Outcomes of creative play
Creative play as a process has been seen to contribute to a series of outcomes. These relate to the acquisition of knowledge, developments in social skills, and improved health.
Empirical studies on creative play were most frequent in educational settings such as preschool and primary education, reporting a number of outcomes with regards to increased knowledge and skills. It was observed that social and motor skills were developed through free physical play (Hyndman, 2015) (Ragen, 2015). Using simple open-ended toys such as bricks and tyres provided greater opportunities for divergence and creative imaginative play as the toys could be easily reimagined, repositioned and repurposed during episodes of play (Thiessen, Gluth, & Corso, 2013) (Brussoni, Ishikawa, Brunelle, & Herrington, 2017) (Arnott & Duncan, 2019). As well as these general skills, there are also many examples of creative play such as social play and role-play linked to increased domain-specific knowledge, and theory creation (Wingate, 2011) (Loudon, Deininger, & Wilgeroth, 2012) (Mougenot, Detienne, Pennington, Baker, & Corvin, 2017) (Arnab, Morini, & Clarke, 2018).
Domain-specific knowledge transfer was reported when play-based hands-on learning was used in Science Technology Engineering Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) projects (Webb, Rule, Cavanaugh, & Munson, 2014) (Howe, 2015) (Thuneberg, Salmia, & Bognerb, 2018), and in serious gaming techniques (Stege, van Lankveld, & Spronck, 2011) with older children and students. STEAM projects also focused on the use of visual creativity to improve understanding amongst learners (Segarra, Natalizio, Falkenberg, Pulford, & Holmes, 2018). Although the aim of these projects was generally domain-specific, studies highlighted similar aspects of creative play as conducive to learning, i.e. hands-on experimentation or experiential learning, collaboration, autonomy and ownership of the process. Autonomy and personalised study reportedly gave learners freedom to build and explore as they chose, which in turn raised motivation and feelings of creative flow (Gordon, 2015) (Howe, 2015) (Thuneberg, Salmia, & Bognerb, 2018).
In higher education, notions of creative play were used to stimulate domain-specific knowledge, collaborative skills, and theory creation (Wingate, 2011) (Loudon, Deininger, & Wilgeroth, 2012) (Mougenot, Detienne, Pennington, Baker, & Corvin, 2017) (Arnab, Morini, & Clarke, 2018). Here there was a greater emphasis on product and a more clearly defined interdisciplinary and experimental approach to stimulating the creative process (Wingate, 2011) (Loudon, Deininger, & Wilgeroth, 2012) (Mougenot, Detienne, Pennington, Baker, & Corvin, 2017) (Segarra, Natalizio, Falkenberg, Pulford, & Holmes, 2018) (Arnab, Morini, & Clarke, 2018).
Creative play is also referenced as a component of design thinking, LEGO Serious Play (LSP), and Serious Gaming. These approaches are creating more democratic modes of participation that are enabling students to explore a plurality of perspectives and aspects of identity (James, 2013), domain-specific possibility thinking, and to be playful with theoretical ideas. In these ways, creative play assists in developing the skills necessary to move along the creativity continuum from ‘little-c’ insights to ‘pro-c’ creations required in the workplace and in wider research environments.
Learning and skill development through creative play also occurs in informal educational settings. The key to creative play experiences is the allowance to tinker, such as using basic building blocks in unexpected and innovative ways. LEGO bricks are a classic example of this functionality used not only in educational environments, but also in informal settings as part of the LSP approach, and in collaborative projects (Schulz & Geithner, 2013) (James, 2015).
Within community and workplace settings there is little research that focuses on knowledge acquisition through creative play. However, one study focused on how providing low income and disenfranchised communities with access to 3D printers and technology within a supportive social environment enabled creative play and skills development (Symons & Hurley, 2018).
Creative play can help change perspectives on identity and increase trust and autonomy in marginalised and disempowered groups. Skill development and collaborative projects require teamwork, bringing people together in new communities of practice (Symons & Hurley, 2018). Within new communities, trust building is an essential part of the process, and there is a need to engage with narratives of failure, democratise the notion of creativity and reduce the feeling that creativity is ‘not for me’ (Gross, 2018) (Symons & Hurley, 2018). This requires safe play to build trust; open play to express ideas; setting realistic parameters to focus action and build confidence; and allowing participants to control the pace. Purposeful meandering describes this general approach to creative development that gives participants the freedom to control pace and explore choices that interest them as part of a self-determined, creative process.
As such, creative play can often counteract come aspects of unconscious bias, by diverting participants’ attention away from factors such as cultural background, educational ability, generational difference, and allowing them to focus on engagement and creation. Creative expression workshops utilising sandplay showed greater levels of positive social behaviour amongst pre-school participants from a multi-ethnic neighbourhood after taking part in the workshops. (Rousseau, Benoit, Lacroix, & Gauthier, 2009), with additional studies finding creative play promoting inter-generational and cross-cultural interaction (Price & Tinker, 2014) (Piscitelli & Penfold, 2015) (Gross, 2018).
Engaging mixed-ability children and teachers in collaborative creative activities contributed to creating a positive, vibrant atmosphere, emphasising social behaviours (empathy, self-awareness, self-regulation). ‘Levelling the playing field’ and placing the spotlight on the process of co-creation and collaboration, and not on difference and ability, helped create an inclusive environment. Inclusion and resilience were key aspects required to promote mutual understanding, collaboration and empathy in classrooms mainstreaming students with special educational needs (SEN) (Vitalaki, Kourkoutas, & Hart, 2017).
Amongst students and researchers, creative play interventions and performative tasks were found to develop collaborative skills and enable self-expression (Wingate, 2011) (Loudon, Deininger, & Wilgeroth, 2012) (Gordon, 2015) (Mougenot, Detienne, Pennington, Baker, & Corvin, 2017) (Arnab, Morini, & Clarke, 2018). The social benefits of LSP were found to be changed expectations and interactions in student participants, empowerment, and increased agency. Sharing experiences in a safe space built cohesion and understanding (Nerantzi, Moravej, & Johnson, 2015) (Yates & Twigg, 2017). LSP has also been used to enable multiple-perspective and tacit understanding to be expressed non-verbally, helping facilitate individuals with dyslexia or attention deficit hyperactive disorder (James, 2013).
Supporting a sense of freedom and using humour sensitively to help people accept ‘failing gladly’ (Symons & Hurley, 2018) can provide a safe, exploratory-rich environment, especially for persons with lower levels of creative confidence. Focusing on exploration, and reframing what creativity looks like can tackle anxieties around creative production and a lack of confidence and self-belief. The research emphasised the need for inclusivity in creative play, and the requirement to think of all people as cultural producers (Symons & Hurley, 2018). Additional studies also reported increased social interaction (Hur, 2010), (WIlson, 2012; Lu, Petersen, Lacroix, & Rousseau, 2010) (Brussoni, Ishikawa, Brunelle, & Herrington, 2017); (Teksoz, Bilgin, Madzwamuse, & Oscakci, 2017) (Vitalaki, Kourkoutas, & Hart, 2017) and a sense of inclusion (Vitalaki, Kourkoutas, & Hart, 2017) through creative engagement.
Research provides evidence that the multi-perspective lens provided by role-play activities leads to more dialogic and open interactions, creating more nuanced and coherent viewpoints and more effective problem redefinition (Wingate, 2011). Pro-, contra- and neutral role-play during activities enables beneficial socio-cognitive conflict, reducing ownership of ideas and the potential for arguments to be taken personally. The introduction of a creative play space on a children’s hospital ward found that the children who engaged creatively with the materials provided were able to express their individuality and autonomy in the process of making. Furthermore, nurses changed their perspectives on the children in their care, seeing them as individuals and developed greater levels of trust (Teksoz, Bilgin, Madzwamuse, & Oscakci, 2017).
There is strong evidence that participation in community-based arts activities such as music, dance, creative writing, crafting and drama can promote recovery for mental health service users (Stickley, Wright, & Slade, 2018). The cited research emphasises the value of connectivity with others, and the increasing feelings of hopefulness experienced by participants. The benefits of participation in creative play include enhanced mental health, a means to help reintegrate excluded persons back into society and draw in those at risk of exclusion, as well as being a protective factor for well-being (Gilham, 2018). The key impacts of arts in healthcare include improved patient health, recovery and well-being in clinical settings, better run healthcare environments, and participation to improve patient health and well-being (Public Art Online, 2010).
The National Alliance for Arts, Health and Well-being was launched in 2012 with the aim of raising the role of creativity in health and well-being (National Alliance for Arts, Health and Wellbeing, 2019). In addition, the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), a charity informing public policy and practice, advocates that a key component towards building sustainable resilient community is the relationship individuals and communities have with creative arts (Royal Society for Public Health, 2019).
Appropriate creative materials and supportive environments with nurturing adults was seen to facilitate the creative play process amongst participants with special needs or vulnerabilities. These approaches increased child agency through creative processes (Matthews & Rix, 2013), the capacity for children to cope following bereavement (Purswell & Taylor, 2013), increased dialogue to address community issues (Greatorex, 2011) (Muspratt & Apperley, 2012), promoted successful aging (Price & Tinker, 2014) (Gross, 2018), and increased capacity in children following traumatic events (Rousseau, Benoit, Lacroix, & Gauthier, 2009). Following a programme of sandplay introduced within special education classes to stimulate creative and symbolic play amongst children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), professional observations from psychologists, teachers and therapists reported increased participation, especially from previously avoidant children (Lu, Petersen, Lacroix, & Rousseau, 2010). Higher concentration levels and progression from functional play to symbolic/representative play, from rigid play to more flexibility was also observed. The children showed enthusiasm, joy and pride according to their class teachers. The metaphorical or symbolic exploration of tensions was particularly useful when children lacked the linguistic skills to articulate their ideas, or fear[ed] talking about them directly (Lowenstein & Sprunk, 2010) (Purswell & Taylor, 2013) (Howe, Abuhatoum, & Chang-Kredl, 2014).
Community engagement draws together multiple contexts of people’s lives, provides a direct voice to citizens in public decision-making, and raises commitment levels to proposed ventures. The Engaging Communities in Play, a programme commissioned by the Department of Education, UK, provides valuable evidence of the impact of community engagement in local play provision (Greatorex, 2011). Furthermore, the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s And Adolescents’ Health, 2016-2030 acknowledges the unique challenges facing young people’s health outcomes, but also their vital role as change makers. (The Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030)., 2015), especially considering that by 2030, 60% of urban dwellers will be under 18 years of age (UN-Habitat, 2012).
Encouraging creative play
Based on the literature that was reviewed for this project, we have developed a series of guidelines for encouraging creative play.
Simple materials that can be reimagined and repurposed easily can promote inclusive play. They can enhance the flow of narrative and gameplay, and promote autonomy as the players create.
Game structures that enable user autonomy to build meaningful narratives will help prolong creative engagement. Conversely, rigid structures or rules can lead to frustration and disengagement.
A movement from gamer to constructivist can encourage individuals and groups to be proactive and see themselves as ‘creators’. Participant autonomy allows players to create works or products that they feel are meaningful.
Cultivating trusting social environments in which participants are willing to take risks is integral to the creative process. Sharing creations as part of a peer-to-peer community enables collaborative learning, and critical and constructive feedback, but also requires safe non-judgmental space.
Environmental cues can make it easier to manage social interaction in analogue contexts.
Encouraging vulnerable participants to get involved requires building democratic environments, which help build confidence and alleviate self-doubt regarding perceived levels of creativity. Providing appropriate support and encouragement is vital to promote engagement.
Digital creative play
Digital technologies are also changing the way in which we play and experience playing, and here we consider whether digital play can be considered Creative Play, and if so, if it provides the same outcomes and benefits. One of the key characteristics of analogue play is that low cost, simple materials allow ‘players’ to engage with the materials in myriad ways. Open-ended analogue toys like bricks and sticks provide endless opportunities to be reimagined and repurposed (Wilson, 2012) (Thiessen, Gluth, & Corso, 2013) (Zamani, 2016) (Brussoni, Ishikawa, Brunelle, & Herrington, 2017) (Arnott & Duncan, 2019), which is related to the expression of divergent thinking and broad associations (Russ & Doernberg, 2019). The fluidity of analogue play allows for the creation of meaningful narratives and easy reconstruction (Thiessen, Gluth, & Corso, 2013). Simplicity and contingency allow the players to control the rules of engagement and opens up the possibility for creative exploration and improvisation (Sawyer K. , 2007). However, closed-structured toys reduce divergent use and focus the players on convergent thinking, task-planning and task completion (Arnott & Duncan, 2019). The type of structure in any play-based task can therefore determine whether or not something counts as creative play, and has an effect on the outcomes of that play.
One of the key elements to understand before considering this type of analysis are the different types of play that have emerged in the digital age. Digital creative play systems include screen-based approaches like pervasive games (Craft, 2012) and augmented reality, or non-screen based approaches like Heads-Up Games (HUGS) (Zund, Ryffel, Magnenat, Marra, & Nitt, 2015). HUGS use smart toys that have digital feedback capabilities in outside play areas. These objects aim to be transparent (al. T. H., 2018)(al., 2018), i.e. as intuitive to use and as amenable to re-imagination as conventional outdoor play objects such as sticks or Frisbees. In order to make these toys effective, research requires empathy-based design techniques and should include children as co-researchers and co-creators (Reitenbach, van Dijka, Hochstenbacha, & Resinka, 2011) (al., 2018). However, these so-called ‘smart toys’ have difficulty replicating the benefits of open-ended, analogue toys. For example, a research study that tried to reinvent a stick-like toy with light based counting and expressive modes found that smart toys with counting technologies preserve the social and physical activity of more conventional toys. However, non-competitive smart toys underperformed conventional toys in terms of collaborative interaction and creative rule invention, as children struggled to work out how to make use of the digital capabilities of the toy (al. T. H., 2018). In a sense, the children ‘followed the lead of the toy’ (al. T. H., 2018), which reduced their own levels of creativity and autonomy.
Ultimately, in pure creative play, players are the key stakeholders in all aspects of the process. The players create the game themselves, or rather it emerges through their actions. Learning and self-development are not aims but benefits that emerge naturally from the process of engagement in a meaningful activity. There is no pre-ordained plotline or specific aim, and this complete lack of extraneous material and functionality reduces unnecessary cognitive load (Fisch, 2017). It is important to design modes of interaction and narratives flexible enough to be repurposed in ways that keep them meaningful to the players (Vear & McConnon, 2017) and keep the critical content as close to the gameplay as possible (Fisch, 2017).
However, other forms of digital play appear to come closer to replicating these analogue experiences and the outcomes of creative play. Another form of digital play that can be considered here is collaborative pervasive gaming, which appears to have more similarities with analogue creative play as it conceives of players as ‘gamemakers’ not ‘gamers’ (Vear & McConnon, 2017). Research into collaborative pervasive gaming found that teams had higher levels of engagement when they could exercise autonomy, and control the development of the narrative and game play. In this environment, players naturally switched between a variety of roles both within the digital engagement of gameplay, and the offline engagement as observers of gameplay who advise and direct play (Vear & McConnon, 2017). Team players interchanged roles, taking on a variety of different identities during sessions to assist the team.
Participants appeared equally immersed and absorbed in the game, regardless of whether they were ‘actively’ playing or observing (Vear & McConnon, 2017). If the freedom exists for teams to develop their own narratives through gameplay, then digital modes of engagement could provide ways to explore different identities and possibility thinking as part of the problem-solving process in groups. Ultimately, some digital games and play opportunities might lead to similar outcomes to analogue creative play, but certain structures and possibilities must be considered to ensure this is the case.
The Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). (2015). Every Woman, Every Child. Retrieved from https://globalstrategy.everywomaneverychild.org
al., H. T. (2018). Digital Outdoor Play: Benefits and Risks from an Interaction Design Perspective. Conference: 2018 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Conference: 2018 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 21–26, 2018. Montreal, Canada.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. (2018). Creativity and the Labour of Love. In R. Sternberg, & J. Kaufman, The Nature of Human Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Arnab, S., Morini, L., & Clarke, S. (2018). CO-creativity with playful and gameful inspirations. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-based learning. Sophia Antipolis, France: SKEMA Business School.
Arnott, L., & Duncan, P. (2019). Exploring the Pedagogic Culture of Creative Play Early Childhood Education. Journal of Early Childhood Research.
Arnott, L., & Duncan, P. (2019). Exploring the Pedagogic Culture of Creative Play in Early Childhood Education. Journals of Early Childhood Research.
Baer, J. (2011). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (5), 309-313.
Baer, J. (2018). The Trouble with 'Creativity'. In R. Sternberg, & J. Kaufman, The Nature of Human Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barbot, B., & Eff, H. (2019). The Genetic Basis of Creativity: a Multivariate Approach. In J. C. Kaufman, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York.
Bateson, P. (2014). Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation. Animal Behaviour and Cognition 1(2), 99-112.
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2016). Ever broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom. In R. Beghetto, & J. Kaufman, Cambridge companion to nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. (1998). Organizing Genius: The secrets to creative collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
Berrueco, M., & Garaigordobil, L. (2011). Effects of a Play Program on Creative Thinking of Preschool Children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 14 (2), 608-618.
Boden, M. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. London: Routledge.
Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination and invigorates the soul. London: Penguin Group.
Brussoni, M., Ishikawa, T., Brunelle, S., & Herrington, S. (2017). Landscapes for play:Effects of an intervention to promote nature-based risky play in early childhood centres. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 139-150.
C.H. Kahl, L. D. (2009). Revisiting Creativity Research: An investigation of contemporary approaches. Creativity Research Journal 21 (1), 1-5.
Carson, S., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D. (2005). Reliability, Validity and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17 (1), 37-50.
Center for Humane Technology. (2019). Retrieved from https://humanetech.com/
Craft, A. (2012). Childhood in a digital age: creative challenges for educational futures. London Review of Education, 10(2), 173-190.
Craft, A. (2013). Childhood, possibility thinking and education futures. International Journal of Education Research 61, 126-134.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg, Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Davis, G. (1989). Testing for Creative Potential. Contemporary Education Psychology 14, 257-274.
Feist, G. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal and Social Psychology Review 2(4), 290-309.
Feist, G. (2019). ‘The Function of Personality in Creativity: Updates on the Creative Personality’. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fisch, S. (2017). Chapter 11 - Bridging Theory and Practice: Applying Cognitive and Educational Theory to the Design of Educational Media. In F. Blumberg, & P. Brooks, Cognitive Development in Digital Contexts. Academic Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of Creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H., & Weinstein, E. (2018). Creativity: The View from the Big C and the Introduction of Tiny c. In R. Sternberg, & J. Kaufman, The Nature of Human Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gilham, T. (2018). Enhancing public mental health and wellbeing through creative arts participation. Journal of Public Mental Health, 17(4), 148-156.
Gordon, C. (2015). Adventures with Mr. Monkey: Stimulating Creative Writing in the primary school classroom through play. Practically Primary 20 (1), 30-31.
Gotlieb, R., Hyde, E., Immordino-Yang, M., & Kaufman, S. (2019). Imagination is the seed of creativity. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gotlieb, R., Jahner, E., Immordino-Yang, M., & Kaufman, S. (2017). How social-emotional imagination facilitates deep learning and creativity in the classroom. In R. Beghetto, & J. Kaufman, Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom: Current Perspectives in Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 308-336). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greatorex, P. (2011). Creating Playful Communities. Retrieved from Play England: Making space for play: http://www.playengland.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ecp-final-report-final.pdf
Gross, J. (2018). Everyday creativity in later life: art, technology & community. Retrieved from 64 Million Artists: https://64millionartists.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/64MA_Everyday-creativity-in- later-life-final.pdf
Guildford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guildford, J. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review 64 (2), 110-118.
Guildford, J. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hemsley, J., & Tanupabrungsun, S. (2018). Dribble: Exploring the Concept of Viral Events on an Art World Social Networking Site. Transforming Digital Worlds 13th International Conference Proceedings. Sheffield: iConference 2018.
Hennessey, B., Amabile, T., & Mueller, J. (2018). Consensual Assessment. In M. Runco, & S. Pritzker, Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 253-260). San Diego, CA: San Diego: Academic Press.
Howe, D. (2015). Analog Synthesizers in the classroom: How creative play, musical composition and project-based learning can enhance STEM standard literacy and self-efficacy. Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations.
Howe, N., Abuhatoum, S., & Chang-Kredl, S. (2014). ‘“Everything's Upside Down. We'll Call It Upside Down Valley!”: Siblings’ Creative Play Themes, Object Use, and Language During Pretend Play’. Early Education and Development, 25:3, 381-398.
Hughes, B. (2006). PlayTypes – Speculations and Possibilities . London: The London Centre for Playwork Training and Education.
Hui, A., He, M., & Wong, W. (2019). Understanding the Development of Creativity Across the Life Span. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press .
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hur, H. (2010). Study of Creative Musical Play Program for Increasing Peer Relational Skills of Children in Community Child Center. Korean Journal of Music Therapy Education, 7(1),, 37-59.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of Social Issues 61 (3), 595-610.
Hurwitz, S. (2002). To be successful—Let them play! Childhood Education . Child Education 79, 101-102.
Immordino-Yang, M., Christodoulou, J., & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness: Implications of the brain's default mode for human development and education. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (4), 352-364.
Ivcevic, Z., & Hoffman, J. (2019). Emotions and Creativity: From Process to Person to Product. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . New York: Cambridge University Press .
James, A. (2013). Lego Serious Play: A three-dimensional approach to learning development. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education.
James, A. (2015). Learning in three dimensions: Using Lego serious play for creative and critical reflection across time and space. In P. Layne, & P. Lake, Global Innovation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Transgressing Boundaries (pp. 275-294). London: Springer.
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two and creative self-beliefs:A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Art 10 (2), 214-232.
Kaufman, J., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I'm creative -- but not in mathematics! Self reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts 22, 143-155.
Kaufman, J., & Glaveneau, V. (2019). A review of creativity theories: what questions are we trying to answer? In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, K. (2011). The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts 5 , 302-308.
Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2008). Play for a Change: Play, policy and practice: A review of contemporary perspectives . Retrieved from Play England: http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120519/play-for-a-change-summary.pdf
Lewis, P. (2017, October 5th). Our minds can be hijacked: the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia
Literat, I., & Glaveneau, V. (2018). Distributed Creativity on the Internet: A Theoretical Foundation for Online Creative Participation. International Journal of Communication 12, 893-908.
Loudon, G., Deininger, G., & Wilgeroth, P. (2012). The Importance of Play and Creativity in the Design Curriculum. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, 6&7 September 2012. Antwerp: Artesis University College.
Lovitts, B. (2005). Being a good course taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education.
Lowenstein, L., & Sprunk, T. (2010). Creative Family Therapy Techniques. Play and Art- Based Activities to Assess and Treat Families. Charleston Counselling Portal.
Lu, L., Petersen, F., Lacroix, L., & Rousseau, C. (2010). Stimulating creative play in children with autism through sandplay. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 37, 56–64.
Matthews, A., & Rix, J. (2013). Early intervention: parental involvement, child agency and participation in creative play. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 33(3), 239-251.
Mougenot, C., Detienne, F., Pennington, M., Baker, M., & Corvin, T. (2017). Tensions in Creativity Workshops . ACM International Conference Proceeding Series . Umea, Sweden: ECCE 2017, September 19-22 2017.
Munro, R. (2017). Creativiy, Organisation and Entrepreneurship: Power and Play. Organization Studies - Special Issue: Organizational Creativity, Play and Entrepreneurship, 209-227.
Muspratt, S., & Apperley, T. (2012). Patterns of digital game-play in Australian High School Students. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2, July 21-22 2012. Auckland, New Zealand.
National Alliance for Arts, Health and Wellbeing. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.artshealthandwellbeing.org.uk
Nerantzi, C., Moravej, H., & Johnson, F. (2015). Play Brings Openness or Using a Creative Approach to Evaluate an Undergraduate Unit and Move Forward Together. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(2). Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(2).
Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 27, 243-269.
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation. New York: Norton.
Piscitelli, B., & Penfold, L. (2015). Child-centered Practice in Museums: Experiential Learning through Creative Play at the Ipswich Art Gallery. Curator the Museum Journal, 58 (3).
Piscitelli, B., & Penfold, L. (2015). Child-centred Practice in Museums: Experiential Learning through Creative Play at the Ipswich Art Gallery. Curator The Museum Journal, 58 (3).
Play England. (2019). Retrieved from http://www.playengland.org.uk
Plucker, J., Makel, M., & Qian, M. (2019). Assessment of Creativity. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press .
Price, K., & Tinker, A. (2014). Creativity in later life. Maturitas, 78, 281-286.
Public Art Online. (2010). Arts in Healthcare 2010. Retrieved from http://publicartonline.org.uk/resources/research/artsandhealthmarch2010.php.html
Purswell, K., & Taylor, D. (2013). Creative Use of Sibling Play Therapy: An Example of a Blended Family. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 8, 162-174.
RA, W., & Wilson, R. (2012). Nature and young children: Encouraging creative play and learning in natural environments. Routledge (Second Edition).
Reitenbach, M., van Dijka, D., Hochstenbacha, M., & Resinka, E. (2011). Exploring playful language education through co-creation with children. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(3), 272 – 285.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mitchell, K., & Royston, R. (2019). Improving Creativity in Organisational Settings: Applying Research on Creativity to Organizations. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, M. (2007). All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition.
Resnick, M. (2017). Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers and Play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
Richards, R. (2019). Everyday Creativity: Process and Way of Life -- Four Key Issues. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge handbook of Creativity (pp. 189-215). New York: Cambridge University press.
Rousseau, C., Benoit, M., Lacroix, L., & Gauthier, M.-F. (2009). Evaluation of a sandplay program for preschoolers in a multiethnic neighborhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 50 (6), 743-50.
Royal Society for Public Health. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.rsph.org.uk
Runco, M., Noble, E., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T., & Yurkovich, J. (2011). The genetic basis of creativity and ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal 23 (4), 376-380.
Russ, S. (2014). Pretend play in childhood: Foundation for adult creativity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.
Russ, S., & Doernberg, E. (2019). Play and Creativity . In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2012). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2018). An Interdisciplinary Study of Group Creativity. In R. Sternberg, & J. Kaufman, The Nature of Human Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, K., & Geithner, S. (2013). Creative tools for collective creativity: The serious play method using lego bricks. In A. Sannino, & V. Ellis, Learning and Collective Creativity. Routledge.
Segarra, V., Natalizio, B., Falkenberg, C., Pulford, S., & Holmes, R. (2018). STEAM: Using the Arts to Train Well-Rounded and Creative Scientists. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19 (1).
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 5-14.
Simonton, D. (2019). Creativity's Role in Society. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press .
Singer, D., & Singer, J. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
Stege, L., van Lankveld, G., & Spronck, P. (2011). Serious Games in Education. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport 10 (1).
Stickley, T., Wright, N., & Slade, M. (2018). The art of recovery: outcomes from participatory arts activities for people using mental health services. J Ment Health, 27(4),, 367-373.
Symons, J., & Hurley, U. (2018). Strategies for connecting low income communities to the creative economy through play: two case studies in Northern England. Creative Industries Journal, 11(2), 121-136.
Teksoz, E., Bilgin, I., Madzwamuse, S., & Oscakci, A. (2017). The impact of a creative play intervention on satisfaction with nursing care: A mixed-methods study. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 22.
Thiessen, M., Gluth, S., & Corso, R. (2013). Unstructured Play and Creative Development in the Classroom. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education 4 (4), 1341-1348.
Thuneberg, H., Salmia, H., & Bognerb, F. (2018). How creativity, autonomy and visual reasoning contribute to T cognitive learning in a STEA< hands-on inquiry-based math module. Thinking Skills and Creativity 29, 153-160.
Torrance, E. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking- Norms-Technical Manual-Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B - Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel Press.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. Penguin.
UN-Habitat. (2012). The Role of Youth in the Urban Future: Concept Note for the World Urban Youth Assembly. Italy: WUF6.
Vear, C., & McConnon, L. (2017). Pop Up Play: a digital creative play space. Digital creativity, 28(2), 141-156.
Vitalaki, E., Kourkoutas, E., & Hart, A. (2017). Building inclusion and resilience in students with and without SEN through the implementation of narrative speech, role play and creative writing in the mainstream classroom of primary education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(12), 1306-1319.
Vygotsky, L. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylvia, Play: Its role in development and evolution (p. 537554). New York: Basic Books.
Webb, A., Rule, A., Cavanaugh, A., & Munson, A. (2014). Primary grade students engage in creative word play through traditional and hands-on methods. Education 3-13, 42 (5), 528-541.
Wehner, L., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & I.Magyari-Beck. (1991). Current approaches used in studying creativity: an exploratory investigation. Creativity Research Journal (4), 261-271.
Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play. A report on the value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. Toy Industries of Europe.
Wilson, R. (2012). Nature and young children: Encouraging creative play and learning in natural environments, Second edition. Routledge.
Wingate, R. (2011). Thinking about Evolution: combinatorial play as a strategy for exercising scientific creativity. Journal of Biological Education 45 (1), 50-53.
Yates, E., & Twigg, E. (2017). Developing creativity in early childhood studies students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 42-57. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 42-57, 42-57.
Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. (2018). The Power of Play: A Pediatric Role in Enhancing Development in Young Children. Pediatrics 142 (3).
Zamani, Z. (2016). 'The woods is a more free space for children to be creative; their imagination kind of sparks out there’: exploring young children’s cognitive play opportunities in natural, manufactured and mixed outdoor preschool zone. . Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning.
Zosh, J., Hopkins, E., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, S., & Whitebread, D. (2017). Learning through play: a review of the evidence: White Paper. The LEGO Foundation .
Zund, F., Ryffel, M., Magnenat, S., Marra, S., & Nitt, M. (2015). Augmented Creativity: Bridging the real and virtual worlds to enhance creative play. SA '15 SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications Article No. 21. SA '15 SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications Article No. 21.