Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Davies et al., 2013
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048 · see citing works
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anderson, R. C., Bousselot, T., Katz-Buoincontro, J., & Todd, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614774 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Mackenzie, S. H., Son, J. S., & Eitel, K. (2018) · Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism · doi:10.1016/j.jort.2018.01.008 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ruiz-del-Pino, B., Fernández-Martín, F. D., & Arco-Tirado, J. L. (2022) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101172 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Tao, Y., Wang, D., & Chen, G. (2026) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.70031 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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