthy of being protected (Bass, 2007). Children were seen as a
separate group entirely, passively participating in society (Matthews, 2007). They were viewed
through a developmental lens (Danby & Farrell, 2004) and were seen as not yet being fully
socialised, as childhood was a stage through which children acquire the knowledge and skills
needed to become adults (Matthews, 2007). Children were not seen as social actors with the
40
power to affect, nor be affected by social relationships or structures (Matthews, 2007). Knapp
(1999, p. 55) described the child as ‘a lump of clay’ yet to be sculpted into to a socially acceptable
adult version of themselves. From this perspective children were only of interest to researchers
for their potential outcomes as future adults (Matthews, 2007) and were merely understood in
relation to the child‐adult continuum (Bass, 2007; James & Prout, 1997; Jenks, 1992). Children
were seen as “human becomings” rather than “human beings” (Qvortrup, 2005, p. 5). Not
listening to children in regard to their own education aligns with this view. This study aimed to
work against this notion to position children as valued contributors.
3.2 New Sociology of Childhood
By the late 1980s and early 1990s views shifted and children were beginning to be seen as active,
rather than passive members of society. Scholars began to take the study of children and
childhood seriously and research into the life and experiences of children expanded (Adler &
Adler, 1986; Alanen, 1988; James & Prout, 1990; Jenks, 1992; Qvortrup, 1994; Thorne, 1987;
Waksler, 1986). Many were frustrated with the limiting traditional views of children and
childhood, in particular the idea that children are merely reactionary creatures devoid of agency
and value (Woodhead, 2004). Ideas around their ability to make choices drove the concept of
children being active in their development and the “new sociology of childhood” emerged.
Researchers such as Corsaro (1988) supported this new perspective, as they explored children’s
experiences and how they shape and are being shaped by society. Children are seen as agentive
contributors to social interactions and their relationships (Matthews, 2007). This expanded view
of children and childhood was influenced by childhood studies and the competence paradigm of
the 1960s. Social interaction theory was able to value children’s agency and daily activities in order
to understand their lives (James & Prout, 1997; Jenks 1992; Maybin & Woodhead, 2003, Qvortrup,
1993). This way of thinking about childhood sees the relationship between children and adults as
collaborative, as they share meaning in both their worlds (Danby & Farrell, 2004).
41
3.3 Children’s Voice and Human Rights
The new sociology of childhood occurred with some overlap with the UNCRC, which was ratified
in 1989. This ratification led to meaningful change in relation to how children are viewed, treated
and valued. Within the literature, one of the most commonly discussed provisions of the
Convention is Article 12. Article 12 outlines the right of children to have their views listened to
and given consideration in all matters involving them (United Nations, 2015, para. 34).
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right
to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given
due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. (United Nations, 2015, para.
34)
Article 12 is recognised to be at the heart of children’s participation rights. This aspect of the
Convention is directly linked to children and their right to be engaged in decision making (Shier,
2001). It acknowledges children’s ability to participate in society as human beings who are
respected and valued as individuals (Freeman, 1996).
3.4 Children’s Voice and Citizenship
Citizenship perspectives became more prevalent in the literature when Article 12 brought focus
to children’s civil rights. From a civil approach, children and adults are seen to deserve the same
freedoms (Lansdown, 1994; Saporiti et al., 2005). Children should be treated as citizens with their
own set of issues and interests (James & Prout, 1997).
From a citizenship perspective, children are seen as capable social actors with knowledge to give
(Roche, 1999). This capacity to contribute extends to educational discussion and literature. There
is movement to recontextualise modern citizenship and democracy. Children’s voice is at the
forefront (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). Being included and respected as competent members of
society leads to positive change in children’s ideas of self and their role in their community
(Minow, 1999). The key components of citizenship, when living in a democratic society, include
having a voice and participating in change and decisions which impact the community, including
public policy (Harris & Manatakis, 2013). Passivity turns into activity as children find their place in
society (Burke & Grosvenor, 2003). Community inclusion promotes children’s social and emotional
42
development (DeWinter, 1997). Adults’ expectations for children’s capabilities to contribute are
continuously being underestimated (Lansdown, 2001, 2005; Phillips, 2010; Stasiulis, 2002).
Children’s participation and citizenship is often explored using ‘children’s voice’. Using the new
sociology of childhood as a foundation, the notion of children’s voice works to understand
childhood from their perspectives (Kanyal, 2014). The idea of children’s voice has evolved over
time and previously was used to give rise to a disenfranchised and marginalised minority group
(Kanyal, 2014). However, in the current context children’s voice is seen as “good practice” where
knowledge is believed to be developed in collaboration with “local experts” (Kanyal, 2014, p. 2).
As dialogue on creativity in Australian primary education is expanding, this study aimed to add
“local experts” experiences and opinions to the discussion (Kanyal, 2014, p. 2)
3.5 Children’s Voice and Education
As the understanding of citizenship shifts, so too does the role education plays in better preparing
children for their new active positions in school environments (Bragg, 2007; McIntyre, Pedder, &
Rudduck, 2005; Murphy, 2016; Rudduck, 2007). Giving weight to children’s voice within
educational research and decision making is valuable, as adults cannot completely understand the
experiences of children and any attempt to do so would be based weakly on estimation and
speculation (Lloyd‐Smith & Tarr, 2000). Children are able to analyse their experiences of schooling
and communicate astute and valuable perceptions (Arnot et al., 2004). Giving weight to children’s
voice positively influences the students as individuals and positively influences school culture
(Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). Listening to students can also improve their learning opportunities by
pinpointing the issues they consider most significant (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004).
Children’s voice in education has been an influential tool leading to new knowledge. Listening to
children has the potential for positive change in schools (Pollard et al., 1997). The quality of school
life can be improved and so too can the standards of educational achievement and the awareness
of educational issues (Pollard et al., 1997). By providing children’s perspectives and knowledge
(Levin, 2000), what the learners of today value and need is better understood (Dahl, 1995).
Research thus far has included children’s voice on creativity‐associated themes such as art,
science, ICT and play. In 2010, McArdle and Wong investigated children’s views on art. Through a
comparative study between an Australian class and a Hong Kong class of children aged four to
five, the researchers focused on discovering why children paint and draw and what these activities
43
do. Common ways of thinking that were expected to emerge did, for example classroom teachers’
beliefs and practices influencing the responses of children. McArdle and Wong (2010) were
surprised by the complete lack of the concept of art as a form of self‐expression in the body of
data which is commonly discussed in both the literature and curriculum documents.
Listening to children can offer curriculum writers a way to assess their work. In Ireland in 2011,
Murphy, Varley and Veale conducted a national study to investigate the attitudes and experiences
of school science for primary aged students. Working from the standpoint that children’s voice
plays a potentially significant role in reviewing curriculum implementation, the researchers
gathered data from 15 classrooms, 1149 children’s questionnaires and 11 group interviews from
across Ireland to understand the experiences of primary students’ participation in the science
curriculum (Murphy, Varley & Veale, 2012). Data analysis concluded that children were greatly in
favour of hands‐on inquiry‐based approaches to science, which aligned positively with the intent
of the curriculum.
Research gaining children’s perspectives can shed light on gaps in children’s knowledge and
therefore provide opportunities to refine ways of working and address assumptions. Littledyke
(2004) conducted a case study with 350 primaryaged children from mixed social backgrounds in
suburban England. Focus groups were used to discover their understandings and views of science
and the environment. The case study revealed that, although students were aware of major
environmental issues, their knowledge around key ideas and the connections to make informed
decisions and judgments on them was lacking.
The issue of play in education has been a topic on which children’s voice has been sought. Studies
that focus on children’s voice in regard to play include Nicholson, Kurnik, Jevgjovikj and
Ufoegbune’s (2015) comparative study, where analysis looked at the differences between adult
and child concepts of play. Interviews were conducted with 98 children from the USA and 135
adults from 21 countries. Beisser, Gillespie and Thacker (2013) explored talented and gifted fifth
and sixth grade students’ concepts of play through focus groups and an online survey. The value
of play in the cognitive, physical and social domains was examined. Children communicated that
they see play as a positive, effective and strong motivating learning tool which benefits them in a
variety of ways both in and outside the classroom (Beisser, Gillespie, & Thacker, 2013).
44
It is clear that children increasingly have their voices heard in education contexts. Yet, although
present in government policy, national curriculum documents and the literature, opportunities
for primary aged children to articulate their views on the topic of creativity are not evident.
Understanding children’s perspectives on creativity is beneficial. When excluded groups are
listened to, flaws and limitations in the current way of seeing are brought to light (Menkel‐
Meadow, 1987). Opportunities for betterment are lost when children are not consulted on their
education (Murphy, 2016). Listening to children is considered to be a valued way of working to
improve and develop education (Pollard et al., 1997). This study contributes children’s voice to
the discussion of creativity. The importance of creativity in Australian children’s lives is strongly
stated from both commentators and Government (ACARA, 2018; Australian Government, 2016;
Cropley, 2012; Cross, 2012). As observers, advocates and governments discuss ways in which
creativity can be best fostered in the lives of children today their voices on this topic are absent.
3.6 New Sociology as Theoretical Framework
This study applied new sociology of childhood theory as its framework to obtain data around
children’s views and experiences of creativity. Employing this theory positions children as “the
experts of their lives” (Castro, Swauger, & Harger, 2017, p.3). Applying new sociology of childhood
theory to this study enables the participating children to actively engage in their own schooling.
The aim of this study was to understand Australian children’s perspectives and experiences of
creativity framed by new sociology of childhood theory. Educational research aims to understand
the reality of school life to make quality improvements and that reality is best heard from active
participants on the inside involved in the teaching and learning process (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004).
So far primary‐aged children have not been consulted on creativity. If schooling is designed with
children in mind, there is a disconnect if their voices are excluded (Howard, 2001).
3.7 Chapter Conclusion
This chapter outlined the progression of the way children have been viewed both in society and
research. Discussion was presented around three arguments appearing in the literature which
claim children’s voice in education is important. They included a human rights perspective, a
citizenship perspective and the perspective that children’s voice benefits education. Finally, an
overview of how this theory framed this study was explained.
45
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this study was framed by The Lundy Model of Participation. This model and
its predecessors, will be unpacked in the following section. Hart’s Ladder of Participation (1992)
and Shier’s Model of Participation (2001) are presented. This study involved listening to children’s
views on creativity and the role it plays in their lives. Seeking to understand their individual
realities aligns with an interpretivist paradigm (Hammersley & Campbell, 2012), which is discussed
following the participation models. This chapter also addresses the chosen qualitative research
method of an interview‐based study. The participants, research site and data collection method
of focus groups are explained. Following this discussion, the procedure and timeline, ethical
considerations, limitations and delimitations of this study are outlined.
4.1 Lundy as Methodological Framework
The framework of The Lundy Model of Participation supports this study. Lundy’s (2007)
conceptualisation of the UNCRC Article 12 offers a guide to successfully implement Article 12 by
using the four key factors of space, voice, audience and influence to ensure the process of child
participation is meaningful.
Since the conception of the UNCRC in 1989, Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention provide the
keystone of children’s rights and children’s participation. In addition, literature acknowledging the
value of children as capable social actors and offering the perspective of “children’s voice” or
“pupil voice” is expanding. Using The Lundy Model of Participation (2007) ensured this research
not only fulfilled its legal obligations but also guided the depth, weight and significance of the
study.
4.2 Models of Participation
The Lundy Model of Participation (2007) is the newest model to emerge from children’s
participation literature. Previous models include Hart’s (1992) Ladder of Participation and Shier’s
Participation Model (2001). All three models will be unpacked in this section. These models stem
from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12.1 and Article 13 (United
Nations, 1989). They aim to successfully facilitate children’s participation in decision making and
46
for children’s views on topics that affect them to be listened to. The Lundy Model (2007) was
chosen as it is the most recent and therefore critiques concepts of pupil voice now common in
education literature. This model conceptualises Article 12 to fulfil its obligation in its entirety.
Realising Article 12 ensures children’s participation has depth and follow‐through.
4.2.1 Hart’s Ladder of Participation
To date, the most authoritative children’s participation model has been Hart’s Ladder of
Participation (1992). Hart’s model is based on Arnstein’s (1969) “Eight rungs on the ladder of
citizenship participation” and first appeared in his work written for the United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF) in 1992. With new reworked categories, Hart’s original design was offered as a
framework for considering children’s participation in projects (Hart, 1992). Working in a linear
direction, the ladder rungs are broken into two sections, non‐participation (manipulation,
decoration and tokenism) and degrees of participation (assigned but informed, consulted and
informed, adult‐initiated, shared decisions with children, child‐initiated and directed and child‐
initiated, shared decisions with adults) (Hart, 1992). Figure 4.1 presents the eight‐rung ladder.
47
Figure 4.1. Hart’s Ladder of Participation. Taken from Children's Participation, from Tokenism to
Citizenship, by R.A. Hart, 1992, UNICEF: Florence.Original image “Ladder to the Moon” (1958) by
Georgia O’Keefe.
48
Hart (1992) expressed ideas on conducting research with children that built from the ladder
model. There are many points he presented that have been included in this study. Hart (1992)
proposed that, traditionally in research, interviewers hold the power by the reasoning behind
their questioning only clear to them. This study sought to explain to each focus group of children
why the interviewer was interested in this research topic and what the questions were aiming to
achieve overall. Hart (1992) also presented that, if researchers approach the children with genuine
interest in their lives, the children will respond to the research project with enthusiasm. This
notion was adopted when creating a comfortable environment within each focus group setting.
Finally, Hart (1992) asserts that, often in research with children, interviewers only scrape the
surface with their questioning and do not allow children time and space to communicate their
ideas. The relaxed nature and length of the focus groups for this study enabled the children time
to consider their responses, to go back to previous thoughts at any point, build on other’s ideas
or arguments and guide the conversation to areas of interest or previously unforeseen by the
interviewer.
4.2.2 Shier’s Model of Participation
Shier’s Model of Participation (2001) is inspired by Hart and is also anchored in the UNCRC’s Article
12.1 and Article 13. This new model is offered to work in conjunction with Hart’s Ladder. Shier
(2001) asserted that his work aids practitioners with exploring the participation process in greater
depth and from novel and varying viewpoints. The most noticeable difference between the two is
Shier’s model does not include aspects of non‐participation. Shier’s (2001) model is based on five
levels of participation: 1) children are listened to;2) children are supported in expressing their
views;3) children's views are taken into account;4) children are involved in decision‐making
processes; and5) children share power and responsibility for decision making. Shier’s (2001)
differing levels of participation reveal varying investments in the notion of empowerment and he
offered three stages of commitment at each level — openings, opportunities and obligations. The
model thus gives a sequence of 15 logical questions for those working with children, one for each
stage of each level. The diagram on the following page clearly shows the five levels. The questions
provide an opportunity for readers to understand where their level of participation is at and how
they can improve it (Shier, 2001).
49
This study used Shier’s (2001) model alongside Hart’s Ladder (1992) as a practical check‐list with
which to ensure the children’s participation in this study was meaningful and respectful. Shier’s
(2001) model is designed to aid those working with children to consider the many aspects involved
in the participation process.
50
Figure 4.2. Shier’s Model of Participation. Taken from “Pathways to participation: Openings,
opportunities and obligations”, by H. Shier, 2001, Children & Society, 15(2), p. 111.
51
4.2.3 The Lundy Model of Participation
This study is framed by The Lundy Model of Participation (2007), founded on UNCRC Article 12.
Drawing from research rather than from previous models, Lundy’s work aims to critique concepts
of “pupil voice” through conceptualising Article 12 for it to be implemented more successfully
(Lundy, 2007 p.27). Lundy (2007, p. 927) argues that phrases like “pupil voice” are becoming more
common and, with this growth in popularity, the true nature of Article 12 has the potential to be
diluted and the original intention and obligation may be lost.
Lundy describes that, although Article 12 was proclaimed to address this concern, it continues to
remain widely misinterpreted and contested. Shier (2001) argues that Article 12 is often
misunderstood, misused and ignored in many facets of children’s lives. Key thinkers on children’s
rights have also described it as one of the most revolutionary yet ambitious aspects of the
Convention (Hart, 1992; Lansdown, 1995). Lundy (2007) claims there is a great divide between the
international commitments agreed on and the reality of how decisions in education are made. Six
years after the UNCRC, the Committee on the Rights of the Child observed this gap, although more
broadly and advised State Parties to ensure new ways of working would be implemented to aid in
the development of children’s decision making within the community (Committee on the Rights
of the Child, 1995). In 2002, the Committee made clear its direct concerns in regard to education,
noting that there was an evident lack of children’s contributions to educational decisions. The
Committee recommended the UK Government further advance the meaningful participation of
children by supporting systemic changes within multiple government sectors (Committee on the
Rights of the Child, 2002). Lundy argues that Article 12 is “one of the most widely cited yet
commonly misunderstood of all the provisions of the UNCRC” (Lundy, 2007, p. 930).
Lundy (2007) explains that it is a falsity to view children’s voice on educational decision making as
optional or a generous opportunity afforded to children by adults. It is also a falsity to believe
children are disinterested in this conversation. Students are seeking to be engaged and included
in the decision‐making process regarding their own education (Cashmore, 2002). Being shut out
of this conversation affects them (Kilkelly et al., 2005).
Although support for consulting children is expanding, there remains common misunderstanding
of children’s rights in regard to the depth of Article 12 (Lundy, 2007). Lundy proposes that this
new model for conceptualising Article 12 aims to increase and develop children’s decision making
52
in education through fulfilling the obligations of Article 12 to the full degree (Lundy, 2007). This
newly devised model offers a practical way of ensuring this study meets the true obligations put
forth by the UNCRC. Article 12 aligns with the new sociology of childhood perspective. This
perspective suggests that children are capable and free to contribute to society as whole
individuals with different personalities and opinions (Freeman, 1996). This viewpoint is at the core
of this study. Therefore, working from The Lundy Model provided a solid foundation.
Lundy (2007) explains that, for Article 12 to be successfully implemented, four key and separate
factors must be considered — Space, Voice, Audience and Influence:
Space: Children must be given the opportunity to express a view
Voice: Children must be facilitated to express their views;
Audience: The view must be listened to and
Influence: The view must be acted on, as appropriate
(Lundy, 2007, p. 993).
53
Figure 4.3. Four Key Components of Article 12. Taken from Voice is not enough: conceptualizing
Article 12 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child by L. Lundy, 2007, British
Educational Research Journal, 33(6) p. 993.
54
As depicted in Figure 4.3, four elements are shown as interwoven with the key components of
Article 12. All elements are connected and related and a clear chronology is communicated
(Lundy, 2007). It is this chronology that supported the methodology. This study offered children
the “space” to express views on a topic that affects their everyday lives. Next, the focus group
sessions assist the children to express themselves and offers them ”voice”’. The third
chronological component of the model is “audience” which Lundy insists must entail adults truly
listening to children. In this study the process of inductive thematic data analysis ensured the
views of the children were considered meaningfully. Finally, children’s views were acted upon
with the presentation of findings and recommendations for policy makers, educators and future
research showing the fourth element of the model “influence”.
Using The Lundy Model of Participation (2007) for the methodological framework for this study
ensured authentic implementation of the UNCRC’s Article 12. This research provides meaningful
knowledge about children’s views of creativity and experiences of creativity in their everyday lives.
Using this model grounded the intentions and actions in this study to Article 12, which
encapsulates the idea that children are unique individuals whom are capable, free and willing to
contribute to their worlds.
4.3 Research Approach
Listening to children’s definitions and understandings of creativity and their descriptions of the
role it plays in their lives aligns with an interpretivist research paradigm. Interpretivists aim to
understand their human subjects from the inside by suspending their own beliefs and cultural
assumptions to learn the ways of thinking and feeling of those they are investigating (Hammersley
& Campbell, 2012). The interpretivist paradigm acknowledges that humans’ thoughts and actions
are shaped by the particular culture in which they live (Hammersley & Campbell, 2012). This
particular culture provides a lens with which they actively consider themselves and the world
around them (Hammersley & Campbell, 2012). Those who hold an interpretivist viewpoint
recognise children’s ideas of themselves and their worlds are continually formed and reformed by
sharing meaning with others and their environments (Hughes, 2010). Aligning with both a new
sociology of childhood perspective and a children’s voice perspective, this paradigm and The
Lundy Model of Participation (2007) worked together to position children in this study as capable,
informed individuals with experiences of creativity to share here and now.
55
4.4 Research Design
The qualitative research design for this study was influenced by its interpretivist paradigm and
The Lundy Model of Participation (2007) designed to explore how children describe creativity and
the role it plays in their school lives, home lives and beyond.
4.4.1 Qualitative Research Design
This study used a qualitative research design. Qualitative approaches are able to present the “full
richness of experience” (Greene & Hogan, 2005, p. 13) and to explain experience with depth
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall, 1985, 1987). This study explored the views of primary aged
children who have not yet listened to on the topic of creativity. As this study’s purpose was to gain
a greater understanding of children’s ideas of creativity, a qualitative research method, using
interviews, was appropriate.
4.4.2 Interview‐based Study
There are varying research methods available when working with children. These methods include
observation, visual/arts, verbal, written and multiple methods (Groundwater‐Smith, Dockett, &
Bottrell, 2015). The topic of creativity may not have come up organically in children’s own
conversations, so observation methods were not suitable. Also, due to the age range and limited
time spent with the children, visual, written and multiple methods were not appropriate. Selecting
the verbal method of interviews suited thisstudy best.
The value of collecting qualitative data from children via interviews has been increasingly
acknowledged since the 1990s (Kortesluoma, Hentinen, & Nikkonen, 2003). Before this time,
however, this qualitative method was reserved for adults, as children were seen as untrustworthy
informants whose views were irrelevant (Docherty & Sandelowski, 1999; Holmes, 1998; Mason &
Steadman, 1997). As the new sociology of childhood perspective emerged, ideas about children’s
engagement in qualitative research evolved (Gibson, 2012). It is now acknowledged that children’s
views reported by them, rather than accounted by adults, are greater in sophistication and
diversity (Balen et al., 2006; Eder & Fingerson, 2002). Over the last decade there has been a shift
in language and researchers now discuss conducting research with children, rather than on
children (Hunleth, 2011). The notion that children have become partners in the research process
56
(Gibson, 2012) aligns with Lundy’s Model of Participation (2007) and aimed to ensure children are
involved in decisions made about them. Conducting interviews with children in this study provided
rich data with which to understand how children describe creativity and how they view the role
creativity plays in their lives.
There are many benefits to conducting interview‐based studies with children. Employing this
approach provided face‐to‐face engagement with children and contributed a deep understanding
of their perspectives on creativity. Conducting interviews with children allows the collection of
data on a topic that may not come up organically in children’s conversations and therefore could
not be observed (Danby et al., 2011). Interviewing children for this study gave them the
opportunity to describe their subjective experiences of creativity and offered the researcher a
view of how children conceptualise those experiences.
4.5 Research Questions
This study was driven by two research questions.
1) How do children describe creativity?
2) How do children describe the role creativity plays in their lives?
Examining children’s definitions of creativity makes for a balanced discussion on this research
topic as their informed views have not yet been given weight. Hearing how children describe
creativity recognises their views and contributes new knowledge to creativity commentary.
Listening to children describe creativity as a concept reflects their philosophical views of human
beings and society (Banaji, 2008). Gaining understanding of both their definitions of creativity and
their ideas of creativity as a concept lays a foundation on which to discuss the role creativity plays
in their lives. As the presented literature (See Chapter 2 shows, creativity is now an important
aspect of Australian education and society. Decisions and future plans being made with a two‐way
dialogue with children can provide new ways of working which benefit multiple educational
stakeholders.
It is unknown how children experience creativity on an everyday basis. This study sought to
understand the role it plays within different aspects of their lives including school, home,
extracurricular activities and social worlds. Within the literature and government policy it is clear
57
adults see creativity as an important attribute for children to foster. Understanding how children
themselves view the role creativity plays in their lives provides new knowledge for stakeholders
within education, government and research, which may influence current ways of working.
This study’s research questions were investigated using a qualitative interview‐based study
employing focus groups. The sessions took place on one research site. Participant selection and
the research site are explained in the following sections. The choice of this data collection method
is now discussed, as is the use of inductive, thematic analysis to interpret the data. Ethical
considerations ensuring all stakeholders involved in the study were considered respectfully are
also described. The research questions for this study were framed by The Lundy Model to ensure
a study in which children’s participation is genuinely applied. The Lundy Model ensures quality
listening and purposeful follow through.
4.6 Research Site
The pseudonym, West Brisbane Primary School (WBPS), was given to the research site. It is an
inner‐city primary school in Brisbane, Australia chosen through purposeful sampling to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the central phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). WBPS is an
independent public school working with the Australian Curriculum. This site is “information rich”
(Patton, 1990, p. 169) in varying ways.
WBPS has strong arts and science programs, which are two school subjects commonly linked to
creativity. According to their website, WBPS has previously received the Queensland Arts Council’s
Art and Culture Practice Award. Biannually their visual arts program culminates in a whole school
art show. WBPS also participates in annual Young Writers’ workshops and demonstrates
commitment to an annual artist/author‐in‐residence program. Children at WBPS study the
Australian Curriculum stipulated strands of the arts including visual arts, dance, drama and music.
These are taught by specialist educators, while media art is taught by classroom teachers.
The subject of science is a focus at WBPS. Documents on the school website state that WBPS
believes in equipping students with valuable knowledge and skills to become effective members
of a growing scientific and technologically advanced society. The school runs a Science Expo
annually, which includes expert guest speakers and varying interactive experiments and
demonstrations. WBPS also provides learning opportunities for children with a chess club and
robotics classes.
58
WBPS rates highly on the Index of Community Socio‐educational Advantage (ICSEA). According to
ACARA (2015, p. 1), the ICSEA provides “an indication of the socio‐educational backgrounds of
students and the higher the ICSEA value, the higher the level of educational advantage of
students” (ACARA, 2015, p. 1). The ICSEA is calculated by factoring in parents’ level of education,
parents’ occupations, the geographical location of the school and the proportion of indigenous
students enrolled (ACARA, 2015). Children from higher‐income families have been observed to
have higher extracurricular activities participation rates (Guèvremont, Kohen, & Findlay, 2010).
Therefore, WBPS students’ access to extracurricular activities opens up possibilities of engaging
with and forming views about creativity practices that occur outside of the home and school.
As the study took place in one school, approval to conduct research was granted by the Principal
of WBPS once QUT provided ethics approval for the study. The Principal was approached and the
purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential benefits of the research, in accordance with the
National Health and Medical Research Guidelines, were communicated (NHMRG, 2014).
Due to previous employment at this site five years ago for two years and continued interaction
with staff and families in the community through an after‐school art studio business operating in
close proximity, trusted relationships have been formed between researcher and research site.
This kind of preceding acquaintance is highly beneficial when gaining access to a research site
(Lambert, 2012). Close relationships also offer subjective understandings, which lead to
qualitative data of higher quality (Toma, 2000).
When consent was given for school involvement, the researcher conducted a presentation at a
staff meeting to explain the study’s aims, objectives, timeline, procedure and the expectations of
the teachers involved. For consenting teachers, a follow up meeting took place to address
questions. One teacher from each grade, Preparatory Year to Year 6, agreed to participate.
Discussion with teachers took place to decide on possible participants. The focus group sessions
worked in with teachers’ schedules, to reduce any inconvenience.
4.7 Participants
This study involved 21 children aged from five to 12 years. This correlates to one focus group of
three children per primary grade level. The study included all primary age groups, which
emphasises inclusivity. Participation is not exclusive for the “articulate and literate” (Flutter &
59
Rudduck, 2004, p. 137). Lundy supports this notion and makes it clear that a child’s right to
participate is not measured by their level of maturity but “only on their ability to form a view,
mature or not” (Lundy, 2007, p. 935).
Discussions took place with teachers to decide on participants using purposeful sampling.
Purposeful sampling ensures qualitative researchers engage with participants who can best offer
a detailed understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). Diversity is important when
seeking views from children (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). The discussions with teachers on possible
participants focused on a type of purposeful sampling called maximal variation sampling. This
sampling entailed choosing a range of students that could reflect the complex nature of the
human experience (Creswell, 2012). Notes were sent home to chosen students and their parents.
Children had the right to decline the study invitation. Offering children a choice in participation
aligns with Lundy’s (2007) claims that children should always be consulted as there will be times
when they may not be willing to be involved and it must be noted that Article 12 is “a right (not a
duty)” (Lundy, 2007, p. 934).
4.8 Data Collection
This study conducted seven one‐off focus group interviews with primary school students to collect
data on how they described creativity and explained the role it plays in their lives. The interviews
were audio recorded and then transcribed. Facilitating focus groups with children aligns with The
Lundy Model of Participation (2007) and this will be outlined in the following section. Focus groups
with children have advantages and challenges. Both will be explored further.
4.8.1 Focus Group Alignment with The Lundy Model of Participation
This data collection method aligns with Lundy’s model for multiple reasons. Focus groups position
children as capable contributors whose opinions and beliefs are valued. This method echoes the
core of The Lundy Model of Participation (2007), that children are “competent social actors”
(Danby et al., 2011, p. 74). The Lundy Model’s first element is “space”. This aspect works
alongside Article 12 requiring states to “assure” children are supported to express their views.
Collecting data through focus groups took “proactive steps to invite and encourage their input”
(Lundy, 2007, p. 934). This approach aligns with The Lundy Model’s aspect of “voice”. Lundy brings
to light the connection of freedom to Article 12 and states that, “children should be assured the
opportunity to express their views freely” (Lundy, 2007, p. 935).
60
4.8.2 Focus Group Advantages
Focus groups reduce the role of the adult researcher and thus create a potentially balanced
environment in which child participants feel comfortable and free to express their views. This
approach aimed to obtain rich data from children on the views of creativity due to revealing
emerging patterns and trends. This form of data collection promotes children’s agency and
autonomy (Bourke & Loveridge, 2014). This is also said to achieve “authentic” or “pure” pupil
voice (Bourke & Loveridge, 2014, p. 127). Although the researcher was present to guide the
discussion, children had the opportunity to feel free from strict regulation as they bounced ideas
off one another about creativity and creative experiences and communicated with each other as
well as the researcher. This approach resulted in a focus group which was co‐constructed (Gibson,
2007).
This study facilitated three students in each focus group. A higher representation of children offset
power imbalances. This type of qualitative research embraces the mindset of conducting research
with children, as opposed to conducting research on them (Kelly, 2013, p. 81).
Focus groups are considered less intrusive and intimidating than one‐on‐one interviews (Barbour,
2008) and therefore collect quality data, due to the more relaxed and comfortable nature of the
setting. As children for each age group were from the same class, this feeling of trusted
relationships and comfort was elevated. Children in the early years of school are reported to be
challenging to interview alone as replying to direct questions about themselves is difficult
(Mauthner, 1997). Focus groups are “socially orientated” and create an “often more relaxed”
environment (Marshall & Rossman, 2015, p. 154). In groups, children feel more comfortable to
raise concerns they wish to address (Mauthner, 1997). A safe space is also provided for differences
in opinions to emerge (O’Reilly, Ronzoni, & Dogra, 2013). In this study the participation of three
students from the same classroom was a strategy that aimed to encourage the students to
participate and gain confidence by maximising their levels of familiarity (Kortesluoma et al., 2003).
Classroom teachers were consulted on which students would feel most comfortable in a focus
group setting and participants were chosen to participate based on their confidence and
willingness to become engaged in group discussions.
Employing focus groups enables both the researcher and participants freedom. In a focus group
the interviewer can think out loud more freely thus receiving responses that will be more
61
communicative (Brooker, 2001). This flexibility means surprising points in the discussion may be
explored (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). The freedom of the dialogue extends to the participants as
a wide range of views and experiences of creativity may be expressed (O’Reilly et al., 2013).
Conducting focus groups with children allows the researcher passage to the participants’ world of
language thus encouraging openness (Singh & Keenan, 2010). This data collection method mimics
the familiar environment of a classroom where students converse freely with each other and build
on others’ ideas or contradict them (Heary & Hennessy, 2006; Mauthner, 1997). As children may
not have discussed the concept of creativity previously, fostering this feeling of freedom within
the focus group gave rise to new ideas and considerations. Running seven focus groups with
different students produced rich data, due to the broad range of ages, interests, home lives and
personal experiences of the children. The focus groups also offered the opportunity to discover
and describe patterns in the data (Krueger & Casey, 2015), as the children described similarities
in opinions and creative encounters.
4.8.3 Focus Group Challenges
One challenge when conducting focus group interviews is the issue of power dynamics. Power
dynamics may emerge within the group and the researcher must recognise these and use skills to
manage them (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). As each of the focus groups for this study only included
three participants, the chance of power dynamics being developed was minimised. The children
within each group were similar ages, which aided in neutralising imbalances. If personality,
experience or knowledge created shifts in power, the experience of the researcher in working with
children ensured efforts were made to give all participants voice. It is the researcher’s
responsibility to create a feeling of equity within the group in terms of capability to contribute
(O’Reilly et al., 2013). Practically, this was achieved by asking questions such as, “What does
everyone else think?’, ‘Does anyone think something different?” (Gibson, 2007, p. 480).
A further challenge of focus group interviews is the potential to lose control over the conversation.
Working with a group of participants means time may be lost discussing topics unrelated to the
research topic (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). The facilitator may be confronted with the choice of
controlling the discussion to hear more about the research topic at the expense of a free‐flowing
dialogue (Morgan, 1997). Especially when working with children a balance must be struck
between giving the children freedom of expression and ensuring the children stay on task. Skills
from employment as an early years educator and as a primary years art educator were used to
62
guide the focus group discussion, allowing children to take the conversation to unexpected and
interesting areas whilst also ensuring the discussion was relevant and conducted in the timeframe.
It is recommended to let children have their say and use probes to guide the conversation back
on track (Kelly, 2013).
4.8.4 Comfort and Trusted Relationships in Focus Groups
When running focus groups with children, making the group feel comfortable is fundamental
(Heary & Hennessy, 2006). Staying on topic, creating a strong feeling of openness for all
participants and working to understand the children’s views with clarity are also important (Heary
& Hennessy, 2006). The skills needed to achieve these aims are found through experience in
working with children (Gibson, 2007). The researcher has formal experience as an early years
educator, working in the Queensland State School system. She also currently owns and is the
managing director of a children’s art studio. This environment provides sound experience in
communicating with primary‐aged children. The project‐based learning art studio space flows
freely with discussion and many topics are covered in small group conversations with between 12
and 18 children working on individual art projects. Confidence to converse with multiple students
at once in an enjoyable and relaxed environment, while keeping them on task is a feature of the
researcher’s practice on a daily basis.
The focus groups ran for 30‐45minutes. All focus groups used an interview protocol that was
outlined and approved before the beginning of the study and interviews were audio recorded.
The ethical considerations of the recording aspect of this study are addressed in section 4.9 later
in this chapter. Asking children simple questions before the study questions made them feel
comfortable (Gibson, 2012). Using how and why questions also contributed to positioning the
child as an expert, sharing their views on creativity (Folque, 2010). Open‐ended questions were
used predominantly throughout each focus group ensuring the children co‐constructed the
interviews and had freedom in their responses. Reference to the interview questions in Appendix
A, which includes the interview protocol.
63
4.9 Procedure and Timeline
The procedure and timeline for this study follows in Table 4.1 . The table details events and actions
taken from confirmation through to final oral seminar.
Procedure and Timeline
Month Location Event Persons Involved Action taken
May QUT Giving
confirmation
presentation
Researcher, panel,
supervisors
Presenting to the panel
February‐
August
QUT Gaining
ethical
clearance
Researcher, ethics
department
Submitting ethical
clearance
Waiting for clearance
August WBPS Contacting
Principal
Researcher, principal Discussing permission to
conduct study at the school
September
WBPS Attending
staff meeting
Researcher, staff at
WBPS
Presenting to teachers
about the study and about
providing consent or not to
be part of the study
September WBPS Meeting with
consenting
teachers
Researcher,
consenting teachers
Discussing timeline and
questions
October QUT Meeting with
supervisors
Researcher,
supervisors
Meeting to discuss the
amount of consenting
classroom teachers <7 or
>7
October QUT Meeting with
supervisors
Researcher,
supervisors,
Classroom teachers
Meeting to discuss
finalizing 3 participants per
class
October WBPS Sending out
ethics forms
Researcher,
Classroom teacher,
Parents,
Students
Sending notes home to
parents with information
for both parents and
students
64
Table 4.1. Procedure and Timeline
4.10 Data Analysis
Inductive thematic analysis was used in this study to analyse children’s views on creativity, as
explored in the seven focus group interviews. Thematic analysis is used in qualitative research to
identify, analyse and interpret patterns of meaning (“themes”) (Braun & Clarke, 2016). The
procedures involved are accessible and systematic (Braun & Clarke, 2016).
The research questions — “How do children describe creativity?” and “How do children describe
the role creativity plays in their lives?” — drove the thematic analysis. Thematic analysis uses
codes to break down data into the smallest units of analysis to identify noteworthy data points
(Braun & Clarke, 2016). From these codes, themes and patterns of meaning occur which construct
a framework for the researcher to organize and report on observations (Braun & Clarke, 2016).
October WBPS Collecting
data
Researcher,
participants
Running focus groups ‐ one
a day
November
QUT/Home Meeting with
supervisors
/Transcribing
data
Researcher,
supervisors
Meeting to discuss data
transcription.
December QUT/Home Meeting with
supervisors
/Analysing
data
Researcher,
supervisors
Meeting to data analysis
December‐
February
Home Analysing
data
Researcher,
supervisors
Transcribing, data analysis
February‐
December
Home Writing up
results
Researcher,
supervisors
Writing up results and
findings
February QUT Giving final
oral
presentation
Supervisors, panel
members
Giving final oral
presentation, panel
discussion and feedback
65
There is not yet an established body of literature on the topic of children’s views on creativity.
Using inductive thematic analysis was the best fit for analysing the research data in this study.
This qualitative data analysis method explors emerging patterns that are uncovered through
topics that have not yet been researched (Yukhymenko, Brown, Lawless, Brodowinska, & Mullin,
2014). Thematic analysis is also highly adaptable to be used with varying theoretical frameworks
(Braun & Clarke, 2016) and was, therefore, compatible with new sociology theory.
Inductive thematic analysis has been criticised as a form of data analysis. Some authors argue this
approach to be vague due to a lacking consensus about what thematic analysis is and how exactly
it is carried out (Attride‐Stirling, 2001; Boyatzis, 1998; Tuckett, 2005). This vagueness can lead to
others being unable to clearly discern how fellow researchers analysed their data and how they
drew conclusions (Attride‐Stirling, 2001). Braun and Clarke (2006) acknowledge that it is crucial
for process and practice of data analysis to be clearly communicated (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and
have, therefore, created a six‐phase thematic analysis framework. The data analysis for this study
used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) Six Phases of Thematic Analysis. In the following section, each
phase of data analysis will be described with examples.
66
Figure 4.4. Braun and Clarke’s Six Phases of Thematic Analysis. Adapted from Braun and Clarke
(2006).
Phase 1
Phase 1 involved familiarisation of the data via immersion. Transcribing the seven focus group
sessions was the initial step. This was followed by reading and rereading the transcripts (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). Searching for patterns and meaning followed and included taking notes and
recording introductory ideas on how children described creativity and the role it played in their
lives (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This included reading over each grade levels transcripts individually
67
and noting the ideas that came through the strongest. An example can be seen in Figure 4.5 Year
Levels and Strongest Ideas.
Year Levels and Strongest Ideas
Figure 4.5. Year Levels and Strongest Ideas.
This initial stage, although time consuming, provided the necessary foundation for the continued
analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The process of “intimate engagement” with the data was
invaluable (Marshall & Rossman, 2016, p. 217).
Phase 2
Phase 2 began with the generation of initial codes. From the focus group transcriptions sections
or moments that seemed interesting or important to children’s views on creativity were coded
(Braun & Clarke, 2006; Boyatzis, 1998). Codes remained separate to themes, which were broader.
Extracts were often coded more than once and grouped together in multiple ways (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). The Figure 4.6 is an excerpt from the Year 1 focus group transcription and shows
the generation of multiple codes for a singular quote.
68
Example of Multiple Codes for a Single Quote
Figure 4.6 Example of Multiple Codes for a Single Quote
Phase 2 was complete when all seven transcripts were initially coded and a list had been made of
all identified codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
List of Identified Codes
Year Codes
Prep Making, newness, entertainment, pride, process, happiness, enjoyment, gifts, friends,
family, art, relationships, home, school, collaboration, invention, innate, can be learnt,
exposure, development, practise, trying new things, jobs, maths, science, art to learn,
learn from peers, reprieve, autonomy, free play, sculpture, freedom, artists, sewing,
construction, recontextualisation, nature, surroundings, independence, new skills,
cooking, bodies, sport, physicality, games, drawing, experimentation, surprise,
advancement of self
Year 1 Newness, art, play, physical play, games, chess, writing, freedom, internal drive, new
experiences, making, entertainment, cure for boredom, cooking, invention, math,
69
drawing, scientists, experiments, creative as not lazy, recontextualization, autonomy,
independence, family, exposure, nature, can be learnt, practise, development,
capability, school, freedom, free‐time, exploration, collaboration, friends, construction,
dance, tattoos, make your own, imagination, curriculum, creativity separate from
school activities, problem solving, challenge
Year 2 Way of thinking, imagination, improve ideas, drawing, innate, everyone, accessibility,
happiness, frustration, process, experimentation, school, art, cure for boredom, nature,
play, writing, creative boundaries, enjoyment, science, architecture, space, invention,
learn creativity, drawing, autonomy, self‐expression, individuality, freedom, bring ideas
to life, wild, altruism, advance society, new knowledge, environment, painting, home,
parents, music, cooking, togetherness, sport, design, tattoos, ideas over product, film‐
making, collaboration, no guidelines, creativity and learning, creativity as special,
creativity runs out, creativity makes you tired, creativity separate from learning,
construction, exploration, new knowledge, mistakes, sculpture, sewing, grandparents,
gifts
Year 3 Autonomy, self‐expression, individuality, way of thinking, pushing boundaries, freedom,
no rules, enjoyment, problem solving, mix of emotions, process, art, home, drawing,
nature, cure for boredom, school, school becomes less creative over time, school
becomes more rigid, writing, science, trying new things, invention, sport, math, not
logical, employment, social interaction, collaboration, play, happiness, relaxation,
cooking, classroom creativity, technology, architecture, construction, design, altruism,
creativity as special
Year 4 Art, process, making, autonomy, freedom, preferences, opinions, product, design, idea
generation, drawing, relaxation, independence, autonomy, writing, cure for boredom,
learn to be creativity, no rules, instruction, imagination, relaxation, advance society,
fun, invention, emotions, pressure diminishes creativity, innate, exposure,
development, parent’s role, experience, risk taking, architecture, math, science,
classroom creativity, stress, engagement, dance, family, home, nature, friends,
relationships, problem solving, grandparents, recontextualisation, cooking, curriculum,
advancement of society
Year 5 Visual art, emotions, logic, making, architecture, construction, daily, everyone, product,
process, way of thinking, autonomy, different thinking, art, music, obedience, freedom,
instruction, math, fun, thinking, challenge, writing, self‐expression, individuality,
creativity is uncomfortable, problem solving, open answer questioning, innate, drawing,
70
relationships, family, brainstorming, invention, science, artists, new thinking, learning
creativity, practise, personality, happiness, cure for boredom, internal drive, create
reality, sport, gaming, school, educator, instruction, classroom, science, friends,
collaboration, family, politics, role models, experimentation, nature, drama,
storytelling, vulnerable, stress, anxiety, cure for boredom, teaching creatively, equal
rights, feminism, form of communication
Year 6 Way of thinking, not logical, individuality, autonomy, originality, drawing, music, sport,
cure for boredom, writing, relaxation, accessibility, everyone, innate, trying new things,
develop creativity, grandparents, family, sewing, process, enjoyment, new skills,
collaboration, play, drawing, parents, nature, games, invention, imagination, creativity
and school are separate, art, assessment, choice, effort, freedom, maths, learning,
control, entertainment, environment, creative people as fun, creative people as
enjoyable to be around, idea generation, persistence, music, frustration, surprise,
friends, fun, happiness, problem solving, gaming, new ideas, failure, importance,
school, altruism
Table 4.2. List of Identified Codes
Phase 3
This phase pulled back from the detailed view of extracts. and codes. It worked more broadly with
possible themes relating to definitions of creativity and themes relating to the role creativity
played in children’s lives. This phase of data analysis involved sorting the codes created in Phase
2 into groups. These groups of codes integrated to become themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Figure
4.7 shows an early grouping of codes related to the children discussing creativity as a concept.
71
Early Codes for Creativity as a Concept
Figure 4.7. Early Codes for Creativity as a Concept
Phase 3 required careful consideration of codes, subthemes and overarching themes (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). Some initial codes fell away while others were joined, spilt apart or reworked to
become main themes or sub‐themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Phase 4
Phase 4 required reviewing and refining themes relating to the topic of children’s views of
creativity. This phase required further investigation into the themes uncovered in Phase 3. Two
key aspects used to refine the themes were 1) ensuring the data within a certain theme were
significantly related and 2) ensuring there were distinct differences between themes (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). This process involved discarding some themes and combining or partitioning others
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). Phase 4 also involved creating a thematic map. Figure 4.8 is an early
thematic map of Research Question 2.
72
Early Thematic Map of Research Question 2
Figure 4.8. Early Thematic Map of Research Question 2.
In creating the map, further clarification of themes occurred as adjustments were made for the
map to accurately reflect the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show the
collapsing of themes through generating the thematic map for Research Question 2.
73
Figure 4.9. Research Question 2 Thematic Map Stage 1
Figure 4.10. Research Question 2 Thematic Map Stage 2
Research Question 2 Thematic Map Stage 2
The role creativity plays in children’s lives
External world
Internal world
Develop individuality through:
*experiencing autonomy #making own choices #feeling free
#experiencing existence outside adult influence, instruction or gaze #happiness # experimenting # reprieve from life of instruction & obedience #cure for boredom #relaxation
* exploration of self #learning interests
#learning strengths/weaknesses #learning boundaries – physical/abilities #learning new skills # risk taking
* expand imagination #imaginative play #art #creative writing
Develop relationships with:
*their bodies #sports #games
#dance * learning #strengths/weaknesses #style preferences * the natural world #found objects #trees/backyards #beach #animals #travel #environmental issues *friends & family #peers #cousins #siblings #parents #grandparents *society #inequality #injustice #altruistic ideals & ideas
RESEARCH QUESTION 2
Research Question 2 Thematic Map Stage 1
The role creativity plays in children’s lives
Creativity as a reprieve from a life of obedience & instruction Creativity as a tool to better understand
themselves & the world around them
External world
Internal world
Develop individuality through: *experiencing autonomy #making own choices #feeling free
#experiencing existence outside adult influence, instruction or gaze
* exploration of self #learning interests #learning likes/dislikes
#learning strengths/weaknesses #learning boundaries – physical/ability/skill #learning new skills
* expand imagination #imaginative play #visual art #creative writing
Develop relationships with: *their bodies #sports #games
#dance * learning #strengths/weaknesses #style preferences * the natural world #found objects #trees/backyards #beach #animals #travel #environmental issues *friends & family #school peers #cousins #siblings #parents #grandparents *society #inequality #injustice #altruistic ideals & ideas
Source of happiness
Entertainment
Cure for boredom
RESEARCH QUESTION 2
74
Phase 5
Phase 5 finalised themes and named them accordingly. The analysis included a clear consideration
of how children defined creativity and how they described the role it played in their lives (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). It also included the overall story of children’s views of creativity (Braun & Clarke,
2006).
Research Question 1 Final Themes
Figure 4.11. Research Question 1 Final Themes
75
Research Question 2 Final Themes
Figure 4.12. Research Question 2 Final Themes
Phase 6
This phase included writing up the final analysis and report. Phase 5’s document acted as the
framework on which to build and elaborate. The goal of the final report is to persuade readers of
the rigor and worthiness of this study of children’s views of creativity by confidently and clearly
communicating the story of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Presenting a narrative discussion is
consistent with a qualitative research paradigm (Creswell, 2012). There are multiple elements
included: dialogue that supports the themes applied by the researcher; quotes from individuals;
and visual representations of the findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). All of the aforementioned
are discussed in the following chapter.
76
4.11 Ethical Considerations
Conducting research with children requires careful ethical consideration. An ethical approach to
a study results in rigorous research (Davies & Dodd, 2002). The ethics of this study relating to The
National Health and Medical Research Council, QUT and the WBPS staff, parents and child
participants were taken into account.
For research to be undertaken within Australia with human participants the guidelines provided
by the NHMRC must be followed. The NHMRC provides researchers with a National Statement on
Ethical Human Conduct in which they describe the importance of protecting human participants
through building trustworthy relationships (NHMRC, 2015). The researchers break down the
concept of trust into four key values and principles; research merit and integrity, justice,
beneficence and respect (NHMRC, 2015). The NHMRC also provides discussion of the themes of
risk and benefit. According to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2014)
guidelines, this study involved low risk due to discomfort being the only foreseeable risk (para.
29).
QUT’s University Human Research Ethics Committee is responsible for ensuring the human
subjects in all research conducted in the University’s name will be protected. The Code of Conduct
for Research aims to guide researchers to administer their studies with integrity and fairness. The
Human Research Ethics Committee also requires researchers to seek ethics approval. Ethical
approval for this study was sought from the QUT’s University Human Research Ethic Committee
prior to undertaking this study.
As this study took place within a Queensland school approval was obtained from WBPS Principal.
Ethical considerations for all Queensland Department of Education and Training employees at
WBPS were made. This included using pseudonyms for all persons involved in the study and for
the school itself. Data were stored in a password‐protected facility. For all persons in the study
the greatest potential harm was inconvenience of time. To minimise this, school staff elected
times and timeframes that best suited their schedules. All communication with school staff,
parents and children aimed to be succinct and clear.
Seeing children as “competent informants of their own experiences” (Danby & Farrell, 2004, p.
40) means ethical decisions should be made in consultation with them (Clark, McQuail, & Poss,
2003). For the children involved in this study, consent, negative emotional response,
77
inconvenience and privacy and confidentiality were considered. A child consent section was
included on the consent form sent home to parents. A discussion with children took place to clarify
if they still wished to participate at the time of the focus group and they were reminded that they
may withdraw without consequence or question (Danby & Farrell, 2004).
Stating to the children that the research was voluntary and children could withdraw also
minimised the risk of negative emotional response (Creswell, 2012). Discomfort overrides any
consent given from parents or caregivers (NHMRC, 2014). The focus group sessions took place
within the school ensuring it was a familiar setting for the children.
Parents had the right to withdraw their children from the study at any time. To minimise this risk,
communication with parents about the research purpose, risks, benefits and procedures took
place. The parents were given a copy of the interview protocol and will be given a final copy of
the research to ensure they felt comfortable with their child’s participation and anonymity. This
study with children made careful ethical considerations throughout the research process.
Considerations were made in alignment with the NHMRC and QUT to ensure WBPS staff, parents
and the children were accounted for.
4.12 Chapter Conclusion
This chapter has provided a detailed description of how this study aimed to understand children’s
definitions of creativity and the role it played in their lives. The research paradigm of
interpretivism, which guided the approach of this study, was outlined. The research design of
conducting a qualitative interview‐based study was explored. So too were the two research
questions, research site and participants. Use of focus groups for data collection was discussed,
along with a description of the procedure and timeline. The processes of data analysis, ethics and
limitations and delimitations were also addressed.
The aim of this study was to listen to an unresearched group on the topic of creativity. According
to Menkel‐Meadow (1987), listening to an omitted stakeholder can provide new knowledge,
which expands the confines of how a phenomenon is seen. Listening to children on the place
creativity holds in their lives and their primary school education is important because listening to
students is essential to improving teaching and learning (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). Including
children as part of this discussion is not only their right but conducting this research to understand
78
the role creativity plays in their lives may make a difference to children’s opportunities for
successful learning, which is the aim of all educational research.
79
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
5.1 Overview
The findings and discussion section of this thesis are combined. Including the children’s opinions
alongside that of key thinkers and researchers creates a conversation with the voice of the child
as a valued contributor. This concept is at the heart of this research study. Each research question
is addressed in a separate section. The first section explores the findings around how children
describe what creativity is and what creativity does. The second section discusses the role
creativity plays in children’s lives. This chapter closes with consideration of where this new
knowledge could lead in regard to further research or directions for educators and policy makers.
5.2 Research Question 1 – How Do Children Describe Creativity?
5.2.1 Background
Initially the aim of Research Question 1 was to lay a foundation on which to build understanding
of Research Question 2. After data collection, it became clear that the children’s ideas around the
concept of creativity were richer and more complex than anticipated. The depth of their responses
conveyed many insights evident in past and present creativity literature. Prior to discussions with
the children about creativity it was assumed by the researcher that the children’s ideas would be
centred around their worlds without the awareness of the role of creativity in society more
broadly. As a result, Research Question 1 provided an unexpected amount of insight and analysis.
5.2.2 Overview
This research question is explored in two sections, the first section being children’s definitions of
creativity. This section discusses “what creativity is” as described by the children. The second
section addresses the children’s ideas around the concept of creativity. Findings for both will be
discussed in turn.
80
5.2.3 Children’s Creativity Definitions: Discussing What Creativity Is.
This section on definitions focuses on “what creativity is” to the children, according to their focus
group conversations. Through listening to and analysing their definitions we can see what the
children identify as creativity’s essential qualities. In general, children had similar definitions about
creativity. Most definitions related creativity to the concepts of making, novelty or expression with
around two thirds of the children across all year levels mentioning one or more of these ideas.
The remaining definitions related to divergent thinking, autonomy or the arts. Creativity being
linked to the concept of value was also described by children as young as five years old. Children
also mentioned the concepts of improving ideas and using their imagination.
Discussion around the children’s definitions has been organised into the following headings;
making, novelty and value, expression, divergent thinking, improving ideas, autonomy and the
arts. They are ordered by the concepts mentioned most often to least often in the participants’
definitions. Extracts from the data are provided to illustrate each concept. Pseudonyms are used
to maintain anonymity.
Making
Many children often used the words “make” or “making” within their definitions of creativity. For
example, in response to the question “what does creativity mean to you?” A Preparatory Year
student and Year 2 student replied:
Flynn: When you make something. – Prep
Ella‐ To make things. To create. – Year 2
The connection between create and make aligns with the Latin derivative of creativity, creatus
meaning ‘to make, produce’ (Kamplysis & Valtanen, 2010). During the focus groups children
articulated connections between making, imagination and creativity. Mason’s definition, from
Year 2, explored the idea that imagination comes first and creativity is a step beyond.
Mason: It means to build onto your imagination. – Year 2
81
Robinson (2015) explains these connections as imagination being the foundation of creativity and
creativity as the result of applying one’s imagination. Ethan echoed this idea in the Year 4 focus
group session, explaining that creativity is more than the formulation of an idea, it is the process
taken with that idea.
Ethan: Being creative is, like, the process of making an idea. – Year 4
Research Question 1 aimed to investigate how children describe creativity. It is evident the
concept of “making” was a key in children’s understanding. The majority of students used the
concept of making as part of their definition and built onto it by adding ideas. Two of these new
ideas included novelty and value.
Novelty and Value
Children across multiple year levels in this study described the concepts of novelty and value when
defining creativity. Theorists and researchers also claim novelty and value are two essential
elements of creativity (Amabile & Hennessey, 2010). Robinson (2015, p. 118) whose definition is
used for this study, “creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value”. Over the
last seventy‐five years of creativity research definitions including novelty and value remain
prevalent in the literature (Boden, 2004; Cropley & Urban, 2000; Osche, 1990; Sawyer, 2006;
Seltzer & Bentley, 1999).
Children as young as five and six years made connections to these two key concepts in the focus
groups. A Preparatory student, Georgie, defined creativity with both components.
Facilitator: So, what does the word creativity mean to you?
Georgie: You make something which you’ve never done before and you think it’s
interesting. ‐ Prep
Evie, from Year 1, mentioned the concept of novelty alone.
Evie: When you create something new. ‐ Year 1
Dacey and Lennon (2000) echo this viewpoint by omitting value from their definitions.
82
When children conveyed ideas around value and creativity different expressions emerged.
Maddy: When you make something you’re impressed with. ‐ Prep
The notion of making something you are impressed with aligns with concepts such as achieving
valued goals (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999). This idea links to Welsch’s (1980) and Kampylis, Berki and
Saariluoma’s (2009) notion of the creator framing the criteria and judging the value of a creative
product. In sum, children in this study saw novelty and value as components of what creativity is.
Some of their definitions focused on novelty alone. When the idea of value was discussed it was
aligned with thinking that the creator determines the value of the creativity.
Self‐expression
Children spoke about self‐expression when defining creativity. This included expression of their
personalities or beliefs or their emotions.
Mabel: I find that creativity is, like, you can do what you want and it’s kind of like showing
a bit of who you are I’d say. ‐ Year 3
Lotte: When I think about creativity, I think about something that your feelings and your
brain…creativity is something that your feelings lead you to do. It’s this type of thing. –
Year 5
Commentators’ definitions relating to following one’s interests and passions were theorised in the
1960s and 1970s (Elliot, 1971; Getzels & Jackson, 1962). Although modern theorists often discuss
self‐expression in relation to products, especially in the arts, expression does not appear in recent
creativity definitions. It is interesting to note here that Banaji (2008) claimed commentators’
definitions are influenced by their personal beliefs about human beings and society, both
politically and philosophically. This data suggest that children in this study connected expression
and creativity more than current creativity commentators might propose. Out of the 18
definitions, five related to self‐expression.
83
Divergent Thinking
Two students mentioned the concept of divergent thinking in their definitions of creativity,
although they didn’t use this term as such. They described the idea of “out of the box” thinking
and creative thinking as the opposite to logical thinking.
Jonty: It’s like not doing the normal but going outside it. Like thinking outside the box. –
Year 3
Joni: Thinking about stuff in kind of different ways. Not completely logical sometimes. –
Year 6
Guildford’s work from the 1950s has seen creativity and divergent thinking become synonymous,
with divergent thinking frequently mentioned in creativity research. Ferrari et al. (2009) list
divergent thinking as one of the key components to defining creativity. Only two students out of
the 18 in this study that gave creativity definitions mentioned divergent thinking. It is still worth
noting that these participants expressed that creativity and divergent thinking are closely aligned.
Improving Ideas
The children in this study also mentioned improving ideas in their definitions of creativity. In the
focus group data, they parallel Torrance’s (1969) notion of creativity involving testing and
retesting. Koestler (1964, p. 120) claims creativity “uncovers, selects, reshuffles, combines and
synthesizes already existing facts, ideas, faculties and skills.”
Gypsy: Maybe, like, creating and, like, you can think of something new and try to improve
it. – Year 2
Mason: Like, come up with new ideas for your recent idea. – Year 2
It is interesting that the children articulated not just the process of idea generation but idea
evaluation being a part of what creativity is. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) describes these stages of the
creative process as insight, evaluation and elaboration.
84
Autonomy
Children also raised the concept of autonomy within their definitions. They made connections
between creativity and “doing their own thing”. Year 6 student Oscar also included novelty and
idea generation in his definition.
Oscar: I think it’s kind of like what Charli said where it’s doing your thing. Being original
with your ideas. Coming up with stuff. – Year 6
Autonomy, like expression, is missing from modern scholars’ definitions of creativity. Again,
employing Banaji’s (2008) notion that creativity definitions reflect the values and beliefs of those
explaining the meaning, data from this study suggest that children valued autonomy as a key
element of the creative process.
The Arts
It was expected by the researcher that students would mention the arts when defining creativity.
However, out of the 18 definitions collected, only two children used those words when discussing
what creativity meant to them.
Laura: To create, like, to paint, to draw, like drama and dancing. ‐ Year 4
Sabine: Colours. ‐ Year 5
Creativity commentators do not mention the arts in their definitions. Considering that children
described expression and autonomy as essential qualities of creativity it is foreseeable that some
connected creativity with the arts specifically.
Overall, children provided varied definitions of creativity. The concepts they included in their
definitions reveal insight into what they believe creativity to be and what qualities are essential
components of creativity. The children discussed concepts that key thinkers in the literature also
acknowledge. Additionally, they considered concepts in their definitions that commentators
exclude such as self‐expression. Participants related creativity mostly to making, which links to
85
the Latin derivative. Many students linked novelty to creativity and some linked value to creativity.
Both of these align with the majority of past and present creativity definitions. Children strongly
associated creativity with expression, which is not present in current definitions. The children
made connections between creativity and divergent thinking. They also articulated that improving
ideas and autonomy were connected to creativity.
5.2.4 Children’s Ideas Around Creativity as a Concept: Discussing What Creativity Does.
This section on children’s ideas around creativity as a concept focuses on “what creativity does”.
It examines how and why the children relate certain concepts to creativity. The two key ideas from
their definitions, making and novelty, remained prominent in the discussion. However, children
introduced notions such as creativity as a process, creativity as problem solving and creativity as
a way of thinking when describing what creativity does, thus differentiating these ideas from those
discussed in 5.2.3. They also explored the connections between creativity and resourcefulness and
the advancement of society. The children mentioned developing creativity and whether creativity
was innate. They also often reported tension between creativity and schooling.
Discussion around these concepts is organised into the following headings: making; novelty;
problem solving; tensions between creativity and schooling; developing creativity; advancing
society; and creativity as an innate quality. They are ordered by the concepts mentioned most
often to least often in the participants’ focus group conversations.
Making
Children often linked their making with their personal feelings of creativity. This connection
occurred in every focus group, in differing locations, making alone or with others, making
something spontaneous or planned. Making offers children creative encounters with intensity
(May, 1994). The concept of making and its importance and benefits for children, have been
explored in depth over the past decade, due to the rise and popularity of the Maker Movement.
The Maker Movement began in in the 1970s in San Francisco in the US and, over the last decade
through the growth of “do it yourself” culture, has become a prominent notion in education
literature around creativity (Goyal, 2016; Peppler, Halverson, & Kafai, 2016). Linked to John
Dewey’s phrase “learn by doing, the Maker Movement aims to offer children meaningful real‐life
86
experience through which they learn new skills and capabilities by exploring their own interests
(Peppler et al., 2016). The children in this study expressed that creativity happened when they
were making ideas. They also described an aspect of what creativity does as being a mechanism
that brought their imagination to life.
Facilitator: What kind of things are you doing when you’re being creative?
Mason: Making things with your imagination. – Year 3
As with their definitions, children articulated that coming up with an idea was only the first stage
of creativity. The second stage of their creativity is connected to process and is linked to skills,
evaluating and testing (Mayesky, 2009). They discussed making something they had never tried
making before. For the children, making happened in varying locations with varying people. They
related making to experiences they had at home, school, extracurricular activities or on holidays.
Mabel: I find on the weekend in the morning sometimes Mum will ask me do I want to
make, say, the breakfast scrambled eggs in the morning. I can maybe add spring onions
into it and make it that or maybe I can add bacon or I can just do it so I find it so, like even
when you bake a cake you can put different fillings or toppings or decorations. You can be
really creative. – Year 3
Facilitator: Is there some things that you already do at school that make you feel creative?
Maddy: Sometimes we have free play on Friday also when it’s raining at playtime
sometimes and we could make something out of boxes or anything from the craft trolley.
– Year 1
Their making involved family members. Activities included making a hydraulic arm with a mother,
making cubby houses with siblings or making clothes with grandparents. It also included making
with friends, for example a mountain bike course or a project to save the orangutans. This making
was linked to feelings of achievement.
Facilitator: So, these people in your life who you think are creative, do you think that it
changes their day‐to‐day life or not?
Evie: They might feel really proud of themselves towards the people who don’t do creative
stuff and are lazy. – Year 1
87
Children communicated the difference between being a producer versus being a consumer when
they made things. A Year 1 student mentioned the interest she had in making her own toys to play
with that she thought were better than her bought toys. A Year 3 student described the choices
and emotions involved in creating a product rather than buying one.
Facilitator: Overall, what do you think humans use creativity for?
Mabel: I think they use it for problem solving and I think they use it because it can be quite
enjoyable being creative. Like if someone is given the choice, say they get a choice of, ”do
you want to make the glue or do you want to buy it?” maybe they want to make it because
it would be really fun to make it instead of doing it the easier way of just getting it. So, I
think that it’s either way. If you want to be more creative you can choose to make the
glue but if you want it to be done a bit quicker you can choose to buy the glue. – Year 3
During the focus groups children often raised the concept of making. This included when they
were discussing times they have felt the most creative or when they were discussing creative
people or creative jobs. They also mentioned making when talking about free time at school,
unsupervised time at home or making with another to learn new skills.
Through making, children experience problem finding, problem solving and divergent thinking ‐
all attributes connected to creativity. It was clear from the data that children strongly connect the
act of making to what creativity does.
Novelty
The children in this study consistently mentioned the concept of novelty when discussing
creativity. When people encounter novelty, they engage with wider mental categories than when
encountering familiarity (Förster, Marguc, & Gillebaart, 2010). Novelty plays a significant role in
the learning process (Halula & Halula, 2001). Learning is “a constantly renewed process of
synthesis between continuity and novelty” (Inhelder, Sinclair, & Bovet, 2014, p. 272). Navigating
novelty successfully is said to play a major role in intelligence (Sternberg, 1981). Being curious and
open to new experiences is essential to creativity and especially linked to being able to come up
with novel ideas (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
88
Preparatory Year student Georgie mentioned the concepts of new knowledge and new products.
Facilitator: What do humans use creativity for do you think?
Georgie: They sometimes use it for knowing, inventing new stuff. ‐ Prep
The novelty the children described is presented in two categories ‐ novelty they engage with in
terms of new products, skills or experiences or new inventions for the world. This divide has been
explored by key thinkers on novelty and has been described as subjective and objective novelty
(Machlup, 1980; Witt, 2009). Children describing novelty in relation to themselves and the wider
world links to the first research question, as it reveals they describe creativity playing a role in
their own lives and in society more broadly.
Many children in this study described engaging with novelty as part of what creativity does. They
discussed this concept in their personal lives and how it related to them discovering or learning
new ways to do things, coming up with new ideas or inventions and exposing themselves to new
experiences. This novelty included creativity in more structured environments, such as a
mathematics lesson.
Facilitator: What kind of stuff can you think of that can be an example of being creative?
Evie: Maybe you could creative a new way to do something.
Facilitator: Like what? Can you think of something?
Evie: Like, you can create a new way to make six. – Year 1
More often however, children described novelty during play. Children repeatedly mentioned
inventing games. Also, while playing, children experimented with food or even their bodies in
terms of creating a dance, a new sport or outdoor game.
Facilitator: You’ve mentioned why you think playing soccer is creative, can you talk more
about being creative at parties?
Laird: Maybe they have a pool and you find a new thing to put in the pool or find a new
way to swim or a game to play in or around the pool. – Year 3
This novelty led to different emotions including excitement and pride. Year 1 student Evie
described the excitement of novel creative experiences.
89
Facilitator: So when you’re doing this creating…how does it make you feel?
Evie: Maybe excited?
Facilitator: How come?
Evie: Because you really want to do it and you haven’t done it in your whole entire life. –
Year 1
Multiple students spread across grades from Preparatory Year to Year 6 articulated the idea that
being creative and trying new things was linked to learning and self‐growth.
Georgie: … You should always love doing different stuff because if you always do the same
thing you won’t learn anything else which is interesting. ‐ Prep
When discussing novelty more broadly children strongly related novelty with an invention that
has changed or will change the world. Children in this study saw invention transforming many
fields, including sport.
Facilitator: So, you’re talking about an adult who is an inventor? What other jobs can you
think of for adults where they use creativity?
Jonty: Engineer.
Mabel: Artist.
Laird: Soccer player.
Facilitator: Why do you think that Laird?
Laird: Because they make up their own tricks. Or learn other players’ weaknesses.
Facilitator: How do they use creativity to become better players?
Laird: They try new stuff, like, they try to school someone they’re never schooled before
or something. ‐ Year 3
The other fields children connected invention with were business, science and technology.
Children related invention in business with financial success.
90
Sabine: My Dad was like, “try to invent something now so you don’t have to worry about
a good job in the future”. And then we were thinking and we came up with spray on wax
for surfboards! But then we Googled and we found that it already existed. – Year 5
Facilitator: So how do you think being creative helps them in their lives? Besides making
them happy.
Oscar: New ideas. You might invent something new and then make a lot of money. – Year
6
The children described creativity as a way to make significant financial returns through producing
a novel product. With much attention placed on innovation in business today there is a strong
view in the literature that creativity is becoming commodified and this marketplace mindset is
merging into education and economic discourses (Harris, 2016). Others see creativity’s role in
business today as an opportunity to gift children knowledge and skills to be entrepreneurial and
create financial, cultural or social value (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). It is interesting to note here that
the children’s quotes solely related to financial value. During the focus groups children discussed
novelty influencing science and technological advancement. This included a Year 4 student
mentioning the invention of a perpetual motion machine.
Facilitator: So, can you think about something creative in the world you find interesting
or impressive?
Ethan: There’s this guy who has this Youtube channel and he worked at NASA for nine
years and he works on crazy inventions and they all work. There’s heaps of those people
on Youtube.
Facilitator: So, do you think scientists use creativity?
Ethan. Yeah. A lot. Also, I watch heaps of videos of people attempting to make perpetual
motion machines. Machines that fuel themselves. You need a lot of creativity to create
those. – Year 4
In the Year 4 focus group, the children communicated that novel creative products can range from
the everyday, like the lightbulb, to world changing, like a perpetual motion machine. Within the
literature, creativity is often linked to scientific or technological advancement. Cropley (2017)
posits that novel creative products are society’s reaction to change. He equates creativity with
new solutions to new problems (Cropley, 2017). In this study, children connected novelty and
91
creativity with pushing the fields of science and technology forward. When considering Research
Question 1, they described novel thinking and invention as something creativity “does”.
Process
When exploring the concept of creativity, children described creativity as a process that did not
need to result in a finished product. Children reported their creative process involving multiple
stages with many emotions. The notion of creativity as a process was clearly communicated as a
facet of what creativity does. Feelings and understandings are independent yet important aspects
of creativity (Carofoli, 2017). Creativity literature supports the children in this study’s varied
emotional responses and connects the differing emotions with differing stages of the creative
process.
Some of the emotions described in the focus groups were negative. The children mentioned
feeling bored or frustrated.
Facilitator: So, it’s not always fun?
Laird: Sometimes it’s hard.
Jonty: And sometimes it’s a bore.
Facilitator: So, all of those things rolled into one?
Jonty: Yes, but it will pay off in the end. – Year 4
Facilitator: How does that feel when [creativity] happens?
Mason: I feel really happy and joyful.
Facilitator: All the time though when you’re being creative?
Mason: Not all the time. When something goes wrong I kind of get a little bit cross with
myself. Because I didn’t get the thing I wanted to get right right. – Year 2
During the creative process, effort in applying varied strategies resulting in continued failure can
lead to a mental stalemate (Doyle, 2016). Sapp (1992, p. 21) refers to this stalemate as “the point
of creative frustration”. This stalemate leads the creator to reflect on their previous attempts in
order to identify new avenues (Doyle, 2016). This reflection can often lead to thinking more about
oneself and their abilities than solving the problem at hand, with self‐criticism and self‐doubt
92
emerging (Doyle, 2016). These moments of creative frustration are ideal teaching moments and
can aid children in learning to self‐regulate their emotions (Doyle, 2016).
Children in this study also discussed feeling positive emotions while being creative. These
emotions included happiness, joy and excitement.
Georgie: I feel happy and umm excited to know what it might be and how it will work. ‐
Prep
Mila: Once, when we were making our animal habitats I made a bridge for mine and I
wondered how I could stand it up because it was only paper. Then I got an idea and I got
a square piece of cardboard for each side of the bridge and then I stuck it down in my
habitat so it would stand up.
Facilitator: How did you feel when you solved that problem?
Mila: I was actually kind of proud of myself. – Year 1
Positive emotions like excitement and pleasure can result after having an “aha” or “Eureka”
moment (Doyle, 2016). The children also articulated joy and pride; positive emotions associated
with creative thought (Amabile et al., 2005). Csikszentmihalyi (1996) claims the quality most
consistent with creative people is their ability to find enjoyment in process. Creative individuals in
varying fields, including science, art and IT, describe similar positive emotions to those the children
described, such as fun, pride and excitement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). This connection to positive
emotions is known as “affective pleasure in challenge” or “affective pleasure in problem solving”
and relates to the interplay of excitement and tension when one is absorbed in a task that involves
solving a problem or a mystery (Russ, 2011, p. 449).
In relation to Research Question 1, it is clear the children in this study saw the varying feelings
attached to the ups and downs of creativity as part of “what creativity does”. They detailed both
positive and negative experiences as part of the process, aligning with the literature (Amabile et
al., 2005; Doyle, 2016; Russ, 2011). Participants mentioned that often mistakes in the creative
process resulted in learning. Children described how when they work creatively their mistakes and
their unfinished ideas or projects can become re‐contextualised later on in future work.
Facilitator: Is it always fun though? Are there times when it isn’t?
93
Mason: Sometimes when things go wrong you want to go right it can sometimes be
annoying. But if you make a mistake, you can always learn from that and you can make
other things with mistakes. – Year 2
Oscar: Yeah, I think you can start something and if you don’t feel like finishing it you don’t
have to.
Charli: You can always come back to it later. Or you don’t even have to finish it at all.
Facilitator: If you don’t finish it do you still think it’s been worthwhile?
Charli: Yes.
Oscar: Because you’ve enjoyed the time you’re doing it.
Joni: You can learn new stuff to apply, like to apply the stuff from that thing to another
thing. – Year 6
Within their work for the European Commission on the Entrepreneurship Competence
Framework, Bacigalupo et al. (2016) present creativity as developing multiple ideas and
opportunities and re‐combining knowledge and resources to achieve higher quality solutions to
old and new problems. This way of thinking embraces making mistakes. Developing creativity
means understanding the role mistakes play in the creative process (Rothschild, 2014). Children
being curious about new possibilities and being resilient and responsive to challenge is what builds
a mindset ready to take action on ideas (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2018).
Children in this study acknowledged that the process of creativity involves particular ways of
thinking. They mentioned imagination, improving ideas and combining ideas.
Ella: My mum is creative with cooking. Because she can put like, melted marshmallows
into cupcakes and muffins and it’s really nice. And she crushes up, she sometimes puts
like sprinkles in, not like on the icing but like inside the cupcake or muffin.
Facilitator: Where does she get those ideas from?
Ella: From her imagination. – Year 1
Commentators also explore multiple ways of thinking that are associated with the creative
process. Robinson (2011 p. 49) lists “critical judgement as well as imagination, intuition and often
gut feelings” as involved in the creative process. Others add innovation, originality, lateral thinking
94
and divergent thinking (DiYanni, 2015). Greene (1995, p. 19) simplified creative thinking to looking
at things “as if they could be otherwise”.
This notion from Greene links to imagination. Vygotsky (2004) proposed that imagination is the
ability to see what is not seen and gives human beings the opportunity to broaden their
experience by conceptualising different realities and other’s experiences. Imagination is widely
reported to be key in creative thinking (DiYanni, 2015; Robinson, 2017; Vygotsky, 2004).
The children in this study mentioned working and reworking their ideas. They described improving
their own ideas or collaborating with others to better ideas.
Gypsy: ... you can think of something and try to improve it. – Year 2
Oscar: Maybe I’ll come up with an idea that my friend will improve it and we’ll keep going
until it’s exactly what we want. – Year 6
The children discussed working alone or collaborating to improve their ideas. The core of creativity
is alternatives; other possibilities, imaginings, ideas and actions (DiYanni, 2015).
Children also linked the concept of creativity to thinking differently. They mentioned creativity as
thinking of unusual ideas that others do not come up with. The children also made connections to
thinking laterally as opposed to logically.
Jonty: I think they [scientists] can use it for solutions. Umm because scientists or a lot of
people might be thinking a logical way but they might think something different and it
might turn out to work. Like in a not logical way. – Year 3
Facilitator: Can you tell me about that? What does that mean for you?
Joni: Like thinking about stuff in kind of different ways. Not completely logical sometimes.
‐ Year 6
The children in this study connected lateral and divergent thinking as part of their creative process.
This connection is also common throughout the literature. Both lateral thinking and divergent
thinking relate to generating many ideas or outcomes (Rawlinson, 2017). This way of thinking is
also linked to making unusual connections (Rawlinson, 2017) and thinking on multiple planes at
95
once (Koestler, 1975). When engaging in the creative process thinking is fluid and flexible (DiYanni,
2015). Creative thinking often happens in metaphors or analogies or even reworking the original
question to generate new possibilities (Robinson, 2017).
The children articulated multiple examples of creativity relating to a process involving unusual
connections and new possibilities. They associated creativity with reinventing or repurposing
already existing ideas or objects such as boxes, palm tree leaves, cardboard crown or old toys.
The children described moments of excitement as they transformed an already existing object
into something else. They also mentioned learning about the versatility of materials.
Mila: Once I was in Fiji and a man called William made me this really cool hat made out of
palm tree leaves, this really cool umm tree hat and umm bag. And that’s how I think
people can be creative. He made it out of leaves! – Year 1
Facilitator: Can you think of any adults that you hang out with who help you be creative?
Mila: My grandma because once me and my brother were at our grandma’s and we made
crowns out of cardboard and a practice crown almost went to no use but then Harry
wanted to be a knight and my grandma got the useless crown and made it into an
awesome knight helmet and I thought it was really creative. – Year 1
Richards (2007, p. 26) describes the link between creativity and reinvention as “everyday
creativity”. Everyday creativity encompasses acting with flexibility, improvisation and being open
to alternatives. Creativity involves seeing an object, problem or possibility in an expansive way
(Rawlinson, 2017). This expansive vision leads to making connections others may see as “wild or
foolish” or not linked to the original object or concept at all (Rawlinson, 2017, p. 6). Creative
thinkers see possibilities in raw materials that are unseen by others (Adair, 2007).
When exploring the concept of process, the children described emotions, mistakes and re‐
contextualising knowledge being related to creativity. They see the creative process as part of
what creativity does. They also communicated that using different ways of thinking was part of
the creative process.
96
Problem Solving
Within the focus groups children closely related problem solving to what creativity does. They
mentioned problem solving in terms of personal experience and more broadly when discussing
what humans use creativity for. Throughout the literature creativity has always had a strong
connection with problem solving (Craft, 2001b). Broadly, problem solving is moving successfully
from a less desirable situation to a more desirable goal state (Ward, 2011). Creativity is needed
for a majority of problem‐solving tasks and is most prominent in indistinct problems or those
associated with reworking or gaining insight (Ward, 2011).
Facilitator: Overall, what do you think humans use creativity for?
Mabel: I think they use it for problem solving and I think they use it because it can be
quite enjoyable being creative. – Year 2
Facilitator: So, can you tell me what you think humans use creativity for?
Joni: It could be also be for problem solving because it opens your mind up to different
possibilities. – Year 6
The children articulated problem‐solving and their creativity are interrelated. They discussed the
relationship between creativity and problem solving in four different areas — everyday life,
personal conflict, science and social justice. Examples of each of these are now provided.
Creativity is made up of a variety of processes (Gillespie et al., 2015). Included in these processes
is problem solving everyday challenges (Gillespie et al., 2015). This everyday type of creativity is
known as “little c” or “personal creativity” (Craft, 2001b). The children often linked thinking
creatively to successfully functioning day to day.
Mabel: I think that creativity is actually very important because if you weren’t creative …
you wouldn’t be able to do things I guess. Like if you weren’t creative then there might be
a really hard way to solve a problem and that’s the logical way of doing it but if you’re not
creative then you’re not going to get it done. You’re not going to solve the problem. You’re
not going to be able to do things and you’re not going to be able to understand as many
things so I think it’s quite important to be creative. ‐ Year 3
97
Jonty: I think it’s important because if you didn’t have it you would have mental problems
because you couldn’t work anything out. ‐ Year 3
Sabine: Yeah, because like, you also have to use creativity for problem solving. Like,
because we all have to use problem solving like every day. ‐ Year 5
The problem solving the children mentioned included resolving personal conflict in creative ways.
Conflict resolution, alongside intrinsic motivation and curiosity, is one of the major motivational
systems important to creativity (Russ, 2011).
Facilitator: So, what do humans use creativity for?
Sabine: Problem solving.
Facilitator: Can you talk about some small examples versus some big examples?
Sabine: Some big ones would be like family. Stuff happening in their life.
Leo: Breaking up with their boyfriend.
Sabine: Or husband.
Leo: Or wife.
Facilitator: So how to navigate relationships, you can use creativity? Can you give me an
example of how in a breakup you might use creativity?
Sabine: Your friends supporting you. Because that usually helps heaps.
Facilitator: But how does the problem solving in relationships link to creativity?
Lotte: Come up with different ideas to things.
Leo: Yeah, like come up with different things to say to them.
Sabine: Or maybe to get over it you have to come up with different ideas. Like to forget
about it maybe do different sports or…
Facilitator: So, Leo, you’re talking about using creativity for how to approach the situation
and Sabine you’re talking about using creativity to help you move on in a healthy way?
Leo & Sabine: Yeah. – Year 5
The children also strongly associated the problem‐solving aspect of creativity with science and to
solving social justice issues like equal rights or solving environmental issues.
Facilitator: So, all of you have mentioned the environment again.
Oscar: It’s a big problem that needs to be solved.
98
Facilitator: Do you guys think about it often?
Joni: Yes.
Oscar: Yep.
Facilitator: Do you just think about it because you hear about it or are you stressed about
it? Worried?
Joni: Sad sometimes.
Oscar: It’s a big problem that the Earth is being destroyed…
Joni: …by people…
Oscar: Yeah.
Joni: And before humans came along everything was fine so we kind of need to fix it
because otherwise we are going to have nowhere else to live and probably cause the
extinction of ourselves.
Facilitator: So, you guys honestly feel like you’re going to use your creativity to help the
planet right now?
All: Yes.
Joni: To find new ways of solving problems. ‐Year 6
Creativity offers “new practical means to act in the world” (Gillespie et al., 2015, p. 131). There is
complexity, conflict and uncertainty in society and everyday life resulting in many problems to
solve (Gillespie et al., 2015). Creativity and social change are commonly tied to groups working
together. Sharing a vision with others when working to elicit societal change can have great effect
(John‐Steiner, 2015). Being able to imagine a better future together is the first step in creating
change (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2016). Kampylis and Valtaren (2010, p. 191) call this “conscientious
creativity”.
Within education, creative thinking pedagogy often incorporates problem‐solving skills. New
curriculum is being developed to engage children with problem solving related to their worlds
outside of school (Schliemann, Carraher, & Brizuela, 2007). Problem‐solving real‐world issues and
situations for children is proven to increase their motivation (Adams & Hamm, 2013).
The participants in this study described creativity as a powerful tool to creatively solve small
everyday problems, significant personal problems and problems affecting society and the
environment. These findings echo the literature, suggesting the move towards children working
on solving real‐world problems is highly beneficial as it promotes both personal motivation and
creative thinking.
99
Tensions between creativity and schooling
Younger children in this study described learning and creativity as separate activities. They did not
link the notion of their learning in the school environment with what creativity does. Literature
and education policy internationally over the past 20 years clearly identifies the link between
creativity and successful learning (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010; Craft, Jeffrey, & Leibling, 2001;
McCallum, 2012; NACCCE, 1999; OFSTED, 2010; QCA, 2005; Roberts, 2006, Safford & Barrs, 2005;
Starko, 2014). Creativity appears at the forefront of Australian curriculum documents. The
Australian Curriculum Assessment Reporting Authority aims to deliver “creative individuals” and
places creative thinking alongside literacy and numeracy when describing the qualities and skills
needed by young Australians (Australian Curriculum, 2015, para. 1). It is interesting to note
creativity’s strong presence in both Australian policy and curriculum documents and the
disconnect between the young children in this study’s understanding of the concept of creativity
and the idea of it occurring in their daily schooling. Starko (2017) claims teaching children explicitly
about creativity is key. Discussing the creative process, creative individuals and strategies that
generate creative ideas teaches children the skills and attitudes they need (Starko, 2017).
The children in the younger grades who participated in this study described tensions between
creativity and schooling. These tensions included viewing creativity and learning being different
and creativity as being tiring.
Facilitator: Do you think you would learn any differently if you got to do more creative
activities at school?
Olive: Maybe. Because creative art is not really learning. Maybe at school if we’re doing
something creative we’re kind of learning. You have to, the most important thing to learn
is neat writing, learn to read, learn to spell things you don’t really know how to spell and
learn really, really long words that you don’t know. – Year 1
Mason: I do like the creativity writing a little bit more but I do like learning new things
doing the writing, just the normal writing.
Facilitator: So, you like the balance?
Mason: Of learning something and also using your creativity. – Year 2
100
The children communicated that the concept of creativity was for home or lunchtime and not for
the classroom.
Facilitator: Would you like to change how often you get to be creative?
Mabel: Actually no. I don’t think I’d like to change that. I’m creative about 50% of the time
and I’m not creative 50% of the time. Like school takes up a large amount of that 50%
where I’m not creative. And maybe homework and other things but then the there’s a lot
of time during the day when I am creative like at art classes or maybe swimming in the
pool. Things like that. Or maybe a party. – Year 3
Facilitator: So, for you school is very separate from imagination and creativity?
Joni: Unless we’re doing writing or art or something but that doesn’t happen that much.
Oscar: I find school is kind of like a whole other world to home where you’re like mucking
around. – Year 6
The children associated art, sport, socialising, writing and play with creativity but not every day
schooling. It is possible the children made these connections in relation to the concept of freedom
of choice. The idea of autonomy being linked to the role creativity plays in their lives was
prominent in the data and will be addressed in detail in the discussion of findings relating to
Research Question 2 (Section 5.3).
The participants also introduced a surprising theme when discussing learning in relation to
creativity, which was that creativity was too special for daily school life.
Facilitator: So, Gypsy, when we’re talking about writing stories like that, would you like to
change how often you get to write them and be creative?
Gypsy: Yeah, because usually we only get to be creative on Fridays when we’re writing. If
I did get to change it I’d probably change it to about…hmmm how often? I’d want to
change it to quite a lot but not so much that I didn’t feel it was special anymore. ‐ Year 2
Jonty: I don’t think you could change it because there’s a good balance of not creative
things and creative things. Because if everything was creative the earth would be crazy.
Facilitator: Do you think?
Jonty: Yes. There’d be trees growing upside down and weird buildings.
101
Facilitator: Laird?
Laird: Not really. Because if you had holidays all the time then it wouldn’t be fun because
you’d just be having holidays all the time.
Mabel: I also agree with Laird. I also want to add that I think if you were creative all the
time that creativity wouldn’t be very special but if you’re creative some of the time and
some not when you are creative it seems it feels really nice. If it was all the time it would
just be normal so… I guess you do have to sometimes not be creative. – Year 3
It is unknown why children felt so strongly about the concept of creativity being special. Further
study would be needed to confirm their ideas around concept. Three different presumptions are
presented here. Possibly, the children made the connection between creative activities and
positive emotions, such as having fun and they see “fun” activities as rare or “special” in their
schooling. It is also a possibility the children connected creativity with autonomy. They see the
activities they do at school in which they navigate their own learning as “special”. Third, it is
possible the children associated creative activities at school with encounters that took time and
changed their normal school routines. These learning experiences may have involved ”special”
school experiences which were out of the ordinary like excursions, technology tasks, unusual art
activities, extended lesson time or a class visitor.
The children also articulated that creativity and learning should be separate because being more
creative at school would be tiring and time consuming.
Facilitator: So, thinking about all those things we just talked about, I want you to use your
imaginations and tell me how you’d feel in a classroom that used creativity to help you
learn for all those activities.
Mason: I already imagined that my brain would get tired and I would need more time to
think up new ideas while my brain is getting ready for the next question.
Gypsy: I think we’d start falling behind because we wouldn’t get as many things done. It
would take quite a while to, like, think up new ideas. – Year 2
The Office for Standards in Education (2010) in the UK found teachers also believe that more
creativity in schools would be tiring and time consuming. The teachers voiced that “allowing pupils
to explore ideas through a creative process of trial, error and revision generally proved more time‐
consuming than firmly teacher‐directed activities” (OFSTED, 2010, p. 11). The children described
102
the disconnect between learning and creativity in a variety of ways. When discussing creativity as
a concept they did not relate it to their everyday schooling – an interesting and surprising finding.
Developing Creativity
When discussing the concept of creativity and what it does, the children described creativity as
something that can be developed. They mentioned exposure to creativity or novelty, practice and
learning from others as ways to foster creativity. Children as young as the Preparatory Year
articulated these methods.
Key creativity scholars have similar opinions on developing creativity. Vygotsky’s (1998) beliefs on
creativity align with the children’s ideas. He proposed that creativity developed through
experience (Vygotsky, 1998). This experience includes encounters with the self and their
environment, interactions with others and participation in society (Vygotsky, 1998).
Csikszentmihalyi (1996 p. 23) built on Vygotsky’s work and claims “creativity does not happen in
people’s heads, but in the interaction between a person’s thoughts and a sociocultural context”.
Robinson (2011) states there are many ways to develop your own or assist to develop others’
creativity. The children described exposure to creativity or novelty as important ways to develop
creativity.
Within the literature, the concepts of conventionality are linked to creativity. With exposure to
unconventional methods, ideas or beliefs, children see conventions as a single information source
(Runco, 2014). The children in this study mentioned exposure to creativity through parents as
significant. This connection is also evident in creativity literature as it is reported family plays a
central role in developing one’s creativity (Cropley, 1967).
Facilitator: So would you all agree that every human baby is born with creativity?
Ethan: You have to experience other creativity to develop what your own creativity is. ‐
Year 4
Laura: Sometimes I think parents kind of help by taking you to museums and art centres
and seeing performances.
Ethan: Yeah, and then they can build on their creativity over time.
Facilitator: How do you do that?
103
Ethan: If their Father or someone was a designer or a painter, they’d get exposed to lots
of creativity.
Laura: If they’re around it when they’re younger, like when they’re like our age it will
never leave them. – Year 4
When discussing the development of creativity children often brought up learning through
practice.
Joni: Well, I think if you practise more creative stuff you’ll be more creative because you’ll
spend more of your time doing it than if you didn’t do so much. – Year 6
Mason: I think that it’s kind of like muscle. If you practise it, it kind of grows bigger. – Year
2
Within the literature, creativity is now believed to be something one can practise, not something
one is born with (Kelley & Kelley, 2012; Puccio, 2012). Through neuroscience we can see how deep
practice of creative activities results in the ability to correct mistakes rapidly and to continuously
generate possible solutions to various problems (Coyle, 2009).
Children in this study also discussed how one’s creativity changes over time. They reported that,
if used, one’s creativity would expand in different ways.
Charli: You might like playing imaginary friends with someone when you’re younger but
then eventually you grow up and you start to be creative in different ways so you might
like doing more art or sport and stuff where you can be more creative. – Year 6
During the focus groups the children mentioned how different creative experiences have satisfied
and challenged them in different ways as they have grown older. Runco (2014) claims creative
potential covers a lifetime. Finding creativity in one’s early to mid‐twenties, when problem‐finding
and problem‐solving skills have matured, describes the postformal stage of development (Runco,
2014). Artists who produce work well into their 70s and 80s have been known to continually grow,
learn and improve creatively (Lindauer et al., 1997).
104
Children articulated that creativity was related to building resourcefulness. This resourcefulness
included developing life skills and self‐sufficiency. Children often made connections between
resourcefulness and their grandmas.
Facilitator: Who do you know who you think is creative?
Ella: My grandma because we went out to the shops to buy materials to make a dress and
we did and it came with like all these instructions but my Grandma, she has made one
before so she didn’t need them. It was really fun. – Year 2
Charli: I can remember my Grandma taught me how to sew and since I’ve started I’ve kept
on learning new stuff with sewing. ‐Year 6
The students also discussed whose responsibility it is to develop creativity in children. They most
often reported that the responsibility of children to develop creativity fell to themselves, their
parents and their school. Runco (2014, p. 173) claims both parents and schools “need to present
opportunities, reinforce and model creativity” and it is up to both parties to ensure children reach
their full creative potential.
Only one focus group, Year 5, commented that it was not possible to develop your creativity.
Facilitator: So, what are your opinions on creativity being something that can be learnt
or practiced?
Lotte: Not really. I don’t think it can be taught or practiced because …
Leo: It comes to you…
Lotte: Yeah.
Facilitator: So, you can’t get better at it?
Sabine: Your body might get better but no one can teach you how to be more creative.
Lotte: You can’t go to creative class.
Facilitator: What if there was a creative class? What would it look like?
Leo: It would probably be a scam. – Year 5
Their thinking was that some people are more creative than others.
105
Lotte: I just think you grow up to be creative and some people are more naturally creative
than other people.
Sabine: I think some people think more outside of the box than other people. ‐ Year 5
During conversation with the children about developing creativity they articulated many ideas
similar to those within the literature. The children communicated exposure to creativity and
novelty fostered creativity. They also noted that practicing creativity was key in its cultivation. The
children also mentioned how people’s creativity can change over time and explored whose role it
is to develop creativity. The notion of “developing creativity” is an important part of exploring
children’s perspectives on what creativity does.
Advancing Society
In the focus groups children mentioned advancing society as part of what creativity does. For
example Ethan, from the Year 4 focus group.
Ethan: There should be some way to give everyone creativity and give everyone many
opportunities to use their creativity.
Facilitator: Why do you think that’s important?
Ethan: Because otherwise the human race would just stay the same and never advance.
– Year 4
Amabile (2018, p. 1) makes Ethan’s point in a similar way “Every advance in the history of
humankind has resulted from creativity”. Hennessey and Amabile (2010, p. 570) also claim
creativity is “one of the key factors that drive civilization forward”. Csikszentmihalyi (2018)
emphasises that creativity is more about the future than it is about the present.
Within the literature, creativity is most commonly linked with the advancement of science and
technology. Innovation in these sectors is generally domain specific and may have altruistic
outcomes. Edwards (2010) notes that creativity often benefits individuals rather than society. He
claims creativity is less concerned with preventing human suffering and more concerned with
lifestyle convenience (Edwards, 2010). This creativity is driven by a free market economy and,
therefore, by those who are able to pay for it (Edwards, 2010). Thinking about creativity as an
altruistic endeavour on its own is uncommon in the literature. However, when discussing societal
advancement through creativity the children communicated a strong sense of altruism.
106
Facilitator: What do think humans use creativity for?
Ella: To make people’s lives better. ‐ Year 2
Facilitator: So, all your talent in maths and art and design, if you could channel all of that
and create something in your life and then die and go into history books what would you
have wanted to create in your lifetime?
Ethan: I’d have wanted to create something that, I dunno, I’d want to create something,
figure out something about that no one knew. And design a machine that I
could…something that would make everything a lot easier and not to be rich just to be,
just for me to feel good. ‐ Year 4
Warneken and Tomasello’s (2009) found, through their work with children, that humans are
naturally predisposed to be altruistic. They claim that society and culture do not instil altruism in
children but that this way of being is fostered. With this notion in mind, it is interesting that the
children in these focus groups saw creativity as a genuine way to contribute.
Within the focus groups and the literature science and technological innovation are mentioned
often as examples of creativity product outcome. Many working in the field of creativity see
creativity’s ability to advance society through science or technology as a way out of major social
and environmental problems (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010).
Facilitator: What else? What do we use creativity for?
Mason: To figure out things people want to know. Like scientists because they have to
use creativity to build a rocket that go further than any rocket that’s ever been invented.
– Year 2
The children communicated that, possibly, creativity was what caused so many problems
originally. They linked this idea with environmental destruction.
Facilitator: What would our life be like if everyone stopped being creative?
Mason: It would be boring but that would mean we would have more oxygen, better
oxygen.
Facilitator: How come?
107
Mason: Because if people didn’t have creativity this very building would not have been
made and then trees produce oxygen. – Year 2
The children did also articulate creativity as a way of addressing these major environmental issues.
This included renewable energy and sustainability for all.
Facilitator: So, do you find that creativity and helping the environment are linked
in any way?
Joni: Yes, because they always need new ways to…because often when you need to help
the environment you need to help people too. Like people are poaching animals but you
need to help the people because they’re poor and they don’t have any other jobs so
there’s new creative ways of helping those people and the animals at the same time. ‐
Year 6
Creativity literature explores the idea that creativity can be used immorally and unethically
(Kampylis & Valtanen, 2010; Runco, 2017; Csikszentmihalyi, 2018). Most commentators claim,
similarly to Amabile (2018, p. 13), that creativity “can be powerful and can be pointed in harmful
directions as well as beneficial ones”.
One way the children saw creativity being beneficial was advancing social and political issues. This
perspective is a more recent direction that creativity researchers and commentators have been
moving towards. Kaufman’s (2017) is moving in the direction of exploring how creativity can
advance equity and social justice. He sees potential for creativity as a tool that can give strength
and agency to all (Kaufman, 2018). Csikszentmihalyi (2018, p. xvii) has been researching creativity
for over 50 years and now sees creativity as a way to “implement new ideas in the area of mutual
tolerance and cooperative behaviour”.
This example is from the Year 5 focus group and describes using problem solving to address gender
equality at a soccer club.
Facilitator: If I gave you all the time and money that you needed to do the most creative
thing you can think of, what would you like to do?
Sabine: I’ve got something but it’s already kind of happening. At my soccer club the girls’
bathrooms were all dirty and there were only boys change rooms now if you could extend
108
it so like the girls’ bathrooms could be clean and there could be girls change rooms so it
would be easy for girls to feel comfortable trying to get changed or something. ‐ Year 5
With the topics of advancing society through altruism, social justice and equity, the children
described creativity’s role in society extending beyond the focus of much of the literature. It is
clear the children in this study made strong connections between creativity and its effect on the
world around them. Listening to children was the aim of this research question to children
describe what creativity does. It is evident that the children saw creativity as an important aspect
in advancing society in multiple ways.
Innate Quality
Children from the Preparatory Year to Year 6 described creativity as an innate quality in all
humans.
Facilitator: So, do you think everyone is creative?
Maddy: Yes. Even my baby who’s only one does scribbles. And he once scribbled on a
library book. ‐ Prep
Facilitator: So, from that answer you believe both kids and adults experience creativity?
Sabine: Everyone does, pretty much, every day. – Year 5
This viewpoint is reflected in contemporary literature. Before the 1950s, however, creativity was
linked to the notion of genius, with a select few in society producing creative work mainly in the
fields of science or art (Glaveanu & Glaveanu, 2011). Advances in psychology in the 1950s changed
the paradigm and creativity evolved into an attribute individuals possess from birth (Glaveanu &
Glaveanu, 2011). For the last 20 years, the idea that everyone engages in creativity every day is
known as “ordinary” or “democratic creativity” (Craft, 2001b, NCCCE, 1999).
During the focus group conversations, the children raised the idea that everyone was creative, but
some don’t develop their creativity.
Facilitator: Who else is creative?
Ella: Kids. Kids are creative.
109
Facilitator: All of them? Or only some of them? What do you think?
Mason: I think all of them. All of them have creativity inside them, sometimes they just
don’t use it. – Year 2
Runco (2014, p. 39) makes a similar point to Mason, “everyone has the potential to be creative,
but not everyone fulfils that potential”.
The children most often explained they were unsure why people do not fill their creative potential.
Laura from Year 4 offered the theory that opportunity of and exposure to creative experiences
was key.
Laura: I guess given the chance to be creative they [people] would be more creative. If
they’re not given the chance, they wouldn’t be. ‐ Year 4
The children also mentioned that when people use their creativity they show it in differing
domains and fields.
Facilitator: So, do you think everyone is creative?
Charli: Yes. In their own ways.
Facilitator: In their own ways. What do you mean by that?
Charli: Like someone might not like to do art but they’re still creative in different way. –
Year 6
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) explains these different ways of being creative as domains; for example,
painting, guitar, slam poetry or architecture. When the children described the concept of
creativity in terms of “what creativity does” they strongly communicated that everyone is born
with creative potential. This viewpoint is shared by key commentators and creativity researchers.
5.3 Research Question 2‐ What role does creativity play in children’s lives?
5.3.1 Background
From the data it was evident that creativity plays a broad role in children’s lives. It is a tool widely
used to better understand their internal worlds. The children reported creativity as a way they
experience autonomy, explore who they are and engage with their imagination. Children also
discussed creativity as a means to better understand their external worlds. This understanding
110
was achieved through developing relationships with their bodies, their learning, the natural world
and their friends and family.
Overall, the dominant theme that emerged was autonomy. When discussing the role creativity
played in their lives, the majority of children across all year levels linked creativity to feeling
independent and making their own choices. The circumstances and environments around this
autonomy varied. Examples given by the participants included experiencing autonomy in
mathematics problem‐solving lessons at school, playing imaginary games in trees with cousins and
designing time machines at the dinner table after homework.
The theme that produced deeper responses than anticipated was creativity’s role in children’s
learning. There is prevalence in the literature around this topic and the children communicated
many ideas found within research and commentary. The children articulated responses which
were more insightful and assured than expected. From Year 4 onwards the children discussed how
experiences with creative thinking, creative teaching and teaching for creativity affected their
engagement. The children also clearly articulated how experiences with creativity impacted their
enjoyment of school and noted the positive role of creativity.
5.3.2 Overview
This research question is explored in two sections. The first section is the role creativity plays in
children’s internal worlds. This section discusses responses reflecting on how the children
experience autonomy, explore self and engage with imagination. The second section addresses
the role creativity plays in children’s external worlds, including how creativity is used to develop
relationships with their bodies, their learning, the natural world and their friends and family.
Findings for both will be discussed in sequence.
5.3.3 The Role of Creativity in Children’s Internal World
This section focuses on the role creativity plays in the children’s internal worlds. It explores how
the children discussed developing self‐knowledge and self‐awareness through creativity. Children
described experiencing autonomy, exploring self and engaging with imagination as three key ways
creativity assisted them in understanding more about themselves. When discussing experiences
of creativity, the children consistently linked feelings and notions of autonomy. Responses
111
indicated that the children associated creativity with making their own choices and feeling free.
They often related creativity with experiencing life outside of adult influence, instruction or gaze
and related these autonomous creative experiences with experimentation and play.
The children explained how engaging in creative experiences guided them to explore who they
are. They described how creativity helped them to learn more about their interests and aided
them in understanding their own strengths and weaknesses. The children communicated that
creative experiences helped them understand their own boundaries in relation to their abilities.
They described how creative experiences taught them new knowledge and skills and developed
their risk taking. During discussions children also made connections between creativity and self‐
expression. They explained that creativity enabled them to show others who they are and to
communicate their emotions. Often this was done within the arts. Responses indicated children
described creative thinking and making as cures for their boredom and they regularly associated
feelings of happiness and relaxation when they were describing moments of being independently
creative.
During the focus groups, children across the age levels articulated that engaging with creativity
enabled them to freely use their imagination. The three key areas which they described as being
strongly influenced were imaginative play, the arts and creative writing. The following section is
divided into three parts ‐ experiencing autonomy, exploring self and engaging with imagination.
Each part is organised by relevant subheadings.
Developing Self Through: Experiencing Autonomy
Children across all focus groups in this study expressed the key function creativity served in their
lives was to offer them experiences of autonomy. It was common for the children to link creativity
with making their own choices. Within a school setting this included creative writing and open‐
ended mathematics activities. Outside school, children linked making their own choices to playing
at home, being given permission by parents to carry out a task using their own ideas or working
on a self‐determined project at a local children’s art studio. The children linked creativity with
feeling free.
Mabel: … creativity gives you a lot of different choices. Like, you’re kind of free to do
whatever you want to do. Like, you don’t have to follow the rule. You don’t have to colour
112
in the lines. You can maybe add something to it. You don’t have to follow the rules when
it comes to creativity. – Year 3
Younger students often connected free‐time in the classroom and creativity. The children voiced
that creativity was a vehicle for them experiencing their own existence outside of adult gaze,
influence or instruction and doing their own experimenting. These experiences often happened
alone or with siblings, cousins or friends.
Ceci and Ryan (1987, p. 1025) define autonomy as “action that is chosen for which one is
responsible”. Children engage autonomously when they make choices and act on those choices
(Stefanou, Stolk, Prince, Chen, & Lord, 2013). In this study the children articulated varying
scenarios in which creativity related to making their own choices.
Within a school setting there are strong links between children’s creativity and their autonomy.
Lassig (2012a) found, alongside opportunities for creativity, the balance between autonomy and
structure was the most important environmental factor influencing students’ creativity at school.
Many characteristics associated with creativity are also associated with student autonomy;
independence in judgement, willingness to take risks and perseverance (Starko, 2017). Children
in this study often linked their creativity with open‐ended activities at school.
Mabel: I kind of think I first learnt about creativity when I was in Kindy and I had this
teacher… she would put out all sorts of crazy things and everyone would just splatter them
on the table which had paper on it. Some kids would try and draw certain things like
shapes but other kids went a bit crazy so it was really creative what someone could come
up with. – Year 3
Open‐ended activities are activities that offer students free choice in relation to content, process
and product (Hertzog, 1997). Open‐ended questions encourage children to use their own thinking
and experimentation (Church, 2002). They facilitate the opportunity for children to look at a task
or problem from different perspectives and to solve problems in their own ways (Beghetto &
Kaufman, 2014; Church, 2002). Children are able to define the task and make connections to their
own interests and skills (Starko, 2017). Open‐ended activities promote imagination and
exploration (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014). They offer children choice and support meaningful in‐
depth learning through intrinsic motivation (Starko, 2017).
113
At school, students in this study described feeling autonomous and creative in mathematics
lessons when they were able to make their own decisions when solving problems or when they
could create an individual problem to solve. For example:
Facilitator: What about the times in maths when you feel super creative? What is
happening then?
Laura: I guess we’re kind of making up our own things.
Tilly: One time we got to make up this map and we had to get somewhere.
Facilitator: And everyone’s map could be different?
Laura: Everybody’s map was different.
Facilitator: You remember that activity because…?
Laura: It was really interesting. You could use your imagination rather than having to copy
off questions off the board. – Year 4
Open‐ended activities in mathematics develop important components of mathematics learning
(Watson & Sullivan, 2008). These components include choosing one’s own emphasis and
approach, and fostering awareness around those choices (Watson & Sullivan, 2008). This decision
making creates engagement due to increasing the students’ sense of control (Middleton, 1995).
Children in this study expressed feeling creative during creative writing sessions in which they
were provided with a prompt to work from but were able to take their own directions with their
story.
Facilitator: So, what do you enjoy about the creative writing process?
Leo: You get to do whatever you want.
Lotte: When we get to write about whatever we like what’s in our mind comes to life. It’s
kinda cool. ‐ Year 5
Choice in creative writing is essential to ensure children are engaged (Wilcox, 2016). To be
comfortable with these choices, children must be given opportunity to develop their own interests
(Wilcox, 2016).
The children in this study who attend the children’s art studio run by the researcher linked
experiences of creativity with the open‐ended project‐based philosophy employed at the studio.
114
Facilitator: Gypsy, can you tell me a time that you feel creative?
Gypsy: Probably at art class on Wednesdays because umm… for your project you can do
anything, you can make anything because you’re not copying somebody else. You can do
whatever you want and nobody is telling you what you have to do. – Year 2
A variety of art materials and an open‐ended activity promotes creativity, due to the opportunity
to take initiative and communicate interests (Harlan, 1993). Children having choice is a key
component of project‐based learning (Bell, 2010). Project‐based learning encourages motivation
to learn, deeper learning and deeper understanding (Bell, 2010). Each child engages their own
learning style when feeling challenged and motivated by project‐based learning (Bender, 2012).
When describing making their own decisions in their homes children in this study mentioned being
creative when parents granted them autonomy and also when they were spending time alone.
This included autonomy within a task requested by parents.
Mabel: I find on the weekend in the morning sometimes Mum will ask me, “Do I want to
make, say, the breakfast scrambled eggs in the morning?”. Maybe I can maybe add spring
onions into it and make it that or maybe I can add bacon or I can just, do it. So, I find it,
so, like, even when you bake a cake you can put different fillings or toppings or
decorations. You can be really creative. – Year 3
Children mentioned that the difference between school and home was the ability to make their
own decisions.
Facilitator: So, for you school is very separate from imagination and creativity?
Joni: Unless we’re doing writing or art or something but that doesn’t happen that much.
Oscar: I find school is kind of like a whole other world to home where you’re, like, mucking
around.
Facilitator: Yeah right.
Oscar: You can sort of more, umm, when you’re at home you’ve got more control over
what you can do. – Year 6
Within the literature the role of the family’s influence on a child’s creativity has been widely
explored. Wright and Wright (1986) found stimulation of independence to be one of the top three
ways parents can foster a creative family environment. This independence is promoted by parents
115
giving children the freedom to make decisions (Harrington, Block, & Block, 1987; MacKinnon,
1961). Families of creative children allow their children space to make mistakes (Kemple &
Nissenberg, 2000). Michel and Dudek (1991) found that children’s creativity develops when adults
allow children to make their own choices and take risks with new and unfamiliar ideas.
When discussing the concepts of creativity and autonomy, children in this study stated that
creativity meant they felt free. This freedom was an idea that included a lack of boundaries.
Tilly: To me, creativity is creating something original that expresses your feelings or
emotions.
Facilitator: So, it’s quite personal?
Tilly: Yeah. Nobody tells you what you can and can’t do. You just do it.
Facilitator: So, no boundaries?
Tilly: Yeah, no boundaries. If someone doesn’t like it, it doesn’t matter.
Ethan: Who cares?
Tilly: That’s their opinion, not yours. – Year 4
Autonomy and freedom are essential for creativity to develop (Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 2013).
The freedom to choose and make autonomous decisions is frequently emphasised as a necessary
condition to successfully harnessing creative potential (Gruber, 1997; Inglehart, 2000; Putnam,
1993; Seitz, 2003; Sternberg, 2003; Wei‐Ming, 2000). Giving children freedom to work on original
ideas and supporting imaginative thought and play fosters everyday creativity (Beghetto et al.,
2012). It can also be said that creativity affects freedom as Göncü, Jain and Tuermer (2007) and
Wells (2009) claim engaging with imaginative play, imagination and creativity over a lifetime
produces freedom of thought by “playing at” or “playing with” alternatives. Freedom is
fundamental and essential to both creativity and education (Vygotsky, 2004).
The children in the lower year levels in this study associated creativity with “free time”. For the
younger students, having free choice was a central component to their creative experiences at
school.
Facilitator: Is there anything else you feel at school you get to use your creativity for?
Olive: Reading books, having a nice play at free time on Friday when we come back from
swimming. ‐ Year 1
116
Creativity plays a key role during free play as children interact with their environment and their
peers (Canning, 2018, Sawyer, 1997). Children engage in creative thinking and doing as they
experiment with new ideas, take risks and follow their curiosity (Canning, 2018). During free play
children use creative thinking to problem solve and develop knowledge and learning (Jeffrey &
Craft, 2006). Engaging in free play during the early years develops and sustains creative thinking
by supporting children’s confidence in exploration and following interests (Canning, 2018).
Children in this study stated that they felt creative when spending time without adults. This feeling
included simply following their own interests when alone and included experimenting with food
or playing building and design games on Playstation.
Mabel: Umm yeah well… I like to be by myself and I find that sometimes when I’m by
myself I don’t have other people saying, “I don’t like that” “oh I like that” “don’t do that,
do this”. I find that when you’re by yourself you can really decide it so I do prefer if I’m by
myself. – Year 3
Time spent without adults included achieving creative feats in collaboration with other children.
This collaboration involved inventing new food with friends, building cubby houses or making up
cooking shows.
When children are free to make their own choices, they have the opportunity to challenge
themselves appropriately without pressure (Cambell Rightmyer, 2016). This freedom from
expectation enables children greater mental bandwidth to think and persevere through challenge
(Cambell Rightmyer, 2016). When children play without adults, they engage in interactions which
are more cognitively and socially demanding (Pellegrini & Holmes, 2006). Children’s creativity is
sustained when playing with friends and family due to the social interaction (Sawyer, 1997).
Through participating in shared experiences with others, children develop their creativity by
making connections about using resources in new ways (Rogers, 2000).
The second research question for this study explored the role creativity plays in children’s lives.
From the focus groups, it is evident that creativity plays a part in developing children’s autonomy.
Children across all year levels made connections between creative experiences and making their
own choices. The children described that engaging with creativity gave them a sense of freedom.
117
Children in this study saw creative thinking and doing as ways to explore and experiment without
adult intervention or influence.
Developing Self Through: Exploring Self
During the focus groups children described how engaging with creativity helped them explore
their internal world through developing identity. They made connections to learning about their
interests, strengths and weaknesses. They also explained how creative experiences enabled them
to test themselves and their abilities through risk‐taking. Children described how engaging with
creativity taught them new skills. Creativity was also linked to self‐expression and emotion. The
children in this study associated creativity as a cure for boredom and as a way they could
experience happiness, relaxation and entertainment.
The children discussed ways in which they engaged self‐exploration through creative experiences.
They saw creative activities and creative thought as a way to learn about themselves. Georgie,
from Prep, described learning how to become more creative.
Georgie: It’s because you get to know things, how to make different things that you’ve
never known how to do anything. It might be cool and you really like it. – Prep
Ethan, from Year 4, described the importance of learning to be creative relating to one’s autonomy
in the world. He saw creativity as a skill needed to function.
Facilitator: Do you think creativity’s important or just one thing that they have to learn?
Ethan: It’s really important. Otherwise they’ll just be stuck asking someone else what to
do their whole life and they won’t make their own decisions. – Year 4
The children also described creativity as an avenue through which they can further explore who
they are by testing themselves. This testing involved learning about their physical boundaries or
understanding their limits in ability or skill. The children discussed testing themselves by designing
new mountain bike tracks, thinking of creative ways to defeat opponents in soccer or inventing
new tricks on a skateboard or trampoline. Children also connected creativity and risk‐taking. They
linked being a creative person with living an interesting life, due to taking risks as a creative
person.
118
Facilitator: How does having creativity affect people’s lives?
Tilly: Their lives are always more interesting. Because they get to experience things like,
umm like lots of different art pieces or make up their own things. Whereas, if you’re not
being allowed to really be creative, you’re going to be stuck in one spot not knowing what
to do. Wondering if you should do something, rather than getting on with it and doing it
and seeing what it turns out like. ‐ Year 4
Sabine: Some people don’t think they are creative but it’s because they’re all shy and they
don’t want to try. But if they try and then nothing bad happens they might think, “oh I
could try again”. Then they get better and better at it. – Year 5
Curiosity and risk‐taking are universally associated with creativity (Amabile, 1996). May (1994)
called this “creative courage”. This courage can be expressed physically, socially or academically
(Morrongiello, Kane, Mcarthur, & Bell, 2011). Lebuda (2016) claims creative minds are aware of
their own weaknesses which makes them confident when attempting new or risky activities.
During the creative process risk‐takers can make mistakes, fail or experience embarrassment
(Sternberg, 2016). However, by taking risks others avoid, creative thinkers earn admiration and
respect from their peers (Sternberg, 2016). Few children’s risk taking extends to their schooling,
as they have learnt that risks in the classroom environment can be harmful (Sternberg, 2016)
because many educators discourage nonconformity (Ritchie, 1980).
In this study, children discussed creativity and learning new skills as additional ways to explore
themselves. This learning included new skills in general for self‐growth and independence.
Georgie: …You should always love doing different stuff because if you always do the same
thing you won’t learn anything else which is interesting. – Prep
The children spoke more specifically about gaining skills in a variety of creative pursuits including
song‐writing, drawing, soccer playing, inventing, creative writing and craft.
Openness to experience is regarded as the personality trait most strongly associated with
creativity (Batey & Furnham 2006; Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003; Feist, 1998; Feist & Barron,
2003; S. B. Kaufman, 2013; S. B. Kaufman et al., 2015; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McCrae,
1987; Silvia et al., 2008, 2009). Openness relates to “an individual’s preference for variety and
119
stimuli” (Woo et al., 2017, p. 29). Those who are curious and seek either novel intellectual or
experiential stimuli have the ability and motivation to gain new creative knowledge and skills
(Woo et al., 2017).
During the focus groups the children related the concepts of creativity and self‐expression. In their
own lives, the children linked creativity to showing their likes and preferences, communicating
their emotions and revealing their true personality.
Mabel: I find that creativity is like you can do what you want and it’s kind of like showing
a bit of who you are I’d say. Like if you make a puppy dog you can choose the colour of
the fur, if it’s going to be black or white and if you choose black then you probably like the
black puppy dog more than you like the white one. So, it kind of shows what you like best.
– Year 3
Creativity has always been seen as a form of self‐expression within the field of humanistic
psychology (Maslow, 1963; Rogers, 1961). Examining the concept of creativity as self‐expression
further, it has been presented as a way to express emotions and reorganise thoughts and ideas
(Emery, 1993; 2016, Jamison, 1989). In negative situations or environments, creativity aids in
maintaining a personal sense of freedom and calm (Benchoam, 1993).
The children connected expressing interests and emotions creatively with art making. They
mentioned this expression as a general fact about creativity but also a tool they personally use in
their daily life. This use included expressing their interest through the choice of subject matter
and style in their drawings and releasing emotions and ideas musically through writing songs.
Ethan: Humans use creativity to express themselves. Share their emotions through like
drawing or painting. – Year 4
Facilitator: What does the word creativity mean to you?
Laird: It’s a way to express yourself and stuff. Like, I like doing drawings of cities and stuff
and I get to decide what the buildings look like and sometimes I make them look really
weird. – Year 4
120
Lotte: I have this teacher who helps me sing and write songs and I love going there
because all of the stuff I don’t get to do at school, I can just let my imagination explode. I
make tons of songs. – Year 5
Self‐expression and the arts have a history of strongly influencing emotional wellbeing (Karkou &
Glasman, 2004). When making art, children feel free to express thoughts and emotions which
fosters positive self‐esteem (Englebright Fox, 2016). With exposure to continual rich art
experiences children build confidence in expressing themselves and learn more about who they
are (Dinham & Chalk, 2018). When children engage creatively with the arts they are sharing their
understandings of their world through processing their perceptions, emotions, thoughts and
experiences (Gardner, 1980; Malchiodi, 1998; Steele, 1998). The arts offer children a safe space
to refine and manage their emotions (Dinham & Chalk, 2018). Children develop self‐awareness
and awareness of others (Dinham & Chalk, 2018).
The children described using creativity as entertainment. This entertainment can be divided into
three sections: a source of happiness; a cure for boredom; and method for relaxation. Children
often associated happiness with creativity. They commonly used the word “fun” and “exciting” to
describe their experiences. The children articulated that happiness was either the motivation to
begin the creative activity or the result of their creative process. They discussed happiness when
inventing a new game or trick in front of peers, making art that was challenging and time
consuming or making gifts for others. The children also communicated that beginning a creative
project was a source of happiness due to its unpredictability.
Facilitator: Why does it make you feel happy?
Georgie: I feel happy and umm excited to know what it might be and how it will work. –
Prep
Facilitator: Can you tell me about how you felt making that robot?
Maddy: I felt excited and happy and I and I didn’t know it would turn out as well as it did.
– Prep
Often children linked using their imagination to happiness, due to the limitless and subjective
nature of imagination. They also noted that their parents showed happiness when engaging with
creativity in the home as they were connecting with their children.
121
Facilitator: When you watch them doing those things, cooking and playing guitar, how do
you think they are feeling?
Ella: Happy. Because they are spending time with us. Whenever they do it they are mainly
spending time with us while they are cooking or playing the guitar. – Year 2
There are links between happiness and intrinsically motivated creative work (Ceci & Kumar, 2016).
Intrinsic motivation is also associated with feelings of surprise and fun (Pretty & Seligman 1983;
Reeve et al., 1986). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) created the term “flow” for an experience of deep
focus and concentration. He claims “flow” provides a feeling of happiness after the session or
project is complete (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). These feelings of well‐being and satisfaction in daily
life lead to an overall greater sense of happiness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Daily moments of
creativity are strongly linked to positive emotions, openness to experience and conscientiousness
and promote feelings of personal achievement (Helfand et al., 2016).
"
The children in this study used the word “happy” to describe a creative person and also used the
word “bubbly”. They explained that a creative person might be happy because they generate lots
of enjoyable ideas that interest them and they feel motivated to try them. A Year 6 student
described her sister as being both creative and happy.
Joni: She’s creative so it makes her…since she’s got all the new ideas all the time she’s
always excited to do them…she’s generally more happy because she’s got lots of ideas
and she wants to do them. – Year 6
Children also described creativity as a tool they use to cure their boredom. This relief included
crafting at home, playing in the garden, drawing on a plane or drawing in general.
Facilitator: Do you find it a helpful aspect of your personality or do you find it difficult at
times?
Oscar: Most of the time I just find it helpful because it gives me something to do. – Year 6
Imagination and creativity can offer respite from boredom (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2016). Boredom
is personal to each individual, their needs and unique experience (Blakey, 2001). When boredom
is responded to, interests and self‐regulation are developed (Blakey, 2001). Boredom motivates
122
us to create a more interesting reality (Mann & Cadman, 2014). It leads to creativity and openness
(Mann & Cadman, 2014). Boredom is associated with “wanting” and this “wanting” can be the
catalyst for setting new goals or finding a satisfying activity (Bench & Lench, 2013; Elpidorou, 2018;
Mills & Christoff, 2018). The drive for change out of the current reality opens up potential for new
social, cognitive or emotional experiences (Bench & Lench, 2013).
During the focus groups, children described creativity as a tool to relax. They also explained that
it was when they were relaxed that they felt most creative. This was often at home in the garden,
backyard or indoors. Multiple children mentioned coming up with story ideas whilst relaxing in
bed. Having the skill to relax results in being able to effectively and successfully navigate challenge
(Muir, 2010). Relaxation can have positive effects on immunity and psychological well‐being
(Kiecolt‐Glaser, 1999). For children to learn how to relax, they need awareness of what relaxes
them and the opportunity to practice their skill (Moreton, 2017). When children learn to relax
they avoid anxiety and stress (Carter & Cheesman, 2016).
The second research question of this study examined the role creativity plays in children’s lives.
The children in this study described multiple ways in which they explore their internal worlds,
discovering who they are through creative experiences. They communicated that creativity
provides opportunities not only to learn about their interests and abilities but also to take risks
and gain skills. The role of creativity in their lives also involved being an outlet for self‐expression
and emotion. It also played a part in their happiness, relaxation and provided relief from boredom.
Developing Self Through: Engaging Imagination
Creativity helps children expand their imagination and explore their internal worlds. The children
in this study mentioned they experienced this through imaginative play and participation in the
arts. Creativity is the outcome of imagination (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2016). Imagination is a powerful
tool used to envision alternative views of the past, present and future (Robinson, 2017). It also
enables viewing ideas or experiences from other’s perspectives resulting in growing knowledge of
self and the external world (Robinson, 2017). Thinking creatively is the ability to use one’s
imagination (Robinson, 2017). The children in this study often linked imaginative play and
creativity. They described feeling free and happy when imagining and described feeling they felt
no limitations.
123
Joni: I still play imaginary games with my sister. I still do it because I like making up the
world. Like, a world where you can do anything you want to really. – Year 6
Engaging in imaginative play involves creativity (Almon, 2016). Children use imaginative play to
role‐play challenging life experiences, explore connections with others and their environment and
for enjoyment (Almon, 2016). Children who feel confident using their imagination can see
possibilities where others cannot, as they feel less constrained by traditional or conservative ways
of seeing (Moran, 2016). This way of seeing and thinking links to originality and problem solving
because a strong imagination makes unusual or unique connections (Kogan, 1983; Moran, 2016).
Children are relaxed during play and therefore can practise different skills and abilities, advancing
their imaginations and creativity (Pyles, 2016). When children engage in imaginative, flexible and
fictitious thinking they become “autonomous and active creators of the future” (Wright, 2011, p.
2).
The children in this study mentioned the arts as a way their imaginations could be explored and
creative products could be made. Mason, from Year 2, mentioned using his imagination to create
new tools or projects in art class. Lotte, from Year 5, mentioned using her imagination to write
and sing songs.
Mason: I feel creative at art class…because I can let my creative imagination run wild. ‐
Year 2
Lotte: I have this teacher who helps me sing and write songs and I love going there
because all of the stuff I don’t get to at school, I can just let my imagination explode. ‐
Year 5
The arts allow children the opportunity to reconstruct personal experiences (Golomb, 2004).
Through art making children are able to use their imagination to authentically express their ideas
and emotions (Wright, 2011). Engaging with the arts and exploring characters, events and
contexts enables children have a voice, to “tell not only who they are, but also who they would
like to be” (Wright, 2011, p. 213).
In relation to Research Question 2, a key role creativity played in the lives of the children in this
study is offering them opportunities to imagine. The children reported using their imaginations
124
when they engaged in imaginative play and participated in art activities. Alongside using
imagination, children also reported developing self through experiencing autonomy and exploring
who they are through creative experiences. This section described the role creativity plays in
children’s internal worlds as they cultivate self‐knowledge and self‐awareness through creative
encounters. The role of creativity in children’s external worlds will be explored in the following
section.
5.3.4 The Role of Creativity in Children’s External World
This sub‐section describes the role creativity plays in children’s external worlds. It examines how
through creative experiences children develop relationships with their bodies, their learning, the
natural world and their friends and family. When discussing using creativity to explore their
bodies, the children in this study reported inventing sports or games with friends for fun or using
creativity to push themselves in sport. The children also discussed the role of creativity in physical
play and dance.
Creativity’s role in the children’s learning is discussed. The children described how creativity
influenced their enjoyment of school and made schooling memorable. They also communicated
that creativity impacts their learning and assessment. The idea of teaching creatively is also
presented.
Children in this study connected creativity and the natural world. They described being creative
with found natural objects and also linked their natural surroundings to creativity. This creativity
included experiences in trees, backyards and on beaches. The older children described the role of
creativity in solving environmental issues.
Finally, in this sub‐section, the topic of creativity and friends and family is explained. Children
connected creative moments with collaborating or learning from their peers, siblings, parents and
grandparents. The following section is divided into children developing relationships with their
bodies, learning, the natural world and friends and family.
125
Developing Relationships With: Their Bodies
The children described the role creativity plays in their physical worlds. They discussed how they
use creativity in sport, physical play and dance. This was for enjoyment or to use creative thinking
to better themselves at a particular physical challenge. From Preparatory Year to Year 6, children
often explained they saw creativity in sport. They described inventing new sports or new tricks.
Predominantly in the responses this included references to soccer but included skateboarding,
trampolining, circus, jujitsu and gymnastics. In the Year 3, 5 and 6 focus groups both boys and girls
described using creative thinking to improve themselves in their chosen sporting field.
Facilitator: Are there any other kind of things that you do that you feel are creative?
Oscar: Sport. For example, soccer, I try a new tactic instead of the usual, I dunno, when I
get the ball and pass it up to the attackers I might go to another defender or something
and bring it up further or something.
Joni: Jujitsu. Because when you get to a certain level you have to make up stuff yourself
new ways to …
Oscar: …Attack…
Joni: …defend actually. New ways to do that sort of stuff.
Charli: That’s sort of like in gymnastics where you get to certain level and all the routines
are made up for you and once you’ve sort of learnt all your skills in Level 7 you can make
up all your routines by yourself so you can sort of be more creative with them and do the
skills you’ve learnt over the years. – Year 6
Memmert (2015, p. i) states, “creativity is an essential component of sport performance”.
Creativity in team sports is known as divergent tactical thinking and requires responses that are
unexpected, novel and adaptable (Memmert & Roth, 2007; Roth, 2005). Players that achieve in
their sporting field are the ones who can make surprising yet opportune decisions (Memmert,
2015).
During the focus groups children across all grades reported that making up physical games either
alone, with friends or with family was connected to creativity. This physical play typically included
making up new games in or around the backyard pool or creating new flips or dives into the pool.
Physical play has various positive effects for children. This includes the ability to relieve stress and
build positive relationships with others through collaboration and co‐operation (Pyles, 2016).
126
Physical play not only includes play with others but with the environment. Fjørtoft (2001, p. 111)
claims that, “intuitively children use their environment for physical challenges...they perceive the
functions of the landscape and use them for play”.
Dance was also a way children mentioned being creative with their bodies. The creativity felt
through dance was always mentioned in collaboration with others at home.
Facilitator: Can you talk to me about times when you feel creative?
Laura: At home on a weekend I like making up dances that I force my sisters to do. – Year
4
Dance offers children the opportunity to learn about themselves and others through creatively
engaging with their bodies (Schiller & Meiners, 2003). Through dance, children are able to express
thoughts, feelings and explore experiences working both their bodies and minds (Schiller &
Meiners, 2003). Through movement of their bodies, children learn about concepts in the outside
world (Wilder, 2000).
The second research question of this study addresses the role creativity plays in children’s lives.
It is evident from the focus group data that creativity played a role in children developing
relationships with their external worlds including their own bodies. This development takes the
form of creatively engaging in sport, physical play or dance.
Developing Relationships With: Their Learning
During the focus groups, children further discussed the role of creativity in their external worlds
by describing the relationship between creativity and their learning. Most often they described
their experiences with creative learning. They described how creative learning activities were
enjoyable and memorable and communicated that when given a creative learning task that
offered freedom, they were more engaged as they could follow their own interests. The children
also mentioned creative lessons were more challenging and gave them a greater sense of
achievement. They discussed creative learning assessment and how it positively related to their
engagement and therefore their assessment result. Creative teaching was mentioned and the
children described how teaching topics in a creative way positively impacted their interest. They
127
did not discuss teaching for creativity which is the explicit teaching of how to think and work
creatively.
Key creativity scholars claim creative thinking and doing improves learning (Cropley, 2006;
Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Sefton‐Green et al., (2011) argue
creative learning enhances learning for all students in all subject areas. Lotte from Year 5 linked
the notion that creative encounters in all school subjects would improve her learning.
Lotte: I would like to change the ways schools impact creativity for like, normal lessons,
especially music, but that’s not a normal lesson, but like maths and English and stuff
because I think that would be a way better learning space. – Year 5
Creative learning motivates students to reach their full potential due to learning being more
interesting for both students and teachers (Sefton‐Green et al., 2011). During the Year 4 focus
groups, when discussing the idea that their normal maths lessons include more creativity such as
the extension maths sessions do, the children made connections between creativity, comfortable
learning environments and enjoyment.
Laura: It would be really fun. I guess people wouldn’t worry as much.
Facilitator: That’s interesting. Why do you say that?
Laura: Because sometimes when we have questions some people think they have
pressure on them.
Ethan: That would probably help them learn better. It would probably help them
understand things. Like, I think school is fun already. I like doing math but if it was more
creative, I think everyone would think it was fun. ‐ Year 4
This interest from both parties reduces behaviour issues, boredom and absenteeism (Cropley,
2012). All Year 6 students agreed that more creativity integrated into their daily school lives would
improve engagement.
Joni: We’d be more enthusiastic about coming to school in the first place. ‐ Year 6
Creative learning provides students with general life benefits, classroom atmosphere benefits,
general process benefits, cognitive skill benefits, self‐related benefits and motivational benefits
(Cropley, 2012). Students engage with their senses, imagine, think and reason when they
participate in creative activities (Nussbaum, 2011).
128
The children in this study described experiences with creative learning. Creative learning has
characteristics that include relevance, control, ownership and innovation (Jeffrey & Woods, 2008).
Creative learning is relevant for students as it adjusts to the children’s culture and identity (Jeffrey
& Woods, 1997). It is also known for promoting intrinsic motivation in students who have control
and ownership over their own learning (Jeffrey & Woods, 2008). Creative learning is linked to
innovation in terms of new knowledge, skill, insight or understanding occurring in a meaningful
way (Jeffrey & Woods, 2008). The children in this study mentioned many creative learning
experiences relating to control and ownership. These will be discussed in turn.
Students having control over their learning involves choice and self‐direction (Jeffrey & Woods,
2008). This style of learning opposes traditional styles such as rote learning or closed teacher‐
directed learning (Jeffrey & Woods, 2008). The children connected moments of creative learning
with enjoyment resulting from control. They described that creative open‐ended maths activities
were more challenging which, therefore, made them more enjoyable. This was evident in multiple
focus group responses including Years 4 and 5 children.
Facilitator: Can you talk a bit about the difference between doing that extension maths
and normal classroom maths?
Sabine: Well, in normal class maths we just get told what to do and in extension maths
you get, like, told the instructions and then you have to figure it out without any help or
anything.
Leo: It’s probably more fun because you actually have to think about it rather than the
teacher standing at the board telling us how to do it. – Year 5
Offering children choice and avenues for them to explore their own interests, develops their
autonomy and engagement and builds their intrinsic motivation (Starko, 2017). Choice extends to
students coming up with their own problem‐solving ideas and learning outcomes (Cropley, 2012).
Creative learning is child‐centred and teachers become a “‘guide by the side’ rather than ‘sage on
the stage’” (Collard & Looney, 2014, p. 351).
With the older children in this study, discussion around control extended to assessment. The
children articulated that choice in assessment resulted in greater engagement and effort. Two
examples of English assessment were described by Year 6 students where they had choice over
the topic and direction of their assessment.
129
Facilitator: How do you feel about assessment that’s more about giving you choice about
how to present your skills and your learning?
Oscar: I prefer it more than, like, other stuff.
Joni: Yes. Because sometimes if you’re told to present it in a certain way you might not be
familiar with that way or you might not feel comfortable with doing it that way.
Charli: It’s also more enjoyable if you can sort of find, like…
Oscar: …the thing you like…
Charli: Yeah, like, the thing you do most of it rather than it being based off …
Joni: …this template…
Facilitator: So, if you’re doing an assessment that you’re enjoying how does that influence
the outcome of the assessment do you feel?
Oscar: You prefer doing it so you’re more into it so you might research more and then put
more effort into it, so it’s got a better outcome.
Charli: And listen a lot when the teacher’s talking and feel a real interest in the
assessment. – Year 6
It is clear the children make connections between having choice in assessment and their interest
and effort. Assessment focused on children’s effort is more meaningful than assessment based on
innate ability or talent (Black & William, 1998). It also develops a “growth mindset” (Dweck, 2006).
The more ownership children have over their learning, the more engaged they are and the deeper
the learning (Blumenfeld et al., 2005). Ownership of knowledge happens when students are
motivated to learn for themselves and are not driven by educators, assessment or societal
pressure (Jeffrey & Woods, 2008). This feeling of ownership results in the knowledge becoming
meaningful for the child and their personal worlds (Jeffrey & Woods, 2008). The children in this
study linked ownership over their learning to engagement with creative activities.
The children in Year 6 made links between open‐ended activities, engagement and creativity.
Creative learning supports students’ autonomy and through working with open activities, learners
gain skills in analysing the quality of their work and making relevant changes (Collard & Looney,
2014).
130
Facilitator: Do you see any links between that open‐ended problem solving and creativity?
Oscar: Umm yeah because you’ve got more choice and it’s just … most people just
generally prefer doing problem solving to the sums and stuff.
Joni: It engages you more, like engages your brain more and you can think differently than
just adding stuff. You can do your own strategies or ways of solving the problem.
Oscar: Because maths is just, for this you’ve got to do this this way, or for this you’ve got
to use this strategy.
Facilitator: So, when you get to use creative thinking how do you think it affects your
learning?
Charli: I think it affects learning because you sort of, like, we said before, you take more
interest in the subject and you sort of think about it more and you sort of can do it in your
own way.
Joni: You maybe feel like you have more control and that helps you do it better, like, if
you feel like you know what’s going on better. If you’re doing it in your own way you can
do the stuff easier.
Facilitator: So, do you feel like when you have more control over your work … Yeah, how
does having more control over your work make you feel or influence your life at school
do you think?
Joni: I think it makes it better.
Oscar: I think what we were saying before, you’re more interested in the subject so you
put more effort into it because you prefer it more. – Year 6
The children also suggested ways their teachers could give them more control and ownership
through creative learning. This included approaches to learning maths and English. It also included
change to the curriculum as a whole.
Laura: Sometimes I feel like changing the curriculum.
Facilitator: Yeah? How would you change it?
Laura: Making stuff more based on your own ideas. Like, having this base that we need to
follow but then being able to make up something that goes with it. So, it gets the answer
they want but in a way we enjoy doing it rather than having a set way which we have to
follow which just doesn’t interest me and makes me bored. – Year 4
131
The students in the Year 5 focus group discussed creative teaching. They described the personality
of a teacher who taught creatively as “bubbly” and mentioned the connection between creative
teaching and collaborating in group work. Creative teaching was linked to more engagement in
school and less stress due to enjoyment. They gave an example of creative teaching in history.
Lotte: So, you’d make history have more activities. Like living out it. Trying to understand
how the people lived instead of reading about it from a page and then just forgetting
about it.
Leo: Or they could say, like, no iPhones or no technology for a week or a day or whatever
and see if you could do it. – Year 5
Creative teaching happens when knowledge is meaningfully shared between all individuals in a
particular learning context in a personalised and unique way (Rinkevich, 2011). Creative teaching
promotes learning, student achievement and cognitive development (Eckhoff & Urbach, 2008;
Freund & Holling, 2008; Leahy & Sweller, 2008; Schacter, Thum, & Zifkin, 2006). The main barriers
to creative teaching include a lack of teacher training on teaching creatively (Flieth, 2000; Kim,
2008), pressure by the system, standards and class size (Kim, 2008) and the feeling of
responsibility of yet another added extra (Beghetto, 2007).
The second research question in this study addressed the role of creativity in both children’s
internal and external worlds. From the focus group data, it is clear the children in this study linked
creative experiences to developing a positive relationship with their learning. The children
described creative learning activities as enjoyable, memorable and challenging. They mentioned
having more control and ownership over their learning meant they could follow their interests
and, therefore, experience stronger engagement.
Developing Relationships With: The Natural World
In this study children described creativity as a tool to develop their relationship with the natural
world. They discussed creative interactions with found natural objects, the nature in their home
environments, trips to the beach or holidays camping or overseas. For older children, creativity
also strongly linked with solving environmental issues. When children encounter nature, they
explore it with all their senses and their whole bodies (Almon, 2016). In nature, their play is open
ended and enjoyable, with an abundant amount of choice (Stephens, 2009; Wilson, 2018). Nature
132
play is not only playing in nature but playing with nature (Erikson & Ernst, 2011; Hardwood &
Collier, 2017).
The children in this study described interacting with the natural world around them in creative
ways. This interaction included being creative with natural objects around the home, such as
leaves and sticks to relieve boredom. They also spoke about time in nature relaxing them and
allowing the flow of creative ideas for projects or play. Pretend play in nature was discussed. A
Year 4 student described visiting her friend’s farm and imaginary playing among the trees making
up different characters with swords and animals.
Through multisensory experiences in nature, children engage a sense of freedom which
encourages a rich imagination (Moore, 1997). Studies conducted in Sweden, Australia, Canada
and the USA found when children play outdoors they choose more creative forms of play than
when indoors (Louv, 2009). They also discovered that the more natural the environment, the more
children engaged their imaginations when they played (Louv, 2009).
The children also described encounters with nature while on holidays. A Year 3 student mentioned
feeling a sense of freedom at the beach and a Year 1 student explained a creative experience with
found objects from an island holiday.
Olive: When I was at Pumpkin Island with four other families we kept on finding brains,
well, they were shaped like a brain and they had those things like a brain on the top. I
liked it, so I brought it into our cabin and I brought these red things in as well and I painted
them all. The brain was actually quite nice. I put blue glitter on it and sea shells on it. –
Year 1
Family holidays often make interacting with, and spending time in, nature a priority (Freeman &
Heezik, 2018). Thus they can be an important facet of children’s connection to the natural
environment (Freeman & Heezik, 2018). When children spend time in nature they are inspired
creatively as they engage all of their senses (Louv, 2009). They develop a sense of pattern and
connection and gain experiential knowledge of concepts such as networks, cycles and
evolutionary processes (Moore, 1997). This learning lays the foundation of creative thinking in the
arts, science and politics (Moore, 1997). Without these concrete underpinnings, “we forget our
133
place; we forget that larger fabric on which our lives depend” (Chawla as cited in Louv, 2009, p.
70).
The children in Year 6 made connections between creativity and sustainability. They mentioned
new ways to combat climate change and new methods of renewable energy as impressive
examples of creativity.
Facilitator: Can you tell me about something creative you find interesting or impressive?
Joni: I think, like, with all the landfill and stuff being put in around the world they are trying
to use the methane gas that’s from that landfill and turn it into power and not just wasting
it. – Year 6
They spoke about their own agency in regard to creative ways to solve environmental problems.
When describing why her best friend is the most creative person she knows, Year 6 student Charli
explained:
Charli: Because she’s always sort of thinking of these cool ideas where I can remember
once she told me she made this whole poster about the orangutans and how she wanted
to save them. And she’s an environmental ambassador and she wanted to like tell the
Deputy Principal about it and find a way to save it and came up with this whole like project
thing. – Year 6
The environment around a child’s home is the first place they encounter nature and develop their
initial understandings about the natural world (Freeman & Von Heezik, 2018). Children also begin
to cultivate their ecological values through their families’ attitudes and beliefs demonstrated in
this home environment (Freeman & Von Heezik, 2018). By playing in nature, children are laying
the foundations to be environmentally conscious in the future (Erikson & Ernst, 2011)
Research Question 2 addresses the role creativity plays in children’s lives. For the children in this
study, creativity assists them to develop their personal relationship with nature. The children
described creative experiences in nature offering them moments of invention, exploration,
freedom and imagination. For the Year 6 students, they communicated the role of creativity in
regard to their relationship with the natural world, is to assist them in combatting environmental
issues.
134
Developing Relationships With: Their Friends and Family
Children in this study mentioned using creativity to develop relationships with the external world
of friends and family. School peers, siblings, cousins, parents and, quite often, grandparents were
mentioned. This relationship building was done through imaginative play or skill sharing. When
children create together their experience is strongly linked to emotion and they feel connected to
one and other (Vass, Littleton, Miell, & Jones, 2008). Art therapy literature has shown that this is
also true when children collaborate in creative activities with family members (Vass et al., 2008).
Family plays a significant role in influencing a child’s creativity (Dacey, 1989). Aspects of the family
unit affecting creative behaviour include respect for the child, promotion of independence and a
rich learning environment (Wright & Wright, 1986). Families that value play and role model
flexibility provide children an environment that fosters creativity (Walberg, Rasher, & Parkerson,
1979; Wright, 1987).
When students were asked to describe a time when they felt creative, they often explained an
experience which they shared with a friend. The children’s stories included making a store with a
friend, making a Lego movie, playing in trees or making up a new game. It was clear that
collaborating with others made creative experiences memorable. Ella, a Year 2 student, also
mentioned that collaborating enabled the play to become bigger and better.
Facilitator: Can you tell me about a time when you feel creative?
Ella: Sometimes with my friends because like, there’s a lot of people and we can all make
one big creative thing together. ‐ Year 2
The strong feeling of collaboration continued when discussing interactions with siblings or
cousins. This collaboration usually happened at home without adult influence and often was for
enjoyment or to relieve boredom. The creative experiences with siblings or cousins included
drawing and collage, making up plays, building cubby houses, playing imaginary games or making
up games.
Leo: Me and my sister and my cousins, we always used to go to my cousins’ house and,
like, build cubbies. They had a really big space under their house with trampolines and
swings and stuff. We used to make up shows and like get leaves and water and bleach and
135
dirt and mix it together. It was called like “Monster Cooking” or something. We used to
be creative about making the names of it. – Year 6
Many students in this study described experiences of creativity shared with parents. The creative
experiences with parents were planned projects they undertook together, such as a hydraulic
robot arm, or were daily household occurrences, like a father showing his daughter songs he wrote
on the guitar, or children cooking with their parents and noticing they were deviating from the
recipe. Parents also played the role as helper.
Ethan: Sometimes I find old toys around the house that I don’t use and my Mum will help
me take it apart so I can get some parts to build something. – Year 4
It was clear from the data that creative experiences with grandparents often revolved around the
sharing of skills. The skills were mostly taught by grandmothers and frequently included sewing
or knitting. Craft and cooking were also mentioned. When addressing Research Question 2, it is
evident from the focus group data that creativity plays a role in children developing relationships
with friends and family. The children in this study reported many of their enjoyable creative
moments happened when working with a friend or family member. They experienced joy creating
with friends and learnt new creative skills from parents and grandparents.
136
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore how children describe creativity and the role it plays in
their lives. Creativity is seen as an essential attribute to foster in children today (Beghetto, 2019;
Csikszentmihalyi, 2018; Dodd, 2017; Gonski, 2018; Robinson, 2017; Starko, 2017). Listening to
them on this topic had not yet been done. Gaining greater understanding of their perspectives
can offer insight into how to better support them in their education and their everyday life to
develop this important life skill. This final chapter addresses the research questions, includes a
reflection on the methodology and theoretical framework used and provides the conclusions and
recommendations. The limitations for the study, a future research section and a summary are also
presented.
6.2 Addressing the Research Questions
The data collected from the focus groups addressed both research questions posed. In addressing
Research Question 1, “How do children describe creativity?”, the children’s responses aligned
strongly with the literature presented in Chapter 2. These links appeared in discussion with
children through the full age range, of Preparatory Year to Year 6. When defining creativity, the
children in this study made connections to key ideas present in definitions including novelty and
value. When considering creativity as a concept, the children raised additional notions such as
developing one’s creativity and creativity advancing society through innovation, sustainability and
altruism.
For Research Question 2, “What role does creativity play in children’s lives?”, the data painted a
rich and comprehensive picture. The children in this study communicated that creative
experiences are a tool they use to learn more about themselves and their worlds. From the focus
groups it became clear that the role creativity plays in these children’s lives is both significant and
wide‐ranging. They discussed using creativity to experience autonomy, learn about themselves
and expand their imaginations. The children also described using creativity to explore their
physical capacities and their learning at school. They explained how they used creative
experiences as a way to build relationships with the natural world, their friends and their family
members.
137
In summary, the answers to the research questions revealed that these children understand what
creativity is in terms of its role in society and role in their personal development. The children in
this study described creativity as a tool they know and use to take risks, expand their imaginations
and develop their independence. Answering the research questions provided has given insight
into how to use the children’s responses to better support them as individuals both inside and
outside their classroom. The relevance of the theoretical framework and the chosen methodology
are discussed in the following section.
6.3 Reflecting on Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks
The theoretical framework of new sociology of childhood and the methodological framework of
The Lundy Model of Participation (2007) were used for this study. Both of these frames, outlined
in Chapters 3 and 4, positioned children as capable social actors with knowledge to share on
complex topics such as, in this case, creativity. Using both new sociology of childhood and The
Lundy Model (2007) ensured children’s voice on this subject was listened to. Conducting focus
group interviews and analysing their data using inductive thematic analysis aligned with the “right
to express a view” and “right to have views given due weight” components of The Lundy Model
(Lundy, 2007, p. 932).
The methodology for this study employed an interpretivist paradigm as this acknowledges that
children’s ideas evolve and change over time. Using a qualitative research design enabled the
children’s experiences to be explored with depth through focus group interviews. The focus group
setting provided opportunities to discuss a topic that otherwise may not have come up in
children’s conversation. Having each group comprising three students and the researcher resulted
in the children having more weight in the conversation and therefore promoted an environment
in which children were comfortable to communicate their views and experiences. Involving
children 5 – 12‐years old gave representatives of all primary school age groups a voice on
creativity. Using inductive thematic analysis enabled patterns to emerge from children’s
descriptions of creativity and their creative experiences.
138
6.4 Overview of Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings from this study’s first research question revealed children’s ideas about creativity.
Findings from the second research question showed children used creative experiences as a
conduit to learn about themselves and the world. When considering The Lundy Model of
Participation (2007) the rich responses offered by the children must be given due weight and
considered in approaches to teaching in primary school contexts.
Therefore, in consideration of the conclusions and recommendations for this study two lines of
thinking emerged; the first being how creativity relates to whole child development and the
second being how creativity relates to academic success. In reference to both research questions,
a number of conclusions reached circled around the relationship between creativity and the
development of the whole child. They relate creativity to notions such as wellbeing, self‐
awareness, emotional intelligence and autonomy. When linking these conclusions to every day
schooling it became evident that there are differing foci.
The following conclusions and recommendations are presented in two sections. The first section
concentrates on conclusions reached after listening to the children describe connections between
creativity and their development as healthy and engaged human beings. The second section
focuses on considering the children’s discussion on the role of creativity in their everyday
schooling and academic success. The recommendations offered in the first section are for teachers
followed by policy makers. The second section’s recommendations are for teachers and for
curriculum writers.
6.5 Creativity and Whole Child Development
The conclusions and recommendations in this section address connections the children made
between their creative experiences and their whole‐being development. These notions became
evident through both research questions as children discussed what “creativity does” and the role
it plays in their lives. The development through creativity the children described included life‐
skills, altruism, social justice, equity, autonomy, risk‐taking, self‐knowledge and self‐regulation.
The conclusions and recommendations that follow are made to teachers and to policy makers.
139
6.5.1 Life Skills
The children in this study described how creative experiences aided in their development of life
skills such as risk‐taking, openness to experience and problem solving. Risk‐taking through
creative courage is expressed not only academically but also physically and socially (Morrongiello
et al., 2011). Creative thinkers are confident when approaching new experiences (Sternberg,
2016) and are open to alternatives (Rawlinson, 2017). The children in this study revealed they use
creative thinking to problem solve in unexpected life areas such as resolving personal conflicts
with friends or for equity issues affecting them such as unfair gender bias in sports clubs. Taking
this into account, offering children more creative experiences would further advance these skills
and give them confidence and resilience when encountering challenge.
For educators, understanding it is possible that their students knowingly use creative thinking to
solve their real‐life problems expands the framework in which teachers can discuss and teach
creativity in their classrooms. A recommendation to teachers is to examine this real‐world
application of creativity and problem solving with their students and to support their students to
develop their creative thinking skills. This learning will also benefit children’s risk‐taking and
openness to experience.
A recommendation to policy makers is to explicitly include a focus on creative experiences in
future policy release in order develop confident and creative individuals. Developing life skills
aligns with the educational goals for young Australians to successfully manage their “emotional,
mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing” and “embrace opportunities, make rational and informed
decisions about their own lives and accept responsibility for their own actions” (MCEETYA, 2008,
p. 9).
6.5.2 Altruism and Creativity
A finding of this study was that children as young as 8‐years old understand the connection
between creativity and the advancement of society and associated the notion of altruism with this
creative development. Having explicit discussions about the connection between altruism and
creativity with children can build their awareness of this relationship. It is possible to develop
curriculum which integrates problem‐solving of real‐world issues (Schliemann, Carraher, &
Brizuela, 2007). Engaging with this type of problem solving has proven to result in increased
140
student motivation and social and emotional development (Adams & Hamm, 2013; DeWinter,
1997). Being seen as competent members of a community improves self‐image (Minow, 1999)
and children become active participants in society (Burke & Grosvenor, 2003).
For teachers, this finding can influence discussions and planning when teaching about real‐world
problems. A recommendation for educators is to work with children to consider real‐life issues
within their communities and integrate creative thinking and learning to develop altruism in
students. To policy makers it is recommended to include discussions around creativity and
altruism into their next policy release. Currently, it is aimed for that Australian children act with
“moral and ethical integrity”, “work for the common good” and “are responsible global and local
citizens” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 9). Creativity can be offered as a way to enact and explore moral,
ethics and citizenship.
6.5.3 Social Justice, Equity and Creativity
The children in this study made links between creativity, social justice and equity. Key creativity
commenters are now arguing that creativity is a tool that can give strength and agency to all
(Kaufman, 2017) and it can develop notions of tolerance and cooperation (Csikszentmihalyi,
2018). If explicit discussions with children are had about these connections and creative
experiences are offered to them building on these ideas, they may move through life confidently
considering creative solutions for social justice issues. They may use their familiarity with both
creative thinking and its positive role in society to think alternatively about conflict resolution,
empathy and positive citizenship.
For teachers, it is recommended to consider the connections between creativity and equity when
teaching about either creativity or a social justice issue. For example, when teaching children to
be creative it would positively benefit them to integrate creative thinking around social justice
issues they find important. In addition, when teaching about a social justice issue, inviting the
children to engage with their creativity in relation to the problem would positively impact their
sense of agency.
A recommendation to education policy makers is to include the development of social justice,
equity and creativity conversations and learning experiences in the next policy release. This point
aligns with their learning goals for Australian children to “have a sense of optimism about their
141
lives and the future”, “develop personal values and attributes such as honesty, resilience,
empathy and respect for others” and finally, “are committed to national values of democracy,
equity and justice and participate in Australia’s civic life” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 9).
6.5.4 Developing Autonomy and Creativity
A key finding from this study was that children made strong connections between their creative
experiences and their autonomy. Through creativity, the children described making their own
decisions in many facets of their lives including in the open‐ended activities provided by teachers
or caregivers, during play or sport and during art making. Characteristics such as independence in
judgement, risk‐taking and perseverance are associated with both creativity and autonomy
(Starko, 2017).
For teachers interested in developing either autonomy or creativity in their students, this finding
is useful. It is recommended that implementing more creative experiences for students will
develop both these attributes simultaneously.
Two educational goals put forward by MCEETYA (2008, p. 9) are that young Australians “are
enterprising, show initiative and use their creative abilities” and they “embrace opportunities,
make rational and informed decisions about their own lives and accept responsibility for their own
choices”. A recommendation to policy makers is to include more creative experiences in order for
young Australians to develop both their creativity and autonomy.
6.5.5 Developing Self‐Knowledge and Self‐regulation through Creativity
This study found children use creativity as a way to learn more about themselves. This included
learning about their interests, strengths and capabilities. The children also described creative
experiences as a way to express their emotions and regulate their attention and calmness. There
are strong links between daily creative experiences and positive wellbeing, conscientiousness and
feelings of personal achievement (Helfand et al., 2016).
For teachers wishing to support students to develop their self‐knowledge or self‐regulation,
reflection on their inclusion of creative experiences is recommended. This reflection will offer
insight into how their creative approaches might be expanded. These notions link to the MCEETYA
142
(2008, p. 9) goals for Australian children which include they “have a sense of self‐worth, self‐
awareness and personal identity that enables them to manage their emotional, mental, spiritual
and physical wellbeing”, “have the knowledge, skills, understanding and values to establish and
maintain healthy, satisfying lives” and “relate well to others and form and maintain healthy
relationships”. A recommendation to policy makers is to consider emphasising the importance of
creative experiences in all levels of Australian education in their next policy release in order for
young Australians to develop stronger self‐knowledge and self‐regulation.
6.6 Creativity and Academic Success
This section makes conclusions around findings related to children, creativity and academic
success. The recommendations in this section are made to teachers and curriculum developers
for consideration in future development of the current national curriculum. The
recommendations address how to improve school engagement, assessment results and creative
thinking. They focus on the enjoyment of school and academic success, explicit teaching about
creativity, building a strong STEM foundation in the early years, ownership of learning and creative
assessment.
6.6.1 School Enjoyment, Academic Success and Creativity
This study found that children associate creative experiences in the classroom with engagement,
challenge and autonomy. These notions are echoed in the literature. Creative learning promotes
intrinsic motivation (Sefton‐Green et al., 2011) and improves learning (Kaufman & Beghetto,
2009). It positively impacts engagement (Cropley, 2012) and makes schooling more enjoyable for
both students and teachers (Sefton‐Green et al., 2011). Therefore, it is a recommendation to
teachers to reflect on how creative thinking or creative experiences fit into their planning.
Implementing creative teaching ideas, creative activities for the children or creative assessment
positively impacts children’s enjoyment of school and their academic success. A recommendation
is that ACARA amends the current National Curriculum to include more creative teaching and
learning in all subject areas.
143
6.6.2 Explicit Teaching About Creativity
The younger children in this study described creativity and learning as opposing concepts. They
mostly linked creativity to creative writing, art and free time. Learning was explained as something
that occurred separate to creative experiences. Children need to be taught explicitly about
creativity from an early age, so they understand its place in their schooling (Starko, 2017). Learning
what creativity is, is fundamental in becoming a creative person (Starko, 2017). Children need
understanding about the creative process, creative individuals and strategies to develop the
necessary skills and attitudes (Starko, 2017). Implementing explicit teaching about creativity is
recommended for teachers wishing to develop creativity in their students. It is recommended that
curricula include teaching children explicitly about creativity from the beginning of school in order
to align more effectively with their general capabilities. This would include; how creativity works,
when to use creative thinking, who uses creative thinking and what is involved in the creative
process.
6.6.3 STEM Foundation and Creativity
From the findings relating to Research Question 1 it was clear children see a strong connection
between creativity and the advancement of society. They discussed how this advancement is
linked to science and technology. Discussing this concept with children from the early years of
school can lay a strong foundation for STEM subjects. It is recommended for teachers to link the
concept of creativity and the advancement of society when discussing the significance of or
working within STEM subjects. Relevant curricula might also introduce discussing creativity and
its links with the advancement of society from the beginning of school to align with the current
STEM focus in Australian education.
6.6.4 Ownership of Learning and Creativity
The children in this study described how creativity gave them ownership over their learning. They
made connections between creative learning, control and feelings of challenge and sense of
achievement. The children communicated that when they had more control over their learning,
they were more engaged and invested in their work. Creative learning fosters intrinsic motivation
and adjusts to children’s culture and identity (Jeffrey & Woods, 1997, 2008). It is a
recommendation for teachers to reflect on the creative learning offered in their classrooms where
144
children experience ownership over their learning and control over their effort and achievement.
This reflection may offer insight into ways to expand current ways of working. A recommendation
is made that ACARA introduce more creative activities in all subject areas to give Australian
children more ownership of their learning.
6.6.5 Creative Assessment
The Year 6 children in this study discussed many advantages in creative assessment that offered
choice. These included greater engagement and improved assessment results. A growth mindset
is developed when assessment is focused on effort rather than talent or ability (Dweck, 2006). The
children described having control over their learning through being able to follow their own
interests. Children are more engaged and learn more deeply when they have ownership over their
learning (Blumenfeld et al., 2005). For teachers, considering ways in which they can assess student
learning through a creative task with choice can improve student engagement and effort. It is
recommended that curriculum developers include more assessment that includes creative
thinking, choice and the opportunity for children to follow their own interests.
6.7 Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation for this study is the data collection method of one‐off focus groups. Gibson (2012)
explains that the success of focus groups relies on the trust built between the interviewer and
child participants. Conducting one focus group session per group limited the possible data that
could be collected. Since the children had not have previously experienced being in a focus group
situation, running more than one session with the same children may have provided a more
comfortable environment such that the participants would possibly elaborate on ideas and
opinions more freely (Gibson, 2012). After data collection it was clear many children had strong
ideas on the role of creativity in their experiences of autonomy and their schooling. These two
themes created rich data. Having a second focus group to target these topics alone could have
provided valuable additional knowledge. However, the scope of a Masters research study
precluded the possibility of more than one focus group per year level due to the amount of data
generated.
Limitations for this research include the decision to only collect data from primary school aged
children. This choice was made for three reasons. First, focus groups with children are most
145
successful when the facilitator has had extensive experience in conversing with children at that
particular age group (Mauthner, 1997). Therefore, working with high school aged children may
have resulted in a weaker collection of data as the researcher’s experience is with the early and
primary years. Second, when children are of primary school age it is reported that their
imagination, creativity and natural risk‐taking tendencies decline (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996,
Robinson, 2001). Discussing this phenomenon with children in this age bracket produced
meaningful and interesting data for this topic, as the findings could be held up against previous
research and commentary on the topic. Third, the core theoretical underpinning of this study is
that children have a right to participate in discussing issue that affect them regardless of their age
(Lundy, 2007).
6.8 Future Research Directions
This qualitative study paints a detailed picture of a particular cohort of children at a single location
in a single point in time. However, further study could offer a wider spread of data of children’s
views of creativity with the involvement of several different sites. After data collection it was
evident the children who participated had comprehensive knowledge about creativity. They
defined and described it with complexity. During the focus groups broad experiences with
creativity through robotics building in the home, links to global sustainability and visits to
museums or art galleries were mentioned. As the study progressed, the potential benefits of
multiple research sites became clearer. Conducting focus group interviews with children in
differing school cultures, socio‐economic areas of Brisbane and schools with varying foci on the
arts and science would provide comparisons that could explore the phenomenon more deeply.
The results of this study have led to clearer understanding of how children define creativity and
the role it plays in their lives. The results show that creativity aids children in many ways to learn
more about themselves and the world around them. With this new knowledge and the idea of
truly listening to children, new ways of working to improve everyday schooling must be explored.
Considering this and recent work by Burnett and Smith (2019) and Beghetto (2019), future
research could be in working with teachers and school leaders. Focus groups or workshops could
be undertaken using the children’s voices from this study as the starting point. Possible avenues
to move forward include converting the data from the focus groups and workshops into practical
ways to integrate more creativity into their planning, teaching and assessment. These new ways
of working could also be trialled in their daily practice with further data collected and reviewed
146
over time. This action research suggestion is driven by the want to use the children’s responses in
this research to positively impact their experience of school. Respecting and acknowledging the
children’s contribution in this study means using their voice as an agent of change.
6.9 Summary
This study explored children’s perspectives on creativity and the role it plays in their lives. Findings
revealed children have a deep understanding about what creativity is and what creativity does.
The findings also explained the varied ways children use creative experiences to learn more about
themselves and the world around them. Using The Lundy Model of Participation (2007), this study
sought to give children a voice on this topic and to give their responses due weight. Listening to
primary aged students describe their ideas and experiences of creativity was an approach not
evident in the existing literature. With a current focus on educational policy and curriculum aiming
to produce creative young Australians, understanding children’s perspectives on the subject is
valuable. It is clear children see the role of creativity in their lives to be broader and more
meaningful than the concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship which are so often the focus of
creativity policy and curriculum. From this study it is evident that the educational benefits of
offering Australian children more creative experiences extends to their overall enjoyment of
school and academic success. Beyond this, greater creative experiences positively impact life skills
and the development of concepts such as altruism and social justice. The conclusions and
recommendations made in this chapter aim to offer both policy makers and curriculum writers
reasons to move forward embedding creativity more deeply and broadly into Australian education
to improve not only student engagement and test results but to improve student wellbeing and
understanding of their place and opportunity to contribute to a more equitable world.
147
REFERENCES
Adair, J. (2007). The art of creative thinking: How to be innovative and develop Great Ideas (1st
ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (2013). Demystify math, science, and technology: creativity, innovation,
and problem‐solving. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1986). Introduction. Sociological Studies of Child Development, 1, 3–10.
Ahmadi, N., Peter L., Lubart T., & Besançon, M. (2019). School environments: Friend or foe for
creativity education and research? In C. Mullen (Eds.) Creativity under duress in
education? Creativity theory and action in education (Vol 3, pp.255‐266). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Alanen, L. (1988). Rethinking childhood. Acta Sociologica, 31, 53–67.
doi:10.1177/000169938803100105
Alice Miller School. (2016). About us: Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.alicemillerschool.com/about‐us/
Almon, J. (2016). Child‐initiated play. In D. Couchenour & J. Kent Chrisman, The SAGE encyclopedia
of contemporary early childhood education. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications,
2016. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=4625105.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. (2018). Creativity and the labor of love. In R. Sternberg & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature
of human creativity (pp 1‐15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781108185936.003
148
Amabile, T., Barsade, S., Mueller, J., & Staw, B. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403. doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood; a Social History of Family Life. Translated from the French
by Robert Baldick. New York, Knopf
Arnot, M., McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Reay, D. (2004). Consultation in the classroom: Developing
dialogue about teaching and learning. Cambridge, England: Pearson Publishing.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), 216‐224.
Arts Council of Wales. (2015). Creative learning through the arts – an action plan for Wales.
Cardiff: Department for Education and Skills Welsh Government
Attride‐Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative
Research, 1(3), 385‐405. doi:10.1177/146879410100100307
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). What does the ICSEA value
mean? Retrieved from http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). General Capabilities.
Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general‐capabilities
Australian Government. (1999). Higher education funding report 1999. Canberra: Government
Printer.
Australian Government. (2008). Report of the Australia 2020 Summit. Canberra: Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet. Retrieved from
http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/2020_summit_report_full.pdf
Australian Government. (2016b). National innovation and science agenda. Retrieved from
http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/national‐innovation‐and‐science‐agenda‐report
Australian Government. (2013). Creative Australia [Online]. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/20140801003429/http://creativeaustralia.arts.gov.au
/
149
Australian Government. (2017). 2030 strategic plan for the Australian innovation, science and
research system. Retrieved from https://industry.gov.au/Innovation‐and‐Science‐
Australia/Pages/Audit‐and‐2030‐Strategic‐Plan.aspx
Australian Trade and Investment Commission. (2016). Australian industry capabilities: Creative
industries. Retrieved from https://www.austrade.gov.au/International/Buy/Australian‐
industry‐capabilities/creative‐industries
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The
entrepreneurship competence framework. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the
European Union; EUR 27939 EN.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Being creative inside and outside the classroom: How to boost
your students' creativity, and your own. Rotterdam; Boston: Sense Publishers.
Balen, R., Blyth, E., Calabretto, H., Fraser, C., Horrocks, C., & Marby, M. (2006). Involving children
in health and social research: ‘‘Human becom‐ ings’’ or ‘‘active beings’’? Childhood, 13, 29
– 48. doi.org/10.1177/0907568206059962
Banaji, S. (2008). Creativity: exploring the rhetorics and the realities. In R. Willett, M. Robinson &
J. Marsh (Eds.), Play, creativity and digital cultures (pp. 147‐165). Routledge research in
education. London, UK: Routledge.
Barbour, R. (2008). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage.
Barker, C. (2007). Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. (3. ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Barker, C. (2011). Cultural studies: theory and practice (4th ed.). London: SAGE.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bass, L. (2007). The sociology of children and youth. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.), 21st century
sociology (pp. II‐140‐II‐147). [Sage Knowledge Online]
doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4135/9781412939645.n74
150
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the
scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–
429.
Battelle, J. (2016). Max Ventilla of AltSchool: The Full Shift Dialogs Transcript. Retrieved from
https://shift.newco.co/max‐ventilla‐of‐altschool‐the‐full‐shift‐dialogs‐transcript‐
677f9cdf9313#.wmkmrvjut
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006). The relationships among schooling, learning, and creativity:
“All roads lead to creativity” or “You can’t get there from here” In G. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.),
Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316‐ 332). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Beghetto, R. (2007). Ideational code‐switching: Walking the talk about supporting student
creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29(4), 265–270.
doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554421
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., Hegarty, C. B., Hammond, H. L., & Wilcox‐Herzog, A. (2012).
Cultivating creativity, play and leisure in early childhood education: A 4 C perspective. In
O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education
(pp. 247–266). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1),
53–69. doi:10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2016). Ever‐Broadening Conceptions of Creativity in the Classroom.
In R. Beghetto & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom (Current
151
Perspectives in Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 67‐85). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316212899.008
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2017). Theories of creativity. In J. A. Plucker Creativity & innovation:
theory, research, and practice. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Beghetto R. A. (2019). Structured uncertainty: How creativity thrives under constraints and
uncertainty. In C. Mullen (Eds), Creativity under duress in education?. Creativity theory and
action in education (pp.27‐ 40). Springer, Cham
Beisser, S. R., Gillespie, C. W., & Thacker, V. M. (2013). An investigation of play: From the voices
of fifth‐ and sixth‐grade talented and gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 25‐38.
doi:10.1177/0016986212450070
Bell, S. (2010). Project‐based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43.
doi:10.1080/00098650903505415
Bench, S., & Lench, H. (2013). On the function of boredom. Behavioral Sciences, 3(3), 459–472.
doi:10.3390/bs3030459
Benchoam, E. (1993). Art as refuge and protest: Autobiography of a young political prisoner in
Argentina. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1‐2), 111–127.
doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534470
Bender, W. N. (2012). Project‐Based Learning: Differentiating Instruction for the Twenty‐First
Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bennett, J., & Leonarduzz, S. (2004). Starting strong: Curricula and pedagogies in early childhood
education and care: Five curriculum outlines. Paris: OECD.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, (7–74).
Blakey, N. H. (2001). Boredom: The Cauldron of Creativity. Mothering, 74. Retrieved from
152
http://link.galegroup.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/apps/doc/A76587427/HRCA?u=qut&sid=HR
CA&xid=7084fcf
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., Krajcik, J. S. (2005) Motivation and cognitive engagement in
learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences. Cambridge University Press, ProQuest Ebook Central
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=261112.
Boden, M. (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London ;: Routledge.
Bore, A. (2006). Bottom‐up for creativity in science?: A collaborative model for curriculum and
professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 413‐422.
doi:10.1080/02607470600982019
Boudreault, F. A., Haga, J., Paylor, B., Sabourin, A., Thomas, S., Van Der Linden, C. (2013) Future
Tense: Adapting Canadian Education Systems For The 21St Century. Action Canada.
Retrieved from http://www.actioncanada.ca/project/future‐tense‐adapting‐canadian‐
education‐systems‐21st‐century/
Bourke, R., & Loveridge, J. (2014). "Radical collegiality" through student voice: Challenging our
understandings of educational experience, policy and practice. New Zealand Journal of
Educational Studies, 49(2), 126‐130.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bragg, S. (2007). “It’s not about systems, it’s about relationships”: Building a listening culture in a
primary school. In D. Thiessen & A.Cook‐Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student
experience in elementary and secondary school (pp.659‐680). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Brandau, H., Daghofer, F., Hollerer, L., Kaschnitz, W., Keller, K., Kirchmair, G., Krammer, I., &
Schlagbauer, A. (2007). The relationship between creativity, teacher ratings on behavior,
153
age, and gender in pupils from seven to ten years. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 91‐
113. doi:10.1002/j.2162‐6057.2007.tb01283.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77‐101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners.
London: Sage.
Brightworks School. (2016). Charter. Retrieved from http://www.sfbrightworks.org/about‐
us/charter/
Brooker, L. (2001). Interviewing children. In G. MacNaughton, S. Rolfe, & I. Siraj‐Blatchford (Eds.),
Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 162‐
177). Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Brundett, M. (2007) Bringing creativity back into primary education. Education 3‐13, 35:2, 105‐
107 doi: 10.1080/03004270701311879
Bureau of Communications and Arts Research. (2018). Cultural and creative activity boots
Australian economy. Retrieved from http://communications.e‐
newsletter.com.au/pub/pubType/EO/pubID/zzzz5976fe3908a3e171/interface.html
Burke, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2003). The school I'd like: Children and young people's reflections on an
education for the 21st century (1st ed.). New York; London;: RoutledgeFalmer.
doi:10.4324/9780203439074
Burnard, P., & White, J. (2008). Creativity and performativity: Counterpoints in British and
Australian education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 667‐682.
doi:10.1080/01411920802224238
Burnett C., Smith S. (2019). Reaching for the star: A model for integrating creativity in education.
In C. Mullen (Eds) Creativity under duress in education?. Creativity theory and action in
education, vol 3. (pp. 179‐ 199). Springer, Cham
154
Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction
in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35‐49.
doi:10.1080/0305764042000183115
Caldwell, B. J. (2010). Where have creativity, innovation and passion gone in the great education
debates of the 21st century? Fourth Richard Selby Smith Oration. Retrieved from
http://educationaltransformations.com.au/category/downloadable‐papers/page/3
Cambell Rightmyer, E. (2016). Caring. In D. Couchenour & J. K. Chrisman, (Eds.). The Sage
encyclopedia of contemporary early childhood education. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Canning, N. (2018). “Where’s the bear? Over there!”: Den making. In G. Goodliff, G., N. Canning,
J. Parry & L. Miller (Eds). Young children’s play and creativity: multiple voices. Abingdon,
Oxon ;: Routledge.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with
increased creative achievement in high‐functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85(3), 499–506.
Carter, D. (2018). The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians: what it
is and why it needs updating. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the‐
melbourne‐declaration‐on‐educational‐goals‐for‐young‐australians‐what‐it‐is‐and‐why‐
it‐needs‐updating‐107895
Carter, F., & Cheesman, P. (2016). Anxiety in childhood and adolescence encouraging self‐help
through relaxation training. London: Routledge.
Cashmore, J. (2002). Promoting the participation of children and young people in care. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 26, 837‐847. doi: 10.1016/S0145‐2134(02)00353‐8
Castro, I. E., Swauger, M., & Harger, B. (Eds.). (2017). Researching children and youth:
Methodological issues, strategies, and innovations. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
155
Ceci, M., & Kumar, V. (2016). A Correlational Study of Creativity, Happiness, Motivation, and Stress
from Creative Pursuits. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 609–626.
doi:10.1007/s10902‐015‐9615‐y
Chang, C. (2014). An IPA‐embedded model for evaluating creativity curricula. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 59‐71. doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.856144
Cheng, V. M. Y. (2011). Infusing creativity into eastern classrooms: Evaluations from student
perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 67‐87. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.05.001
Cho, J., & Huh, J. (2017). New education policies and practices in South Korea. Retrieved from
UNESCO Bangkok: Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education
https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/new‐education‐policies‐and‐practices‐south‐korea
Choi, S. (2019). What does the 2008 Melbourne Declaration look like in 2019? Retrieved from
https://www.schoolgovernance.net.au/news/what‐does‐the‐2008‐melbourne‐
declaration‐look‐like‐in‐2019
Church, E. (2002). When to challenge children. Early Childhood Today, 16(5), 32‐39.
Clark, A., McQuail, S., & Moss, P. (2003). Exploring the field of listening to and consulting with
young children., Research Report 445, Department for Education and Skills, London.
Retrieved from
http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/support/GuidanceReports/documents/172.pdf
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016). Thematic analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology, , 1‐2.
doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Cockburn, T. (2013). Rethinking Children’s Citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
doi.org/10.1057/9781137292070
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing Creativity in Education. European Journal of
Education, 49(3), 348–364. doi:10.1111/ejed.12090
156
Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2002). Concluding observations of the Committee on the
Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Retrieved
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3df58f087.html
Corsaro, W. A. (1988). Routines in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery school children.
Sociology of Education, 61(1), 1‐14. doi:10.2307/2112305
Coyle, D. (2009) The Talent Code. London: Random House Books.
Craft, A. (1999) Teaching Creativity: Philosophy and Practice. London & New York: Routledge.
Craft, A. (2001a). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority, 1‐37. Retrieved from
http://ncys.ksu.edu.sa/sites/ncys.ksu.edu.sa/files/Creativity%20and%20innovation%202
0.pdf
Craft, A. (2001b). ‘Little c’ creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in
education (pp. 45‐61). London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
Craft, A. (2003a). Creative thinking in the early years of education. Early Years, 23(2), 143‐154.
doi:10.1080/09575140303105
Craft, A. (2003b). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British journal
of educational studies, 51(2), 113‐127. doi: 10.1111/1467‐8527.t01‐1‐00229
Craft, A. (2006) Fostering creativity with wisdom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36:3, 337‐350,
doi: 10.1080/03057640600865835
Craft, A. (2007) Possibility thinking in the early years and primary classroom, in: G. TAN (Ed)
Creativity: a handbook for teachers Singapore: World Scientific.
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.
doi:10.1080/17457823.2013.828474
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (2001). Creativity in education. London: Continuum
157
Creative Industries Council. (2016). Creative jobs and exports outpace rest Of UK economy.
Retrieved from http://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/uk‐creative‐overview/news‐and‐
views/news‐creative‐jobs‐and‐exports‐outgrow‐rest‐of‐economy#
Creative Little Scientists. (2017). About the project. Retrieved from www.creative‐little‐
scientists.eu/content/about‐project
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative.
Boston: Pearson
Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London: Longmans, Green.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.),
The creativity research handbook, 1, pp. 83‐114. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Cropley, A. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391‐404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Cropley, A. (2012). Creativity and education: an Australian perspective. The International Journal
of Creativity and Problem Solving, 22(1), 9. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&u=qut&v=2.
1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA446637859&sid=summon&asid=fe80144cf927cb4721749736b4ea
1e07
Cropley, D. H. (2017). Creative Products. In J. A. Plucker (Ed.) Creativity & innovation : theory,
research, and practice. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Cropley, A. J., & Urban, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In F. J. M. K.
A. Heller, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook research and
development of giftedness and talent (pp. 481– 484). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language
classroom. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431‐445. doi:10.1007/s13384‐
012‐0074‐8
158
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New
York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2018). Foreword. In R. Sternberg & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human
creativity. (pp. xii‐xvii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi:
10.1017/9781108185936.001
Dacey, J. S. (1989). Discriminating characteristics of the families of highly creative adolescents. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 23(4), 263–271.
Dacey, J. & Lennon, K, (1998) Understanding creativity: the interplay of biological, psychological
and social factors. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Dahl, K. L. (1995). Challenges in understanding the learner's perspective. Theory into Practice,
34(2), 124‐130. doi:10.1080/00405849509543669
Danby, S., Ewing, L., & Thorpe, K. (2011). The novice researcher: Interviewing young children.
Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 74‐84. doi: 10.1177/1077800410389754
Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Accounting for young children's competence in educational
research: New perspectives on research ethics. Australian Educational Researcher, 31(3),
35‐49. doi:10.1007/BF03249527
Daud, A. M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., & Osman, K. (2012). Creativity in science education. Procedia ‐
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 467‐474. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.302
Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health
Research, 12(2), 279‐289. doi:10.1177/104973230201200211
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
159
de Hond M. (2016). The traditional school model is the main obstacle to personalised learning.
Retrieved from http://stevejobsschool.world/wp‐content/uploads/2016/05/The‐
Traditional‐School‐Model‐is‐the‐main‐obstacle‐to‐personalized‐learning.pdf
Demos, J. (1970). A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Department for State Development and Innovation. (2003). Creativity is Big Business:
A framework the future Retrieved from
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/29266/11327599839Queensland_Creativity_is
_Big_Business__A_Framework_for_the_Future.pdf/Queensland%2BCreativity%2Bis%2B
Big%2BBusiness%2B‐%2BA%2BFramework%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BFuture.pdf
Devine, D. (2002). Children’s citizenship and the structuring of adult‐child relations in the Primary
School. Childhood, August 9 303‐320. doi:10.1177/0907568202009003044
DeWinter, M. (1997). Children as fellow citizens participation and commitment. Abingdon:
Radcliffe Medical Press.
Dinham, J., & Chalk, B. (2018). It’s arts play: young children belonging, being and becoming
through the arts. South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press
DiYanni, R. (2015). Critical and creative thinking: a brief guide for teachers. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Docherty, S., & Sandelowski, M. (1999). Focus on qualitative methods: Interviewing children.
Research in Nursing and Health, 22, 177 – 185.
Dodd, T. (2017, October 4). OECD expert reads Australia the riot act. The Financial Review.
Retrieved from https://www.afr.com/leadership/oecd‐expert‐reads‐australian‐schools‐
the‐riot‐act‐20171006‐gyvgq0
Doyle, C. (2016). The Creative Process: Effort and Effortless Cognition. Journal of Cognitive
Education and Psychology, 15(1), 37–54. doi.org/10.1891/1945‐8959.15.1.37
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York; Random House.
160
Eder, D., & Fingerson, L. (2002). Interviewing children and adolescents. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.
Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp.181–201).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edwards, D. (2010). Altruism. In the lab: Creativity and culture (pp. 131‐150). Cambridge,
Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/j.ctt13x0dwt.9
Education Scotland. (2019, June 27). Creativity 3‐18 curriculum review (impact report). Retrieved
https://education.gov.scot/improvement/practice‐exemplars/Creativity%203‐
18%20curriculum%20review%20(impact%20report)
Eckhoff, A., & Urbach. J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during childhood:
Sociocultural conceptions of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood
Education Journal 36 (2): 179–85.
Elliott, R. K. (1971). ‘Versions of creativity’ in Proceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society
of Great Britain, Presented 5th of February 1971.
Elpidorou, A. (2018). The bored mind is a guiding mind: toward a regulatory theory of
boredom. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 455–484.
doi:10.1007/s11097‐017‐9515‐1
Emery, D. E. (1993). Self, creativity, political resistance. Political Psychology, 14, 347–362.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962‐
1023. doi:10.1086/231294
Englebright Fox, J. (2016) Art. In D. Couchenour & J. Chrisman (Eds.) The sage encyclopedia of
contemporary early childhood education (Vols. 1‐3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc doi: 10.4135/9781483340333
Erikson, D. M. & Ernst, J.A. (2011). The real benefits of nature play every day. Exchange, 33(4), 97–
99.
161
European Commission. (2005). Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community
Strategic Guidelines, 2007‐2013, Retreived from
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/osc/050706osc_en.pdf
European Commission. (2008). Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation. A Background
Paper: Slovenian EU Council Presidency, Retrieved
http://www.sac.smm.lt/images/12%20Vertimas%20SAC%20Creativity%20and%20in
novation%20‐%20SI%20Presidency%20paper%20anglu%20k.pdf
European Commission (2009). Creativity and Innovation Creativity in Schools in Europe: A survey
of Teachers Retrieved from
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55645_Creativity%20Survey%20Brochure.pdf
European Commission (2010). The Role of Creativity and Innovation in School Curricula in the
EU27 Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC61106_TN.pdf
European Parliament and the Council (2006) Recommendation of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal
of the European Union. Retrieved from http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006H0962&from=EN
European Union (2019, July 8) Supporting cultural and creative sectors, cultural and Creative
Industries (CCIs) and related ecosystems. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/cultural‐creative‐industries_en
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: intellect,
potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 62–88.
Feldman, D.H, Csikszentmihalyi M, & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world, a framework for the
study of creativity. Westport, CT & London: Praeger Publishers
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the
EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching.
Retreived from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf
162
Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor
play activities in pre‐primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2),
111–117.
Fleith, D. dS., (2000). Teacher and Student Perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom Environment.
Roeper Review. V22(3) p148‐154
Florez, J. (2006). Schools are stifling children's creativity. Deseret News Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.q
ut.edu.au/docview/351473081?accountid=13380
Florida, R. (2002). Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(1), 55–
71. doi.org/10.1093/jeg/2.1.55
Florida, R. (2011, October 4). The world’s leading creative class countries. Retrieved from
http://www.citylab.com/work/2011/10/worlds‐leading‐creative‐class‐
countries/228/#slide0
Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What's in it for schools?. New York;London;:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Folque, M. A. (2010). Interviewing young children. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe, & I. Siraj‐
Blatchford (Ed.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and
practice (10th ed., pp.239‐260). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645‐
672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Förster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty Categorization Theory. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1751‐9004.2010.00289.x
Freeman, M. (1996) Children's education; a test case for best interests and autonomy. In R. Davie
& D. Galloway (Eds.) Listening to children in education (pp.29‐48). London: David Fulton).
163
Freeman, C., & Von Heezik, Y. (2018). Children, nature and cities: rethinking the connections.
London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Freund, P. & Holling. H., (2008). Creativity in the classroom: A multilevel analysis investigating the
impact of creativity and reasoning ability on GPA. Creativity Research Journal 20 (3): 309–
18.
Gaines Pell, A (2016) Welcome from our Head of School. Retrieved from
http://www.blueschool.org/welcome/
Gardner, H. (1980). Artful Scribbles: The Significance of Children’s Drawings. New York, NY: Basic
Books Publishers.
Gaut, B. (2018) The value of creativity. In B. Gaut, & M. Kieran, M. (Ed.). Creativity and Philosophy
pp.124‐139. Retrieved from London: Routledge, doi‐
org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4324/9781351199797
Getzels, J. & Jackson, P. (1962) Creativity and intelligence: explorations with gifted students. New
York: John Wiley.
Gibson, F. (2007). Conducting focus groups with children and young people: Strategies for success.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(5), 473‐483. doi:10.1177/1744987107079791
Gibson, J. E (2012) Interviews and focus groups with children: Methods that match children’s
developing. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4,148–159 doi:10.1111/j.1756‐
2589.2012.00119.x
Gillespie, A., Baeveldt, C., Costall, A., Cresswell, J., de Saint‐Laurent, C., Glaveanu, V. P. Zittoun, T.
(2015) Discussing creativity from a cultural psychological perspective. In Glǎveanu, V.,
Gillespie, A., & Valsiner, J. (Eds). Rethinking creativity contributions from social and
cultural psychology. Hove, East Sussex;: Routledge.
Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for
aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87(4), 574‐587. doi:10.1002/sce.1054
164
Glaveanu, V., & Glaveanu, V. (2011). Creativity As Cultural Participation. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 41(1), 48–67. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐5914.2010.00445.x
Golomb, C. (2004). The child’s creation of a pictorial world (2nd ed.). London, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Göncü, A., Jain, J., & Tuermer, U. (2007). Children’s play as cultural interpretation. In A. Göncü &
S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional
perspectives. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brien, L., Perry, L. A. & Roberts, M.
(2018) Through Growth to Achievement: Report of the Review to Achieve Educational
Excellence in Australian Schools. Canberra, ACT. Commonwealth of Australia
Goyal, N. (2016). Schools on trial : how freedom and creativity can fix our educational
malpractice(First edition.). New York: Doubleday.
Gray, A. (2016) The 10 skills you need to thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Retreived from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the‐10‐skills‐you‐need‐to‐thrive‐in‐the‐fourth‐
industrial‐revolution/
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: essays on education, the arts, and social change.
San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers.
Greene, S. & Hogan, D. (2005). Researching children's experience: methods and methodological
issues. In Greene, S. & Hogan, D. Researching children's experience (pp. 2‐21).: SAGE
Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781849209823.n1
Groundwater‐Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrell, D. (2015). Participatory research with children
and young people . London: SAGE Publications.
Gruber, H. (1997). Creative altruism, cooperation, and world peace. In M. Runco & R. Richards
(Eds.), Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health (pp. 463–479). Greenwich: Ablex
Publishing.
165
Guèvremont, A., Kohen, D., & Findlay, L. (2010). Do high levels of extracurricular activities help or
hinder child development? Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved from Canadian
Council on Learning website:
http://www.ccl‐
cca.ca/CCL/Reports/OtherReports/201008GuevremontKohenFindlay.html
Guilford, J. P. (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 445–454.
Halula, J., & Halula, W. (2011). The brain. Patterns, structure, & novelty. Owatonna, MN: Learning
Zone Express.
Hammersley, M., & Campbell, J. L. (2012). What is qualitative research?. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Harlan, J. (1993). Yes we can: Overcoming obstacles to creativity. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association on Mental Retardation (117th, Washington. DC, June
3, 1993). (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 360761).
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. W., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’ theory of creative
environments: Child rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851–856.
Harris, P., & Manatakis, H. (2013). Children as citizens : Engaging with the child's voice in
educational settings. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Harris, A. (2016). Creativity and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi.org/10.1057/978‐
1‐137‐57224‐0
Harris, A. (2017). Creative Ecologies: Fostering Creativity in Secondary Schools. Available at:
http://creativeresearchhub.com
Hart R.A. (1992). Children's Participation, from Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF: Florence.
Retrieved from https://www.unicef‐irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf
Hartley, D. (2006) The instrumentalization of the expressive in education, in A. Moo Schooling,
society and curriculum (pp.60‐70) London: Routledge.
166
Harwood, D. & Collier, D.R. (2017). The matter of the stick: Storying/(re)storying children’s
literacies in the forest. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17 (3), 336– 352.
Heary, C., & Hennessy, E. (2006). Focus groups versus individual interviews with children: A
comparison of data. Irish Journal of Psychology, 27(1‐2), 58‐68.
doi:10.1080/03033910.2006.10446228
Helfand, M., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016) The Four‐C Model of Creativity: Culture and
Context. In V. Glăveanu (Ed). The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture
Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/978‐1‐137‐46344‐9
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and Learning: What Research Says to the
Teacher? Washington DC: National Education Association, Professional Library.
Hennessey, B.A, & Amabile, T.M (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 61, 569‐598 doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Hertzog, N. (1997). Open‐Ended Activities and Their Role in Maintaining Challenge. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 21(1), 54–81. doi.org/10.1177/016235329702100104
Holder, M. D. (2012). Happiness in children: Measurement, correlates and enhancement of positive
subjective well‐being. Dordrecht;New York;: Springer. doi:10.1007/978‐94‐007‐4414‐1
Holmes, R. M. (1998). Fieldwork with children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hong Kong Government. (2016) Hong Kong: The Facts. Creative Industries. Retrieved from
www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/creative_industries.pdf
Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African‐american students' perceptions of
culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131‐149.
doi:10.1023/A:1010393224120
Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy: how people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.
Hughes, P. (2010). Paradigms, methods and knowledge. In G., MacNaughton, I., Siraj‐Blatchford,
S. A., Rolfe (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and
practice, (2nd
ed.), (pp.35‐61). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
167
Hunleth, J. (2011). Beyond on or with: Questioning power dynamics and knowledge production in
‘‘child oriented’’ research methodology. Childhood, 18, 81 – 93.
Hunter, F. (2018, December 9). ‘Too much being taught’: Tehan says national curriculum is
overcrowded. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too‐much‐being‐taught‐tehan‐says‐national‐
curriculum‐is‐overcrowded‐20181209‐p50l5s.html
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s
schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Inglehart, R. (2000). Culture and democracy. In L. E. Harrison & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture
matters: How values shape human progress (pp. 80–97). New York: Basic Books.
Inhelder, B., Sinclair, H., & Bovet, M. (2014). Learning and the development of cognition. London:
Psychology Press.
James, A., & Prout, A (1990). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in
the Sociological Study of Childhood. NewYork:The Falmer Press.
James, A. & Prout. A. (1997). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. (2nd Ed). London,
England: Falmer Press.
Jamison, K. (1989). Mood disorders and patterns of creativity in British writers and artists.
Psychiatry, 2, 125–134.
Jeffrey, B. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: towards a common discourse and practice.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 399‐414, doi: 10.1080/03057640600866015
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2006). Creative learning and possibility thinking. In B. Jeffrey (Ed.), Creative
learning practices: European experiences (pp. 73–91). London: The Tufnell Press.
Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (1997) The relevance of creative teaching: Pupils’ views. In A. Pollard, D.
Thiessen & A. Filer, Children and their curriculum: The perspectives of primary and
elementary school children. (pp.15‐33). London; Washington, D.C: The Farmer Press.
168
Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (2008). Creative learning in the primary school. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Jenks, C. (1992). The Sociology of Childhood: Essential Readings. Hampshire, UK: Greeg Revivals.
Jennings, T. (2005). Investigating creativity: Understanding the perspectives of teachers and
students (Order No. 3205101). [ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global]. (305403206).
Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.q
ut.edu.au/docview/305403206?accountid=13380
John‐Steiner, V. (2015). Creative engagement across the lifespan. In Glǎveanu, V., Gillespie, A., &
Valsiner, J. (Eds). Rethinking creativity contributions from social and cultural psychology.
Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.
Jones, R., & Wyse, D. (2013). Creativity in the primary curriculum (2nd ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon,
Oxon; New York: Routledge
Kampylis, P. G., & Valtanen, J. (2010). Redefining creativity—analysing definitions, collocations,
and consequences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(3), 191‐214.
Kampylis, P. (2010). Fostering Creative Thinking: The Role of Primary Teachers. University of
Jyväskylä.
Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In‐Service and Prospective Teachers’ Conceptions
of Creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29. doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.10.001
Kanyal, M. (2014). Children's rights 0‐8: Promoting participation in education and care. Oxon,
England: Routledge.
Karkou, V., & Glasman, J. (2004) Arts, Education and Society: e Role of the Arts in Promoting the
Emotional Wellbeing and Social Inclusion of Young People. Support for Learning, 19(2),
57–65. doi: 10.1111/ j.0268–2141.2004.00321.x
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity.
Review of General Psychology, 13, 1‐12. dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
169
Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: a four‐factor model and relations to
creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4), 233–
55.
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J., & Deyoung, C.
(2015). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement
in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality.
Kaufman, S., Quilty, L., Grazioplene, R., Hirsh, J., Gray, J., Peterson, J., & Deyoung, C. (2016).
Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the
arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258. doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156
Kaufman, J. (2018). What creativity can be, and what creativity can do. In R. Sternberg & J.
Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 125‐133). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108185936.01
Kaufman, J. (n.d.). Looking forward: the potential of creativity for social justice and equity (and
other exciting outcomes). The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 305–307.
doi:10.1002/jocb.195
Kauper K., & Jacobs, M. (2019) The case for slow curriculum: Creative subversion and the
curriculum mind. In C. Mullen (Eds) Creativity under duress in education?. Creativity theory
and action in education vol 3 (pp.339‐360). Springer, Cham
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012). Reclaim your creative confidence. Harvard Business Review, 90(12),
115.
Kelly, L. (2013). Conducting focus groups with child participants. Developing practice: The Child,
Youth and Family Work Journal, (36), 78‐82.
Kemple, K. M., & Nissenberg, S. A. (2000) Nurturing Creativity in Early Childhood Education:
Families Are Part of It. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28 (1), 67‐71. doi:
10.1023/A:1009555805909
170
Kettler, T., Lamb, K., Willerson, A., & Mullet, D. (2018). Teachers’ Perceptions of Creativity in the
Classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 164–171.
doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446503
Kiecolt‐Glaser, J. (1999). Stress, Personal Relationships, and Immune Function: Health
Implications. Brain Behaviour and Immunity, 13(1), 61–72. doi:10.1006/brbi.1999.0552
Kilkelly, U., Kilpatrick, R. & Lundy, L. et al. (2005). Children's rights in Northern Ireland. Belfast,
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People).
Kim, K. (2008). Underachievement and creativity: Are gifted under‐ achievers highly creative?
Creativity Research Journal 20 (2): 234– 42.
King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.
doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five‐factor model. Journal of
Research in Personality, 30(2), 189–203
Knapp, S. J. (1999). Facing the Child: Rethinking Models of Agency in Parent‐child Relations.
Contemporary Perspectives on Family Research 1, 53–75.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation: A study of the conscious and unconscious processes of
humor, scientific discovery and art. Picador: London.
Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and
cognitive style. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kortesluoma, R.‐L., Hentinen, M., & Nikkonen, M. (2003). Conducting a qualitative child interview:
Methodological considerations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42, 434‐441.
doi:10.1046/j.1365‐2648.2003.02643.x
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
171
Lambert, M. (2012). A beginner's guide to doing your education research project. Los Angeles,
Calif: Sage.
Land, G. & Jarman, B. (1998). Breakpoint and Beyond: Mastering the future today. Leaderhsip 2000
Inc.
Lansdown, G. (1994). Children's rights. In B. Mayall (Eds.), Children's Childhoods: Observed and
Experienced (p33‐45). London: The Falmer Press.
Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision making. Florence,
Italy: Innocenti UNICEF.
Lansdown, G. (2005). Innocenti insight: The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre.
Lassig, C. J (2012a) Perceiving and pursuing novelty: a grounded theory of adolescent creativity.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retreived from http://eprints.qut.edu/
Lassig, C. J. (2012b) Creating creative classrooms. The Australian Educational Leader, 34(2), 8‐13.
Retreived from http://eprints.qut.edu/
Leahy, W., & Sweller. J., (2008). The imagination effect increases with an increased intrinsic
cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22 (2), 273–83.
Lebuda, I. (2016) Political Pathologies and Big‐C Creativity: Eminent Polish Creators’ Experience of
Restrictions Under the Communist Regime. In V. Glăveanu, (Eds). The Palgrave Handbook
of Creativity and Culture Research (First edition.). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
doi:10.1057/978‐1‐137‐46344‐9
Lee, J., & Jeon, Y. (2016). Korean students' perception of the curriculum for creativity and personal
character. Presented at 2016 International Conference on Platform Technology and
Service (PlatCon) . doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2016.7456804
Leggett, N.M. (2015). Intentional teaching practices of educators and the development of creative
thought processes of young children within Australian early childhood centres. (Doctoral
172
Dissertation) Retrieved from http://novaprd‐
lb.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:17151
Leong, S. (2010). Creativity and assessment in chinese arts education: Perspectives of hong kong
students. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(1), 75‐92.
doi:10.1177/1321103X10370086
Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. Journal of Educational
Change, 1(2), 155‐172. doi:10.1023/A:1010024225888
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Lindauer, M., Orwoll, L., & Kelley, C. (1997). Aging artists on the creativity of their old age.
Creativity Research Journal, 10, 133– 152.
Littledyke, M. (2004). Primary children's views on science and environmental issues: Examples of
environmental cognitive and moral development. Environmental Education Research,
10(2), 217‐235. doi:10.1080/13504620242000198186
Lloyd‐Smith, M. and Tarr, J. (2000) Researching children's perspectives: a sociological dimension
in A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.) Researching Children’s' Perspectives. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Longshaw, S. (2009). Creativity in science teaching. School Science Review, 90(332): 91–4.
Retreived from https://www.ase.org.uk/journals/school‐science‐
review/2009/3/332/1957/SSR332Mar2009p91.pdf
Louv, R. (2013). Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature‐deficit disorder. New York:
Atlantic Books Ltd.
Lucio, J. (2015) Talking about the city: Focus group discussions about the city and the community
as developmental grounds with children aged 5‐17. European Educational Research
Journal 2015. 14(2) 167‐ 176. doi: 10.1177/1474904115571795
173
Lundy, L. (2007) ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualizing Article 12 of the United Nations
Conventions on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33(6) 927‐
942. doi: 10.1080/01411920701657033
MacKinnon, D. (1961). The nature and nurture of creative potential. American Psychologist, 17,
484–495.
Machlup, F. (1980). Knowledge: its creation, distribution, and economic significance. Volume 1,
Knowledge and knowledge production. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Malchiodi, C. (1998). Understanding Children’s Drawings. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mann, S., & Cadman, R. (2014). Does Being Bored Make Us More Creative? Creativity Research
Journal, 26(2), 165–173. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901073
Marshall, C. (1985). Appropriate criteria of trustworthiness and goodness for qualitative research
on education organizations. Quality and Quantity, 19(4), 353‐373.
doi:10.1007/BF00146613
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (Sixth ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE.
Marshall, C., 1946, & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (Sixth ed.). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.
Maslow, A. H. (1963). The creative attitude. The Structurist, 3, 4–10.
Maslow, A. (1967). The creative attitude. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Rasik (Eds.), Explorations in
creativity (pp. 43– 57). New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. (1970) Motivation and Personality (3rd ed.). London: Harper Collins.
Mason, J., & Steadman, B. (1997). The significance of the conceptualisation of childhood for child
protection policy. Edited version of a paper presented to the Australian Family Research.
Conference (5th: 1996: Brisbane)‐. Family Matters, (46), 31.
Massoudi, M. (2003). Can scientific writing be creative? Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 12(2), 115‐128. doi:10.1023/A:1023931609549
174
Matthews, S. H. (2007). A window on the 'new' sociology of childhood. Sociology Compass, 1(1),
322‐334. doi:10.1111/j.1751‐9020.2007.00001.x
Mauthner, M. (1997), Methodological aspects of collecting data from children: lessons from three
research projects. Children & Society, 11, 16–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1099‐
0860.1997.tb00003.x
May, R. (1994). The courage to create. New York: W.W. Norton.
Maybin, J. & Woodhead, M. (2003). Childhood, vol. 2, Childhoods in Context. (Eds.) Chichester,
England: Wiley/Open University Press.
Mayesky, M. (1998). Creative activities for young children (6th ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar.
Mayesky, M. (2009). Creative activities for young children (9th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar
Cengage Learning.
McArdle, F. & Wong, B. (2010). What young children say about art: A comparative study.
International Art in Early Childhood Research Journal, 2, (1). Retrieved from
http://artinearlychildhood.org/artec/images/article/ARTEC_2010_Research_Journal_1_
Article_4.pdf
McCallum, A. (2012). Creativity and learning in secondary English teaching for a creative
classroom. London: Routledge
McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W.
McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp.
53‐72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–63.
McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortable
learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 149‐168.
doi:10.1080/02671520500077970
175
McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable
pedagogical practice. Higher Education, 56(6), 633‐643. doi:10.1007/s10734‐008‐9115‐7
Memmert, D. & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non‐specific and specific concepts on tactical
creativity in team ball sports. Journal of Sport Science, 25, 1423–1432.
Memmert, D. (2015). Teaching tactical creativity in sport research and practice. London:
Routledge.
Menkel‐Meadow, C. (1987). Excluded voices: New voices in the legal profession making new
voices in the law. University of Miami Law Review, 42(1), 29.
Michel, M., & Dudek, S. Z. (1991). Mother‐child relationships and creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 4(3), 281–286.
Middleton, J. A. (1995). A study of intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom: A personal
construct approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 254–279.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook for new methods
(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, C., & Christoff, K. (2018). Finding Consistency in Boredom by Appreciating its
Instability. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 744–747. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.07.001
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council
on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
Ministry Of Education, Singapore (2016). Desired outcomes of education. Retrieved from
https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education‐system/desired‐outcomes‐of‐education
Ministry Of Education, Taiwan. (2014). Creativity and Imagining the Future in Education
Retrieved from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=15575&ctNode=11449&mp=3
Ministry Of Science, ICT And Future Planning, South Korea. (n.d) Creative economy, Korea's new
engine for growth. Retrieved from
http://english.msip.go.kr/english/msipContents/contents.do?mId=NDcx
176
Minow, M. (1999). Choice or commonality: Welfare and schooling after the end of welfare. Duke
Law Journal, 49(2), 493‐559.
Mishra P., Henriksen D. (2018) A new definition of creativity. In: Creativity, technology &
education: Exploring their convergence. Springer Briefs in Educational
Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham
Moore, R.C. (1997). The need for nature: A childhood right. Social Justice. 24. 203‐220
Moorefield‐Lang, H. M. (2010). Arts voices: Middle school students and the relationships of the
arts to their motivation and self‐efficacy. The Qualitative Report, 15(1), 1.
Moran, J (2016) Crime, early childhood and. In D. Couchenour & J. Kent Chrisman, The SAGE
Encyclopedia of Contemporary Early Childhood Education. SAGE Publications, 2016.
ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=4625105.
Created from qut on 2018‐09‐08 21:39:54.
Moreton, E. (2017). Stillpoints for children: guided relaxation, meditation and visualisation.
London: Routledg
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Qualitative Research Methods: Focus groups as qualitative research : SAGE
Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781412984287
Morgan, S., & Forster, J. (1999). Creativity in the classroom. Gifted Education International, 14(1),
29. doi: 10.1177/026142949901400105
Morrongiello, B., Kane, A., Mcarthur, B., & Bell, M. (2011). Physical risk taking in elementary‐
school children: Measurement and emotion regulation issues. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52(4), 492–496. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.003
Muir, A. (2010). Relaxation techniques. London: Hodder Education.
Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., N. Lamb, K., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of
creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9‐30.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001
177
Murphy, C., Varley, J., & Veale, Ó. (2012). I'd rather they did experiments with us than just talking:
Irish children's views of primary school science. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 415‐
438. doi:10.1007/s11165‐010‐9204‐3
Murphy, J. F. (2016). Understanding schooling through the eyes of students. Thousand Oaks,
California: Corwin.
NACCCE (1999). National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education All our futures;
creativity, culture and education. Department for Education and Employment, London
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2014). Chapter 2.1 Risk and Benefit. Retrieved
from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/chapter‐2‐1‐risk‐and‐benefit
National Health and Medical Research Council (2015) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research 2007 (Updated May 2015) Retrieved from
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_national_statement_m
ay_2015_150514_a.pdf
National Health and Medical Research Council (2014). Chapter 4.2: Children and young people.
Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/chapter‐4‐2‐children‐and‐young‐
people
Nicholson, J., Kurnik, J., Jevgjovikj, M., & Ufoegbune, V. (2015). Deconstructing adults' and
children's discourse on children's play: Listening to children's voices to destabilise deficit
narratives. Early Child Development and Care, 185(10), 1569‐1586.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1011149
Nickerson, R. S. (2010). How to discourage creative thinking in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto &
J. C. Kaufman Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp.1‐5) [EBL version] Retreived from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/lib/qut/reader.action?docID
=824449
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press.
178
Obama, B. (2015) Fact sheet: The White House releases new strategy for American Innovation,
announces areas of opportunity from self‐driving cars to smart cities. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the‐press‐office/2015/10/21/fact‐sheet‐white‐
house‐releases‐new‐strategy‐american‐innovation
O’Brien, A., & Donelan, K. (Eds.). (2008). The arts and youth at risk: Global and local challenges.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).p
df
OECD Observer Korea. (2016). Getting smart: Korea’s creative economy. Retrieved from
http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/5651/Getting_smart:_Korea_s_creative
_economy.html
Office for Standards in Education. (2007). Poetry in schools: A survey of practice, 2006/07.
Ofsted: London
Office for Standards in Education. (2010). Learning: Creative Approaches That Raise Standards.
London: DfES.
Olivant, K. F. (2015). "I am not a format": Teachers' experiences with fostering creativity in the era
of accountability. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(1), 115‐129.
doi:10.1080/02568543.2014.978920
O'Reilly, M., Ronzoni, P. D., & Dogra, N. (2013). Research with children: Theory & practice. London:
SAGE.
Oswell, D. (2012). The agency of children. [EBL version] Retrieved from
http://www.qut.eblib.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Palmer‐Derrien, S. (2018). A disappointment or no big deal? Startup industry reacts to Morrison
government’s decision to scrap Innovation Minister. Retrieved from
179
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/startup‐industry‐reacts‐
morrison‐government‐scrapping‐innovation‐minister/
Park, S., Lee, S., Oliver, J. S., & Cramond, B. (2006). Changes in Korean science teachers'
perceptions of creativity and science teaching after participating in an overseas
professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 37‐64.
doi:10.1007/s10972‐006‐9009‐4
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Paul, E.S. & Stokes, D. (2018). Attributing Creativity. In B. Gaut, & M. Kieran (Ed) Creativity and
philosophy (pp.193‐209) London: Routledge, doi‐
org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4324/9781351199797
Pellegrini, A. D. & Holmes, R. M. (2006). The role of recess in Primary School. In D. Singer, R.
Golinkoff & K. Hirsh‐Pasek, (Eds) Play = Learning How Play Motivates and Enhances
Children’s Cognitive and Social‐Emotional Growth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. (2016). Makeology. New York ;: Routledge.
Phillips, L. G. (2010). Social justice storytelling and young children's active citizenship. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(3), 363‐376.
doi:10.1080/01596301003786993
Pink, D. (2006). A whole new mind : why right‐brainers will rule the future (1st Riverhead Books
pbk. ed.). New York: Riverhead Books
Pollard, A., Thiessen, D., & Filer, A. (1997). Children and their curriculum: The perspectives of
primary and elementary school children. Washington, D.C;London;: Falmer Press.
Powell, D. (2019). The government has abandoned Australian startups and left innovation for
dead. Retrieved from
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/opinion/government‐abandoned‐
australian‐startups
180
Pramling, I. (2004). The Swedish curriculum: Goals for a modern pre‐school system. In J. Bennett
& S. Leonarduzzi (Eds), Starting strong. Early childhood education and care: Five
curriculum outlines (pp. 21–25). Paris: OECD.
Pretty, G., & Seligman, C. (1983). Affect and the overjustification effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46, 1241–1253.
Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) (2005) Report: Imagine
Australia: the role of creativity in the knowledge economy. Retrieved from
http://www.industry.gov.au/science/PMSEIC/Documents/TheRoleOfCreativityInTheInno
vationEconomy.pdf
Puccio, G. (2012) Creativity as a life skill, TED talk. Accessed 03/08/2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltPAsp71rmI
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Pyles, J. L. (2016). Play, the benefits of. In D. Couchenour & J. K. Chrisman, (Eds.). The sage
encyclopedia of contemporary early childhood education. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Qualification and Curriculum Authority. (2005). Find It! Promote It! London: QCA.
Queensland Government. (2008). 2009 to be Year of Creativity in Queensland schools Retrieved
from http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/Id/60151
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2018). Enterprise and entrepreneurship
education: Guidance for UK higher education providers.
Qvortrup, J. (1993). Childhood as a Social Phenomenon: Lessons from an International Project.
Eurosocial Report 47. Vienna, Austria: European Centre.
Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics. Aldershot: Avebury.
Qvortrup, J. (2005). Studies in Modern Childhood Society, Agency, Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
181
Rawlinson, J. G. (2017). Creative thinking and brainstorming. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Reeve, J., Cole, S., & Olson, B. (1986). Adding excitement to intrinsic motivation research. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 349–363.
Ryhammar, L. & Brolin, C., (1999). Creativity research: historical considerations and main lines of
development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 259‐273.
Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: psychological, social, and
spiritual perspectives (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning. New York;
London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203317730
Rinkevich, J. (2011). Creative Teaching: Why It Matters and where to Begin. Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 219–223.
doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.575416
Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2013). The role of Hofstede’s individual‐ ism in national‐
level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 129–136.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752293.
Ritchie, S. (1980). Creativity and risk‐taking in young children. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/303028951/
Roberts, N. (2006). Public Entrepreneurship as Social Creativity. World Futures, 62(8), 595–609.
doi:10.1080/02604020600948909
Robinson, K. (2006). Do schools kill creativity? Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Robinson, K. (2015). Creative Schools: Revolutionising Education from the ground up. Australia:
Penguin Group.
182
Robinson, K. (2017). Out of our minds: The power of being creative. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Roche, J. (1999). Children: Rights, participation and citizenship. Childhood, 6(4), 475‐493.
doi:10.1177/0907568299006004006
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, N. (2000). The creative connection: Expressive arts as healing. Ross on Wye: PCCS Books.
Roth, K. (2005) Taktiktraining [Training of Tactics]. In A. Hohmann, M. Kolb & K. Roth (eds.),
Handbuch Sportspiel [Handbook of Sport Games] (pp. 342–349). Schorndorf:
Hofmann.
Rothschild, M. (2014). The Art of Mistakes Unexpected Painting Techniques and the Practice of
Creative Thinking. Cincinnati: F+W Media.
Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In D. Theissen & A.
Cook‐Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary school
and secondary school (pp.587‐610). Dordrecht, Netherlands; Springer.
Runco, M. (2001). Introduction to the Special Issue: Commemorating Guilford’s 1950 Presidential
Address. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3‐4), 245–245.
doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_01
Runco, M. (2014). Creativity Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. (2. ed.).
Burlington: Elsevier Science.
Russ, S. W. (2011). Emotion/Affect. In Encyclopedia of creativity: two‐volume set: online version.
(2011). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Ruttenberg, A., & Maital, S. (2014). Cracking the Creativity Code Zoom in/Zoom out/Zoom in
Framework for Creativity, Fun, and Success. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Ryhammar, L., & Brolin, C. (1999). Creativity research: Historical considerations and main lines of
development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 259‐273.
doi:10.1080/0031383990430303
183
Safford, K., Barrs, M. (2005). Creativity and literacy: Many routes to meaning. London: Centre for
Literacy in Primary Education.
Saporiti, A., Casas, F., Grignoli, D., Macini, A., Ferrucci, F. & Rago, Met (2005). Children's views on
children's rights. In L. E. Bass in Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, vol. 10, (pp.
125–52). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Sapp, D. (1992). Journal of creative behavior: The Point of Creative Frustration and the Creative
Process: A New Look at an Old Model , D. David Sa, (First Quarter, 1992), pp. 21–28. The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(1), 85–86. doi.org/10.1016/0737‐
6782(93)90067‐Z
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course before
It's Too Late? The Jossey‐Bass Education Series and the Jossey‐Bass Social and Behavioral
Science Series. Jossey‐Bass, Inc: San Francisco, CA.
Sawyer, K. (1997). Pretend play as improvisation: Conversation in the preschool classroom.
Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sawyer, R.K. (2006). Education for innovation. Thinking Skills Creativity, 1, (41–48)
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001
Scarlett, W. G. (2014). Creativity and Classroom Management. In W. George Scarlett in The SAGE
Encyclopedia of Classroom Management (pp. 199‐200) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Inc.
Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance
elementary school students’ achievement? Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47‐72.
doi:10.1002/j.2162‐6057.2006.tb01266.x
Schank, R. C. (1988). The creative attitude. New York: Macmillan.
Schleicher, A. (2017). Introduction to the international conference; Fostering Creativity in Children and
Young People Through Education and Culture. Durham; United Kingdom.
184
Schliemann, A., Carraher, D., & Brizuela, B. (2007). Bringing out the algebraic character of
arithmetic: from children’s ideas to classroom practice. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schiller, W., & Meiners, J. E. F. F. (2003). Dance‐Moving beyond steps to ideas (Doctoral
dissertation, Pearson Education).
Schwarz‐Geschka, M. (1994). Creativity in Japanese society. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 3(4): 229–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8691.1994.tb00181.x
Scott, C.L. (1999). Teachers' biases toward creative children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4),
321‐328. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_10
Seltzer, K., & Bentley, T. (1999). The Creative Age: Knowledge and Skills for the New Economy.
London: Demos.
Seitz, J. (2003). The political economy of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 385–392.
Sefton‐Green, J., Thomson, P., Jones, K, & Bresler, L. (Eds.). (2011). The Routledge International
Handbook of Creative Learning. London: Routledge.
Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children &
Society, 15(2), 107‐117. doi:10.1002/chi.617
Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience,
plasticity, and creativity: exploring lower‐order, high‐order, and interactive effects.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1087–90.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., et al. (2008). Assessing
creativity with divergent thinking tasks: exploring the reliability and validity of new
subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68–
85.
Simon, H.A. (2001). Creativity in the arts and the sciences. The Canyon Review and Stand, 23, 203–
220.
Singh, I., & Keenan, S. (2010). The challenges and opportunities of qualitiative health research with
children’, in I. Bourgeeault, R. Dingwall and R. DeVries (eds), The sage handbook of
185
qualitative methods in health research. doi:
dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4135/9781446268247.n37
Smith, A. (2007) Children and Young People's Participation Rights in Education. International
Journal of Childrens Rights, 15, (147‐164). doi: 10.1163/092755607X181739
Smith, A. B. (2015). Children's rights: Towards social justice. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Starko, A. (2013). Creativity on the Brink? Educational Leadership, 70(5), 54–56.
Starko, A. (2017). Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. (6th ed.). Milton: Taylor
and Francis.
Stasiulis, D. (2002). The active child citizen: Lessons from Canadian policy and the children's
movement. Citizenship Studies, 6(4), 507‐538. doi:10.1080/1362102022000041286
Steele, B. (1998). Draw Me a Story: An Illustrated Exploration of Drawing as Language. Winnipeg,
MB: Peguis Publishers.
Stefanou, C., Stolk, J., Prince, M., Chen, J., & Lord, S. (2013). Self‐Regulation and Autonomy in
Problem‐ and Project‐Based Learning Environments. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 14(2), 109–122. doi:10.1177/1469787413481132
Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of
conformity. New York: Free Press.
Sternberg, R.J., & Williams, W.M. (1996). How to develop adolescent creativity. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A model of leadership in organizations. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 2, (386–401).
Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87‐98.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
186
Sternberg, R. J (2010). Teaching for creativity. In R.A. Beghetto & J.C. Kaufman. Nurturing creativity
in the classroom (pp.1‐5) [EBL version] Retreived from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/lib/qut/reader.action?docID
=824449
Sternberg R.J. (2016). Creativity, Intelligence, and Culture. In V. Glaveanu (Eds) The Palgrave
Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
doi:10.1057/978‐1‐137‐46344‐9
Stephens, K. (2009). Imaginative play during childhood: Required for reaching full potential.
Exchange, 53– 56.
Steve Jobs School. (2016) Creativity, originality and flexibility. Retireved from
http://stevejobsschool.world/creativity‐originality‐and‐flexibility/
Tan, A. (2000). A review on the study of creativity in Singapore. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(4),
259‐284. doi:10.1002/j.2162‐6057.2000.tb01215.x
Thomson P., Coles R., & Hallewell M. (2018) What did creative partnerships achieve?: A review of
the creative partnerships (CP) research archive. In K. Snepvangers, P.Thomson & A. Harris
(Eds) Creativity policy, partnerships and practice in education. Creativity, education and
the arts (pp.13‐43). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Thorne, B. (1987). Re‐visioning women and social change: Where are the children? Gender and
Society, 1(1), 85‐109. doi:10.1177/089124387001001005
Tilbury, D., Reid, A., Podger, D. (2004). Action research for change towards sustainability change
in curricula and graduate skills towards sustainability. Retrieved from:
http://aries.mq.edu.au/publications/other/Education/ACTS_Report.pdf
Tims, C. (ed.) (2010) Born Creative. Available online at https://www.demos.co.uk/project/born‐
creative/.
Toma, J. D. (2000). How getting close to your subjects makes qualitative data better. Theory into
Practice, 39(3), 177‐184. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_9
187
Torrance, E. P. (1969). Creativity. What research says to the teacher, Series no.28. (Online
Pamphlet) Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED078435)
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958‐80) —and the
teacher who "made a difference". Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 55‐62.
doi:10.1177/001698628102500203
Torrance, E.P (1995). The beyonders. In Why fly? A philosophy of creativity. Norwood, NJ:Abex.
Tuckett, A. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher's experience.
Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 19(1‐2), 75‐87.
Turnbull, M. (2015) Launch of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Retrieved
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/launch‐of‐the‐national‐innovation‐and‐
science‐agenda1
UNSECO Diversity of Cultural Expressions. (2018, May 16). Mongolia: transitioning from
commodities to creativity. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/creativity/news/mongolia‐transitioning‐commodities‐creativity
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Jones, A. (2008). The discourse of collaborative creative writing:
Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 3(3), 192–202
Vekiri, I. (2010). Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out‐of‐school
experiences. Computers & Education, 54(4), 941‐950.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.029
Vong, K. I. (2008a). Evolving creativity: New pedagogies for young children in China. Stoke‐on‐
Trent and Sterling, VA: Trentham Books.
Vong, K. I. (2008b). Creative learning and new pedagogies in China, in: A. Craft, T. Cremin,
188
P. Burnard. (Eds) Creative learning 3–11 and how we document it (pp. 19–26). Stoke‐on‐Trent and
Sterling, VA: Trentham.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). Imagination and creativity of the adolescent. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner
(Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 266–288). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Vygosky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. The collected works of LS Vygotsky, 5, 187‐206.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East
European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
Waksler, F. C. (1986). Studying children: Phenomenological insights. Human Studies, 9(1), 71‐82.
doi:10.1007/BF00142910
Walberg, H., Rasher, S., & Parkerson, J. (1979). Childhood and eminence. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 13, 225–231.
Wang, B., & Greenwood, K. M. (2013). Chinese students' perceptions of their creativity and their
perceptions of western students' creativity. Educational Psychology, 33(5), 628‐643.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.826345
Ward, T. B. (2011). Problem solving. In Encyclopedia of creativity: two‐volume set: online version.
(2011). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British journal of psychology.,
100(3), 455–471. doi:10.1348/000712608X379061
Watson, A., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Teachers learning about tasks and lessons. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood
(Eds.), Tools and resources in mathematics teacher education (pp. 109–135). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Wei‐Ming, T. (2000). Implications of the rise of “Confucian” East Asia. Daedalus, 1, 195–218.
Wells, K. (2009). Childhood in global perspective. Malden: Polity Press.
189
Welsch, P. K. (1980). The nurturance of creative behavior in educational environments: A
comprehensive curriculum approach. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Michigan
Western Australia Department of Culture and the Arts (2010). Creative Connections Program.
Perth: Department of Culture and the Arts.
Wilcox, A. (2016). Descriptosaurus myths & legends. London ;: Routledge.
Wilder, P. (2000). Inheriting dance: Past philosophies for contemporary context. In W. Schiller
(Ed.), Thinking through the arts.: London, UK: Falmer.
Wilson, R. (2018). Nature and Young Children: Encouraging Creative Play and Learning in Natural
Environments, Routledge, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=5325849.
Created from qut on 2018‐09‐20 17:27:48.
Witt, U. (2009). Propositions about novelty. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 70(1), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.01.008
Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z., Chiu, C. Y., et al. (2014). Openness to
experience: its lower‐level structure, measurement, and cross‐ cultural equivalence.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 29–45.
Woo, S., Keith, M., Su, R., Saef, R., & Parrigon, S. (2017). The curious dynamic between openness
and interests in creativity. In G. Feist, R. Reiter‐Palmon, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research. Cambridge Handbooks in
Psychology, pp. 44‐63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/0981316228036.004
Woodhead, M. (2004). Foreword. In M.J. Kehily (Eds.), An Introduction to Childhood Studies (pp.
39–56). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Wright, C., & Wright, S. (1986). A conceptual framework for examining the family’s influence on
creativity. Family Perspective, 20, (127–136).
190
Wright, C. (1987). Nurturing creative potential: An interactive model for home and school.
Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 12(1), 31–38.
Wright, S. (2011). Children, meaning‐making and the arts. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Wyse, D. (2014). Creativity and the curriculum Institute of Education Press. Retrieved ProQuest
Ebook Central.
Wyse, D., & Ferrari, A. (2015). Creativity and education: Comparing the national curricula of the
states of the European Union and the United Kingdom. British Educational Research
Journal, 41(1), 30‐47. doi:10.1002/berj.3135
Yukhymenko, M.A, Brown, S.W, Lawless, K. A, Brodowinska, K, Mullin, G. (2014) Thematic Analysis
of Teacher Instructional Practices and Student Responses in Middle School Classrooms
with Problem‐Based Learning Environment. Global Education Review, 1(3) 93‐110.
Retrieved from http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/40
Zittoun T. & Gillespie, A. (2016). Imagination: Creating Alternatives in Everyday Life In V. Glăveanu
(Eds). The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research. London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/978‐1‐137‐46344‐9
191
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Focus Group Questions
Introduction
Hey guys, thanks for chatting with me today. I really appreciate it. We’re going to do something
called a focus group. I spoke to you all about what a focus group is when we met last time. Do you
remember? Do you feel like you understand why I want to run a focus group with you? How are
you feeling about it? Do you remember that I’m going to record our conversation? I need to listen
again to what you say later so I can write about your answers thoughtfully. I don’t want to miss
anything.
I’m going to explain a little about how our chat is going to work today and afterwards you can ask
any questions you like. I want to make sure you’re feeling comfy and you know what’s up.
Ok, so because it’s your first focus group and I’m learning too I thought that if we had some really
simple goals it would make us all feel kinda safe and relaxed.
Take time to think before you answer.
Tell me if I don’t understand you, or if you don’t understand me
There are no right or wrong answers, say what you want
Take turns talking
Speak kindly even if you don’t agree with what others say
Are you sure you still want to be a part of it? It’s ok if you choose not to.
Initial warm up discussion (school and hobbies)
Some of you know me because I teach art across the road. So you know a little bit about me. You
know I like teaching and that one of my hobbies is making art. But I don’t know much about you
guys.
1) So you’re all in ‐‐‐‐‐‐‘s class this year. What do you enjoy about Grade ‐‐‐?
192
2) What about outside school, what things do you like to do?
Questions
You all know that I’d like to chat with you about creativity today. I think we need to start
right at the beginning. What does the word creativity mean to you?
What do humans use creativity for?
Who is creative?
Can you talk to me about times when you feel creative?
a) Certain days of the week?
b) Certain times of the day?
Can you think of who you are with when you feel creative?
a) By yourself?
b) With friends?
c) With certain adults?
What kind of things are you doing when you are being creative?
How do you feel when you are doing those things?
Who do you know that you think is creative?
a) Can you talk a bit about their personality?
b) What job do they have?
c) What hobbies do they have?
Can you tell me about the time when you’ve felt most creative?
a) Where were you?
b) What were you doing?
c) Who were you with?
Can you tell me about something creative that you find interesting or impressive?
193
Would you like to change how often or much you get to be creative and if you would,
how would you change it?
194
Appendix B
Focus Group Questions Literature Links
Focus Group Question Research Question
Addressed
Literature Links
What does the word
creativity mean to you?
Definition of creativity Benefit individuals or
society
Reveal values and ways of
thinking (Banaji, 2008)
Everyday creativity or high
creativity
Imagination and innovation
What do humans use
creativity for?
Definition of creativity
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Everyday creativity or high
creativity
Production
Advancement of society
Happiness and agency
Creativity’s role in society
Imagination and innovation
Who is creative?
Definition of creativity
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Everyday creativity or high
creativity
Benefit individuals or
society
Reveal values and ways of
thinking (Banaji, 2008)
Creativity’s role in society
Can you talk to me about
times when you feel
creative?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Everyday creativity‐ home,
classroom, playground
Schooling‐ classroom,
subject areas, learning, play
Extracurricular activities
Creativity’s role in society
195
Attitudes and motivation
Can you think of who you
are with when you feel
creative?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Happiness and agency
Schooling‐ educators,
student collaboration,
learning
Imagination
What kind of things are you
doing when you are being
creative?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Happiness and agency
Schooling‐ learning, subject
areas, educators’ influence
Everyday creativity‐ home,
play
Imagination and innovation
Production
How do you feel when you
are doing those things?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Happiness and agency
Schooling‐ learning, self‐
confidence, engagement
Attitudes and motivation
Who do you know that you
think is creative?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Schooling‐ educators’
influence
Creativity’s role in society
Everyday creativity‐ home,
classroom
Reveal values and ways of
thinking (Banaji, 2008)
196
Can you tell me about the
time when you’ve felt most
creative?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Happiness and agency
Imagination and innovation
Everyday creativity‐ home,
play
Schooling‐ subject areas,
collaboration, engagement
Attitudes and motivation
Can you tell me about
something creative that you
find interesting or
impressive?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Advancement of society
Creativity’s role in society
Imagination and innovation
Everyday creativity or high
creativity
Reveal values and ways of
thinking (Banaji, 2008)
Would you like to change
how often or much you get
to be creative and if you
would, how would you
change it?
How do children
describe the role
creativity plays in their
lives?
Schooling‐ curriculum,
engagement, subject areas,
educators’ influence
Everyday creativity
Happiness and agency