Cited by 825Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceEducational Environments and Student OutcomesEducation Methods and Practices

Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review

Open access
Davies, Dan, Jindal-Snape, Divya, Collier, Chris, Digby, Rebecca, Hay, Penny, Howe, Alan·2013·Thinking Skills and Creativity

Abstract

This paper reports on a systematic review of 210 pieces of educational research, policy and professional literature relating to creative environments for learning in schools, commissioned by Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS). Despite the volume of academic literature in this field, the team of six reviewers found comparatively few empirical studies published in the period 2005–2011 providing findings addressing the review objectives. There was, however a reasonable weight of research evidence to support the importance of the following factors in supporting creative skills development in children and young people: flexible use of space and time; availability of appropriate materials; working outside the classroom/school; ‘playful’ or ‘games-bases’ approaches with a degree of learner autonomy; respectful relationships between teachers and learners; opportunities for peer collaboration; partnerships with outside agencies; awareness of learners’ needs; and non-prescriptive planning. The review also found evidence for impact of creative environments on pupil attainment and the development of teacher professionalism. LTS intend to use the review as a basis for recommendations to Scottish schools in promoting creativity within Curriculum for Excellence . However, the findings of the review and methodological gaps in the reviewed studies have implications for policy, practice and research internationally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The scoping search identified only three systematic reviews in students or general population focusing on the impact of CTPIP.

    “Our scoping search has identified only three systematic reviews in students or general population focusing on the impact of CTPIP (i.e., Davies et al., 2013;Scott et al., 2004;Valgeirsdottir & Onarheim, 2017).”

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A.
Affiliations
Bath Spa University (GB)
Corresponding author
Davies, Dan
Venue
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
8
Pages
80-91
ISSN
1871-1871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062233444
Cited by
825
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thinking Skills and Creativity (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Space (acceptedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Cardiff Metropolitan Research Repository (Cardiff Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Methods and Practices
Keywords
creative learning environment, creativity in schools, creative skills development, learning materials, play-based learning, game-based learning, learner autonomy, teacher-student relationship, peer collaboration, school partnerships, Curriculum for Excellence, academic performance, teacher professionalism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review