Creativity in schools: The why and the how

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Written by Jenna Crittenden, Teacher Advocacy Lead, and Beth O’Brien, Education Content Manager

What is creativity? 

Defining ‘creativity’ continues to be a complex and contentious task. As Desailly (2015, p. 2) states, creativity ‘has always proved hard to define’, echoing the longstanding challenge of reaching a consensus. Joubert (2001, p. 29) similarly characterised creativity as ‘a very elusive concept… and even when defined, it is interpreted in a variety of different ways’. These examples reflect the semantic and conceptual ambiguity that continues to pervade creativity research and understandings of creativity within schools.

Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition, there is a growing consensus that creativity has two core elements – originality and effectiveness (in Lucas, 2021). This reflects the more commonly used definition provided by Sternberg and Lubart (1999, p. 3) who describe creativity ‘as the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e. original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. useful)’. In other words, creating new things that will be of use or value in a given context. This definition has been adopted and further simplified by notable bodies, including the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2019; 2023a), suggesting its increasing acceptance in the field.

Other studies draw attention to the nuances of the creative process. In their extensive review of the literature, Treffinger et al. (2002) identified 120 definitions of ‘creativity’. To bring coherence to this range of perspectives, they organised these definitions into four domains: 

• • Generating ideas. This category refers to cognitive processes such as ‘creative thinking’ or ‘divergent thinking’.
  • Digging deeper into ideas. This category refers to cognitive processes such as ‘critical thinking’ or ‘convergent thinking’.
  • Demonstrating openness and courage to explore ideas. This category refers to personality traits, including risk-taking, adaptability and tenacity. 
  • Listening to one’s inner voice. This category refers to understanding of oneself, who you are, a vision of where you want to go, and a commitment to do whatever it takes to get there. 

                                                                                                                                                                                              (p. viii)

This study underscores the multifaceted and complex nature of creative thought processes and highlights both the generative and reflective dimensions of creativity.

Prevalent myths may have also hindered the development of a universally accepted definition. Until the 1990s, creativity was often equated with genius, reserved for a select few who were experts in their field – now commonly referred to as ‘big-C’ creativity. Craft (2001) shifted this thinking by championing ‘little-c’ creativity. Craft argued that all humans have the capacity to harness and develop creativity. Whether it’s a painting technique, a scientific experiment or reading a poem, it is understood that people can be creative by simply engaging with new experiences, even if others have tried it before (Newton, 2012). Lucas (2021) argues that it is this ‘little-c’ creativity, inherent in all people, that schools should focus on cultivating. 

Creativity versus creative thinking

Creativity and creative thinking are distinct but interrelated terms. As discussed, creativity commonly refers to the broader capacity to produce something novel and valuable. However, there are important processes that contribute to the development of this skill – namely, creative thinking. Creative thinking refers to the cognitive processes that lead to creative outcomes. In simple terms, if creativity is the goal, creative thinking is considered the pathway to get there. It is often deemed ‘the more teachable skill’, so, as practitioners, it is particularly important to have an understanding of the term.

Creative thinking was first systematically examined by JP Guilford (1950), who distinguished between convergent and divergent modes of thought. Convergent thinking involves generating a single, optimal solution to a problem whereas divergent thinking entails producing multiple, varied solutions (see Figure 1). For Guildford (1950), divergent thinking lies at the heart of creativity. Torrance (1970) subsequently developed Guilford’s framework by identifying four measurable dimensions of divergent thinking: fluency (the quantity of ideas generated), flexibility (the diversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences of categories represented), originality (the novelty of responses), and elaboration (the richness of detail). In recent years, many standardised tests have used these understandings of creative thinking as a framework to assess students’ creative abilities, including the PISAThe Programme for International Student Assessment, a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year-old school students’ knowledge and skills 2022 test (in OECD, 2023a). 

Figure 1: An infographic that displays the difference between convergent and divergent thinking.

The Durham Commission (2019) notes that creative thinking can be developed across all domains, phases and subjects, but only if the conditions and context are right. In recent years, researchers have sought to better understand exactly what practices and environments support creative thinking to flourish (Perry and Karpova, 2017; OECD, 2019; D’Amore and Raven, 2024; Krstic, 2024). The implications of these emerging studies will be explored further in the article and can be used to inform and/or refine your approach. 

Moving towards a definition in education 

In education, there is still no consensus on what creativity entails, how it can be nurtured, or whether – and how – it should be assessed (OECD, 2019). This lack of clarity is often cited as a reason why practitioners in England may be reluctant to adopt creative approaches or teach for creativity (Durham Commission, 2019). Nevertheless, over recent decades, educators increasingly recognise the important role creativity can play across the curriculum. Indeed, creativity is now a valued outcome in both the Scottish and Welsh curricula. In response to the growing acceptance of its importance, researchers have worked to develop a shared professional understanding of creative education to better support practitioners.

For example, Lucas (2001) offers a pragmatic taxonomy, categorising creativity into three distinct yet interrelated domains: 

• teaching creatively
• learning creatively
• teaching with the explicit goal of developing creativity.

                                                                                                  (p. 40)

This model situates creativity not only as an outcome of instruction, but also as an integral feature of pedagogical design and learner engagement. 

In 2019, the Durham Commission expanded on this further by providing concise definitions of what creativity is, what creative thinking is and what teaching for creativity is. 

• ‘Creativity is… the capacity to imagine, conceive, express or make something that was not there before.’ (p. 3)
• ‘Creative thinking is… a process through which knowledge, intuition and skills are applied to imagine, express or make something novel or individual in its context. Creative thinking is present in all areas of life. It may appear spontaneous, but it will be underpinned by perseverance, experimentation, critical thinking and collaboration.’ (p. 3)
• ‘Teaching for creativity is… explicitly using pedagogies and practices that cultivate creativity in young people.’ (p. 3)

Newton (2012) notes that practitioners can often conflate teaching creatively with teaching for creativity. Even when the distinction is understood, it is typically the former –using creative methods to deliver content – rather than the latter that dominates classroom practice. Newton (2012, p. 3) also draws attention to the lack of opportunity to cultivate creative thinking across subjects and domains in Western classrooms, noting that creativity continues to be still largely understood as ‘producing something novel, largely epitomized by artistic creativity’.

While these understandings are a useful starting point, there are numerous ways that creativity can be understood and integrated into the curriculum, often depending on the unique characteristics of a school’s context and its pupils. Indeed, the Durham Commission (2019, p. 58) recommends that school leadership teams should collaborate to ‘develop and articulate a shared vision and purpose for creativity’ so it can be effectively embedded across the curriculum to meet the needs of a given context.

Why is creativity important in education?

Jean Piaget (1964) contended that the fundamental aim of education is to develop individuals who can generate novel ideas and actions rather than merely replicate the achievements of preceding generations. From this perspective, creativity functions as the engine of intellectual advancement: by encouraging learners to develop original solutions, education fosters adaptive problem-solving, critical reflection and the capacity for lifelong learning – all of which are crucial skills for navigating a complex and rapidly changing world. This emphasis on creative development aligns with Humboldt’s (1970) concept of Bildung, which understands education as the cultivation of intellectual autonomy, moral agency and cultural participation. Together, these perspectives position creativity as an expression of human development, enabling learners to become independent thinkers who shape both themselves and society.

Desailly (2015) has observed that a simple online search for ‘benefits of creativity’ yields an extensive array of evidence across disciplines, each affirming the value of cultivating creative capacities. Although empirical research in this field is continually evolving, a broad consensus has emerged that embedding creativity within curricula enhances student engagement, encourages interdisciplinary connections, and promotes resilience, autonomy and agency. This aligns with the growing consensus that creativity is a very important aspect of real-world intelligence, which requires attributes such as reframing problems, taking sensible risks and questioning assumptions (Perkin, 1995; Sternberg, 1996; Lucas, 2016).

The next two sections of this article will summarise, first, some of the benefits of, and then, some of the barriers to, adopting creative approaches in schools, exploring practical implications for primary school leaders and practitioners. 

What are the benefits of creativity in schools?

The following is not an exhaustive list. It focuses on the benefits of creativity that have a research base in schools. To explore further benefits, please see the reading and resources list.

Develops transferable skills across the curriculum

There has been a longstanding assumption that creative skills can only be of value in specific subjects, namely the arts (in Durham Commission, 2019). However, there is strong evidence to suggest that nurturing creativity can be beneficial for subjects across the curriculum, including science, maths and the humanities (Durham Commission, 2019; OECD, 2023a). Indeed, a focus on creativity provides opportunities for innovation, problem-solving and collaboration, which have been attributed to success across the curriculum (Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007; Beghetto and Plucker, 2006; Newton, 2012; Burnard and Loughrey, 2022). However, Kaufman and Baur (2005) also highlight that the transferThe processes of applying learning to new situations of these skills may not always be automatic. Indeed, using creative thinking skills across domains will often require extensive guidance and practice.

Greater economic success

Fostering creative thinking is said to help prepare young people in a rapidly changing world that demands an adaptable workforce (WEF, 2023). Creativity is frequently purported to be one of the top skill requirements for jobs of the future (WEF 2025). In fact, a 2017 All-Party Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group (APDIG) publication explicitly argued for creative thinking to be prioritised in education. Evidence suggests that individuals with creative skills are more likely to have economic success (Osborne, 2003; Beghetto, 2007) and with the creative industries among the largest growing industries in the West, creative skills may offer job security for the next generation (DCMS, 2022).

Improved wellbeing and personal development 

There is a positive correlation between creativity and improved wellbeing. The Durham Commission (2019, p. 39) draws attention to Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, which highlights that for true ‘self-actualisation’, individuals must realise their creative potential. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) also suggests that being in a state of ‘creative flow’ – fully immersed in a creative task – correlates with a greater sense of enjoyment and overall positive mindset.

More recent studies demonstrate that participation in creative activities can improve people’s general wellbeing (Conner et al., 2018; Fujiwara et al., 2014; Marsh et al., 2010) and ability to develop stronger relationships (Robinson, 2001; Lucas, 2016; Lucas, et al., 2020). Most recently, the Arts Council England consulted 1,800 young people aged 5 to 25 and found that participation in creative and cultural activities were ‘fundamental to their lives, sense of self and wellbeing’ (in Durham Commission, 2019, p. 41).

Greater inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life

Creativity has long been associated with the opportunity for inclusion. As Newton (2012) states, ‘creative activities can be rewarding, motivating and engaging for learners… and provide an effective means of personalising learning’. There is also evidence to suggest that creative approaches can build confidence, self-esteem and resilience (D’Amore and Raven, 2024; Krstic, 2024). For example, students in creative environments have been shown to be more willing to take risks, to present work to their peers and be less fearful of making mistakes (D’Amore and Raven, 2024). Creative approaches also allow for a greater range of assessment methods. This opens up opportunities to celebrate the range of abilities and dispositions of students (Desailly, 2015), thereby further building self-esteem.

Increased attendance

There is evidence to suggest that where schools participate in creative partnerships, they have increased attendance and lower levels of persistent absenteeism (Cooper et al., 2011). While using external creative providers is shown to have many benefits, Davies et al. (2013) stress that these partnerships need to be carefully managed and maintained to ensure there is long-term impact.

Increased academic achievement

Research by Hattie (2009) demonstrates a direct correlation between creative learning and increased academic achievement. A number of other studies have found a moderately positive impact on achievement when using critical and creative approaches in the classroom (Gajda et al., 2016; Abrami et al., 2015; Higgins et al., 2005). More recently, an OECD study (2019) revealed that creative interventions improved primary achievement scores in science, maths, art and music. However, the OECD also acknowledges that more robust evidence is needed to make concrete conclusions about a causal relationship.

Increased motivation and engagement

A number of studies highlight that a focus on creativity can increase student engagement, enthusiasm and motivation for learning (OECD, 2019; 2023a; D’Amore and Raven, 2024; Krstic, 2024). As a recent OECD report (2023b, p. 141) explains, this can have a direct impact on learning – ‘pedagogies that engage students’ creative thinking and encourage exploration and discovery can also increase students’ motivation and interest in learning’. A recent exploratory study also indicated that a focus on fostering creative thinking skills had the potential to promote engagement in previously disengaged students (Krstic, 2024).

However, it is important to remain mindful that ‘engagement’ is not necessarily a proxy for learning (Nuthall, 2007). Similarly, the indicators that determine whether a student is ‘motivated’ or ‘engaged’ are not always observable (Kong, 2021), making it challenging to assess the effectiveness of any given intervention. 

Increased teacher effectiveness, autonomy and satisfaction

D’Amore and Raven (2024) demonstrate that cultivating creativity in the classroom can have a positive impact on teachers’ expertise in this area, often making them more effective practitioners overall. Similarly, studies indicate that it can enhance professional enjoyment, help foster positive relationships with both colleagues and students, and contribute to a greater sense of agency (D’Amore and Raven, 2024; Krstic, 2024; Anderson et al., 2022). However, teachers need high-quality and sustained professional development in this area for students and teachers to reap the benefits of this approach (Krstic, 2024; OECD, 2019; Durham Commission, 2019).

What are the barriers to creativity in schools?

Accountability

Accountability measures are often viewed as being in tension with creative learning. Indeed, teachers in England are often judged on performance targets rarely seen to align with creative outcomes (Burnard and White, 2008; Newton, 2012). Newton (2012) highlights that the pressure to meet these targets often relegates creativity to an added ‘extra’, rather than an integral part of the learning process. James and Lunnon (2024, p. 82) also highlight that creative learning continues to lack legitimacy in our education system, pointing to the entrenched misconception that it is not possible to ‘learn and have fun at the same time’.

While a focus on creativity may appear to run counter to the aims of a ‘high-stakes-high- accountability’ system, weaving creative opportunities across the curriculum is argued to deepen learning and help to embed substantive knowledge (Hines et al., 2019). Indeed, as research evidence demonstrates, developing students’ creative abilities has been shown to positively correlate with attainment (see previous section). As Lucas et al. (2013, p. 25) assert, ‘teaching for academic knowledge and creative thinking are not mutually exclusive’.

Assessment

There is also uncertainty about how to meaningfully assess students’ creative abilities. Lucas et al. (2013) argue that without clear assessment methods, schools are unlikely to prioritise creativity in the curriculum. The Durham Commission (2019, p. 21) also highlights the complexity of the issue, noting that because ‘the creative process varies by discipline… no single test is sufficient’. Newton (2012) also raises concerns that any attempts to assess creativity may risk undermining children’s creative inclinations. 

Despite these challenges, there are emerging evidence-based resources and assessments that could potentially support practitioners to both teach creatively and teach for creativity (OECD, 2019; 2023a; Lucas, 2016; Lucas and Spencer, 2017; Beghetto and Kaufman, 2014). However, even with the growing number of resources, Scoular and Heard (2021) stress that effective practice is underpinned by teachers having a secure understanding of the concept, including ‘a clear and robust definition… [of] what processes and end-qualities it entails, and therefore what observable behaviours and features would reasonably serve as evidence of it’. 

Unfamiliarity with creative opportunities

When children are unfamiliar with a creative activity, they may struggle to navigate the openness it demands, whether that’s freedom of thought, independent decision-making or reflective dialogue. As Newton (2012) notes, this unfamiliarity often means that more structured support is needed at the outset, as developing creative dispositions takes time and intentional effort. Many students are accustomed to a highly directive learning environment, shaped by formal assessment and rigid instruction. As Jones and Wyse (2013) and Desailly (2015) observe, when these established ‘rules’ begin to shift, children need encouragement and reassurance to feel confident to adapt, explore, and embrace new ways of thinking and learning creatively. 

Teacher confidence and expertise

Research from the Durham Commission (2019) and OECD (2019) demonstrates that many teachers lack the confidence and expertise to embed creativity in their teaching. This is commonly underpinned by a lack of understanding of what ‘creativity’ means and what this looks like in practice (Durham Commission, 2019; OECD, 2019). Indeed, delivering a creative education requires a high level of skill, which involves being comfortable with unpredictable outcomes (Humes, 2005), often with a focus on processes rather than results. This shift can feel daunting for teachers, especially in a system that prioritises measurable outcomes.

Professional development is essential in building teacher confidence and expertise. The Durham Commission (2019) stresses that all teaching staff – from leaders to teaching assistants – need to engage with sustained professional learning in this area for change to be impactful. The OECD (2019, p. 141) also notes that introducing such an approach should be ‘gradual’, so as not to overwhelm staff or students. 

Leadership also plays a critical role in fostering a school culture that values creativity and ensures training has impact. Without this, teachers may default back to more familiar methods of teaching (Bullar and Bahar, 2023). Huang et al. (2019) note that even teachers who are creative in their daily lives, may struggle to translate this into classroom practice if school environments do not promote a creative culture. Teachers express a need for improved resources, training and systems that support creativity as a standard practice (Krstic, 2024).

Institutional pressures

Schools are often concerned about order and structure in their systems, typically demonstrated through clearly defined rules, rigid timetables and non-negotiable uniforms. As such, the creative process often stands in juxtaposition to this – as Humes (2005) states, being creative involves ‘challenging assumptions, going against convention, and questioning how things are done’. Bullar and Bahar (2023, p. 5) also acknowledge that cultivating creativity may lead to some ‘organised chaos’ (e.g. collaboratively solving problems through trial and error processes and working through uncomfortable emotions). This ‘messy’ learning is not always optimal for the environment a school seeks to create. Careful consideration of how school culture may promote and/or hinder creativity is essential. 

Time pressures 

In a curriculum that is often already overloaded, there is significant pressure on practitioners, leaving little time for creative opportunities (Burns and Myhill, 2004). Indeed, creative activities are often deemed more time-consuming to prepare for and more challenging to implement (OECD, 2019). Without protected time for this, many practitioners may feel ill-equipped to take these approaches forward.

Overcoming time pressure requires a commitment from leadership teams to provide protected planning time, sustained professional development and access to adaptable resources and assessments (Jeffrey and Craft, 2004). School culture needs to value experimentation and encourage teachers to take calculated risks in their practice (Hume, 2005). Furthermore, it is essential that creativity is integrated into the curriculum, ensuring activities enhance rather than compete with other outcomes (Beghetto and Kaufman, 2014; Lucas and Spencer, 2017)

Misunderstandings about the concept 

Some teachers perceive creativity as irrelevant to their subject area, viewing it as a distraction from the intended outcomes (in Beghetto, 2007; Newton 2012; James and Lunnon 2024). There is also an entrenched assumption that teaching for creativity is a responsibility of arts subjects (in the Durham Commission, 2019). 

However, research evidence highlights the important role creativity can play across all subject areas. The OECD (2019, p. 25) argues that creativity is ‘actually a way to improve learning and get students to acquire more expertise in a domain’. Creativity encourages students to approach problems from multiple perspectives, make connections between concepts and develop innovative solutions, all of which are valuable skills across the curriculum. Beyond generic professional development opportunities, the OECD (2019) underscores the importance of domain-specific training, which equips teachers with an understanding of how creativity can be fostered in their subject area. For example, in science, creativity may involve designing experiments or exploring alternative hypotheses; in literature, it could include encouraging analysis of multiple perspectives. By embedding creativity intentionally within specific subjects, schools can foster both deep learning in and between disciplines. 

Moving towards successful implementation

Creative education, in all its forms, remains a contested and complex field. While there have been recent developments to support practitioners, many still feel constrained by the lack of guidance, resources or capacity to facilitate creativity in learning effectively. Despite this, there is a growing body of research that demonstrates the benefits of this work, alongside effective methods of delivering it in schools.

As with any approach, there are numerous ways in which it can be implemented, depending on your school context. When thinking about implementing a creative focus, it may be helpful to consider the following takeaways from the research findings to inform your approach:

• Creativity is a contested and often misunderstood term. It goes beyond simply creating something ‘new’ or ‘original’. It involves complex cognitive processes, which can be honed and practised across phases and subject areas. 
• As practitioners, it is important to develop a shared understanding of the concept of creativity and consider what this will look like in practice to meet the specific needs of your context. This will often be a collaborative and iterative process. 
• There is widespread support for a renewed focus on creativity in education, driven by the nature of our rapidly changing world and the wealth of emerging benefits associated with it, both for staff and students in and beyond school.
• There is currently insufficient guidance on both what and how to deliver creative education in England. However, there are a growing number of high-quality resources, rubrics and assessments to support practitioners in embedding it into their practice (see our Rethinking Curriculum toolkit). 
• Creative activities should not be viewed as an ‘add on’, reserved solely for arts subjects. Indeed, creativity can be fostered in all subject areas and should be woven throughout the curricula accordingly.
• Supportive school leadership, backed by adequate protected time and resources, is key to embedding creativity effectively. This includes access to high-quality professional development on teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. It may also require subject-specific training. 
• School culture needs to be conducive to promoting creativity – both staff and students should feel safe and supported to take risks, make mistakes and work through problems.
• Finally, (re)developing the curriculum is a long-term endeavour that requires supportive leadership, staff collaboration and quality professional development. Any changes should be incremental and sustained, so as not to overwhelm both staff and students and ensure long-term positive impact. 

References

Abrami P, Bernard R, Borokhovski E, Waddington D, Wade C and Persson T (2015) Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysisA quantitative study design used to systematically assess the results of multiple studies in order to draw conclusions about that body of research. Review of Educational Research, 85(2): 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314558493 

Anderson R, Potochnick S and Ramirez R (2022) Teacher creativity, autonomy, and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114: 103700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103700 

Baer J and Kaufman C (2005) Bridging Generality and Specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 27(3): 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310 

Beghetto R and Plucker J (2006) The Relationship Among Schooling, Learning, and Creativity: “All Roads Lead to Creativity” or “You Can’t Get There from Here”? In: Kaufman JC and Baer J (eds.) Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 316–332. 

Beghetto R and Kaufman C (2007) Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2): 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73 

Beghetto R (2007) Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2: 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2006.09.002

Beghetto R and Kaufman J (2014) Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1): 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247 

Burnard P and White J (2008) Creativity and performativity: counterpoints in British and Australian education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5): 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802224238 

Burnard P and Loughrey M (2022) Sculpting New Creativities in Primary Education. London: Routledge.

Burns M and Myhill D (2004) Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the theory and practice of active learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1): 35–49.

Bullar C and Bahar A (2023) Organised chaos: Teachers’ perspectives on creativity in classrooms. Journal of Creative Education, 11(2): 1–15.

Cooper L, Benton T and Sharp C (2011) The impact of creative partnerships on attainment and attendance in 2008-9 and 2009-10. Available at: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/npnjrbaz/cpab01.pdf (accessed 26 August 2025).

Craft A (2001) Little creativity. In: Craft A, Jeffrey B and Leibling M (eds.) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, pp. 45–61.

Conner T, DeYoung C, and Silvia P (2018) Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology 13(2): 181–189.

Csikszentmihalyi M (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.

D’Amore A and Raven S (2024) Creativity Collaboratives pilot programme. Arts Council England. Available at: https://www.creativityexchange.org.uk/asset/682/download. (accessed 9 September 2025).

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

Desailly J (2015) Creativity in the Primary Classroom (2nd Ed.). London: Sage

DCMS (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (2022) DCMS Economic Estimates 2022: Creative Industries Sector. UK Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dcms-and-digital-sector-gva-2022-provisional/dcms-sectors-economic-estimates-gross-value-added-2022-provisional  (accessed 9 September 2025).

Durham Commission (2019) Durham Commission on Creativity and Education. Arts Council UK and Durham University. Available at: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/durham-commission-creativity-and-education. (accessed 9 September 2025).

Fujiwara D, Kudrna L and Dolan P (2014) Quantifying and valuing the wellbeing impacts of culture and sport. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7de7a0e5274a2e8ab4492f/Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_sport_and_culture.pdf. (accessed 9 September 2025).

Gajda A, Karwowski M, and Beghetto R (2016). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2): 269–299.

Guilford, J P (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9): 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487

Hattie J (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge

Hines M, Catalana S, and Anderson B (2019) When learning sinks in: using the incubation model of teaching to guide students through the creative thinking process. Gifted Child Today, 42(1): 36–45. 

Hines M, Murphy S, and Watts M (2019) Creativity and curriculum in England: The politics of creative learning. British Educational Research Journal, 45(6): 1130–1149.

Huang J Wang Y and Li W (2019) Teachers’ creativity in practice: The mediating role of school climate. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31: 31–40.

Humboldt W von (1970) On the spirit and organisational framework of intellectual institutions in Berlin. Minerva, 8(2), pp. 242–267.

Humes W (2005) Curriculum and creativity: What role for creativity in the curriculum? Scottish Educational Review, 37(2): 108–121.

James D and Lunnon J (2024) Schools of thought: Lessons to learn from schools doing things differently. Bloomsbury Education.

Jones R and Wyse D (2013) Creativity in the Primary Curriculum. David Fulton: Oxon

Jeffrey B and Craft A (2004) Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1): 77–87.

Joubert M (2001) The art of creative teaching: NACCCE and beyond. In: Craft A, Jeffrey B, and Leibling M (eds.) Creativity in education. London: Continuum, pp. 17–34.

Kong S (2021) Assessing student engagement in the classroom: Issues and challenges. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 28(2): 123–139.

Krstic, S (2024). Putting creative thinking at the core of the English school curriculum: An exploratory study. Australian Council for Educational Research UK. Available at: https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/72. (accessed 9 September 2025).

Lucas B (2001) Creative teaching, teaching creativity and creative learning. In: Craft A, Jeffrey B, and Leibling M (eds.) Creativity in education. Continuum, pp. 35–44.

Lucas B Claxton G and Spencer E (2013) Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2013/01/progression-in-student-creativity-in-school_g17a2218/5k4dp59msdwk-en.pdf (accessed 9 September 2025).

Lucas B (2016) A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4): 278–290.

Lucas B and Spencer E (2017) Teaching creative thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Lucas B, Spencer E and Claxton G (2020) Education for creativity: Progress and challenges. London: Routledge.

Lucas B (2021) Schools as testbeds for our vital creativity. Chartered College of Teaching. Available at: https://my.chartered.college/research-hub/schools-as-testbeds-for-our-vital-creativity/ (accessed 9 September 2025).

Marsh K, MacKay S, Morton D, Parry W and Bertranou E (2010) Understanding the impact of engagement in culture and sport. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79660aed915d07d35b52db/CASE-value-summary-report-July10.pdf. (accessed 9 September 2025).

Maslow A (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h005434 

Newton L (2012) Creativity for a new Curriculum. London: Routledge

Nuthall G (2007) The Hidden Lives of Learners. Wellington: NZCER Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019). Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What it Means in School. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/10/fostering-students-creativity-and-critical-thinking_3ffa73e4/62212c37-en.pdf (accessed 9 September 2025).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023a) Thinking Outside the Box: The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/thinking-outside-the-box (accessed 9 September 2025).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023b) PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. Available at:  https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/08/pisa-2022-assessment-and-analytical-framework_a124aec8/dfe0bf9c-en.pdf (accessed 9 September 2025).

Osborne, T (2003) Against “creativity”: A philistine rant, Economy and Society, 32(4): 507–525. 

Perry A and Karpova E (2017) Efficacy of teaching creative thinking skills: A comparison of multiple creativity assessments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24: 118–126. 

Perkins D (1995) Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: Free Press

Piaget J (1964). Cognitive Development in Children: Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2: 176-186. 

Robinson K (2001) Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone Publishing

Scoular C and Heard J (2021) A framework for defining and assessing creative thinking. Chartered College of Teaching. Available at: https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/a-framework-for-defining-and-assessing-creative-thinking/ (accessed 9 September 2025).

Sternberg R (1996) Successful Intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: SimonandSchuster

Sternberg R and Lubart T (1999) The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In: Sternberg R (ed.) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15.

Torrance E (1970) Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom. Dubuque: Brown Company Publishers.

Treffinger D, Young G, Selby E and Shepardson C (2002) Assessing Creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Centre for the Gifted and Talented. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505548.pdf (accessed 9 September 2025).

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2023) The Future of Jobs 2023. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/ (accessed 9 September 2025).

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2025) The Future of Jobs 2025. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/ (accessed 9 September 2025).