Creativity in Education

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Introduction.

Within this blog I will address the reason why creativity is important within education. I will explore the educator’s role in developing creative play by facilitating learning experiences that feed children’s curiosity. Teachers who are creative when implementing learning experiences provide rich and stimulating environments that expand on learning experiences and result in children feeling a sense of accomplishment. Children are naturally creative and have inquisitive natures (Sheets, 2012), therefore it is important that educators help children to harness their potential by encouraging spontaneity within the classroom. Approaches to learning will be looked at such as the Steiner approach, Reggio Emelia approach, Montessori approach and Highscope. The Science Versus Creativity debate will be analysed which will result in knowledge regarding similarities and differences as well as the way in which both areas might interact. Looking into the Science Versus Creativity debate will make the role of an educator clear regarding both subjects. Collaborating with other agencies outside of an educational environment is important and therefore I will look at the impact that Creative Partnerships have had on schools. The impact that multi-agency working has on children, teachers and other practitioners will be examined in order to reflect on good practice within settings such as schools, nurseries and afterschool care.

References:

Sheets, J. (2012) Use 'Tell Me Why' Books to Answer Children's Questions, http://ezinearticles.com/?Use-Tell-Me-Why-Books-to-Answer-Childrens-Questions&id=7089248,(Accessed: 10/12/14)

Creative Play.

Creative play is extremely important within the Foundation Phase as it gives children the opportunity to explore their world and provides opportunity for the development of the whole child including their social and emotional needs (Dixon, 2007). Play also allows children to use creativity to develop their imaginations (Ginsberg, 2007). Creative play includes activities such as sticking and gluing areas, chalk boards, painting and colouring sessions. Resources such as scientific enquiry tables, construction play, technology, puppet theatres, role-play areas and outdoor equipment such as climbing frames, sand pits, water play, tricycles and doll prams could be used to promote creative play (Morrisey, 2013).

Children love to explore their environment and find creative ways of having fun together.

Experience within a nursery leads me to believe that all children should have opportunities to experience different forms of play no matter what their sex, ability, ethnicity or religion and therefore any bias or discrimination needs to be addressed to support creative play. In a study, Feldhusen and Hobson (1972) found that children showed substantial gains in a sense of psychological openness and freedom, increased ability to produce ideas and work together when encouraged to express themselves freely and enjoy the company of adults who joined in with their playfulness. For this reason and due to experience in childcare settings, I believe that a comfortable and non-threatening environment is needed to support both creative thinking and creative play.

Fredrik Härén speaks about the seriousness and importance of play and creativity.

Creative play can support multi-ethnic and multi-cultural ethos within a setting where children can use familiar or unfamiliar materials in a spontaneous and self-directed way (PBS, 2014). Children can self-regulate their activity during creative play, whereby they can discharge energy or recharge when needed (Lieberman, 1977). Creative play assists in what Cropley (2001), describes as the development of cognitive structures that equip children to understand the external world around them. In agreement with Murray (1983), spontaneous play through the use of art helps children to distinguish, organise, develop understand ideas about the world in which they live.

Pretend play within the nursery.

Children have a natural inbuilt desire to explore through play in order to gain understanding of the world in which they live (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008). Children depict experiences from their own perspectives of social contexts which in agreement with Paley (2004), results in the extension of logical thinking due to the presence of emotions and the expressive responses during interactions. A strong foundation of knowledge and language acquisition through creative play supports the dynamic thinking skills needed to develop creatively within all curriculum areas in primary and secondary education. A basis for all learning including the ability to problem solve stems from social knowledge (Edwards, 1986) and therefore it is important that curriculum planners consider ways to enhance creative play within settings to support social knowledge acquisition. It is considered by Paley (2004) that pressure put on teachers regarding children’s attainment of skills in reading and writing cause stronger restrictions on children’s fantasy play compared to the experiences of children during the 1970’s and 1980’s.

The child's world of play is their reality.

I believe it is important to acknowledge the relevance of creative play in its various forms within the Foundation Phase because creativity impacts not only on the work produced by children within the Foundation Phase but also in the Key Stage area of the school curriculum. Creative play can impact on the ability to produce creative writing, art, dance, music composition, drama and also make decisive independent decisions. Equally, these areas of learning equip children to be creative and develop their creative capacity. I conclude that educators could consider the relationship between play and entertainment in order to conduct lessons and enhance active learning experiences in order to empower older children to enjoy the fun in learning and to improve professional practice.

Girls as well as boys enjoy scientific enquiry in the early years.

Children enjoy using creative toys during creative play.

Practitioners empower children to explore their world.

Children love opportunities to be creative.

References:

Cropley, A. J (2001), Creativity in education and learning; a guide for teachers and educators. England: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dixon, E (2007) Importance of play in child development, http://www.child-development-guide.com/importance-of-play.html (Accessed 10:11:14)

Edwards, C. P. with Ramsey, P. G. (1986), Social and moral development in young children; Creative Approaches for the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ginsburg, K.R., Committee on Communications and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2007) The Importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds, Pediatrics Vol. 119, (1) January, pp.182-191

Feldhusen, J.F. and Hobson, K. (1972) Freedom and Play: Catalysts for Creativity The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 73, (3) pp.148-155 The University of Chicago Press.

Lieberman, J. N. (1977) Playfulness; Its relationship to imagination and creativity. London: Academic Press Inc. p.15-16

Morrisey, B. (2013) Enhancing development through play, http://www.kidsdevelopment.co.uk/EnhancingDevelopmentThroughPlay.html (Accessed: 10.11.14)

Murray, J.J. (1983) Art, Creativity, and the Quality of Education: Daedalus, Vol. 112, (3), pp.129-147 (Summer), pp. 129-147 JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024872. Accessed: 16/10/2014

Paley, V.G. (2004) A child’s work; the importance of fantasy play. London: The University of Chicago. P.12-13, P.31

PBS (2014) Creativity and play: Fostering Creativity, http://www.pbs.org/wholechild/providers/play.html (Accessed: 10.11.14)

Welsh Assembly Government (2008) Framework for Children’s Learning for 3 to 7 Year olds in Wales, Uk: Her Majesties Office.

Bibliography:

Amabile, T. M. (1993) What Does a Theory of Creativity Require? Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 4, (3) pp. 179-181 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1448959. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Banaji, S. and Burn, A. with Buckingham, D. (2006) The rhetoric’s of creativity: A literature review. England: Arts Council.

Coler M. A. (1968) Creativity in Technology and the Arts. Leonardo, Vol. 1 (3) pp. 265-272 (July), JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1571870 . Accessed: 16/10/2014

Cropley, A. J (2001), Creativity in education and learning; a guide for teachers and educators. England: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dixon, E (2007) Importance of play in child development, http://www.child-development-guide.com/importance-of-play.html (Accessed 10:11:14)

Edwards, C. P. with Ramsey, P. G. (1986), Social and moral development in young children; Creative Approaches for the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Feldhusen, J.F. and Hobson, K. (1972) Freedom and Play: Catalysts for Creativity The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 73, (3) pp.148-155 The University of Chicago Press.

Harrison G. B. (1970-1971) Technological Creativity at School: Paedagogica Europaea, Vol. 6, pp. JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1502504 . (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Lawson, B. (2002) CAD and Creativity: Does the Computer Really Help? Leonardo, Vol. 35, (3) pp.372-331 (2002) JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1577126 . (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Lieberman, J. N. (1977) Playfulness; Its relationship to imagination and creativity. London: Academic Press Inc. p.15-16

Morrisey, B. (2013) Enhancing development through play, http://www.kidsdevelopment.co.uk/EnhancingDevelopmentThroughPlay.html (Accessed: 10.11.14)

Paley, V.G. (2004) A child’s work; the importance of fantasy play. London: The University of Chicago. P.12-13, P.31

PBS (2014) Creativity and play: Fostering Creativity, http://www.pbs.org/wholechild/providers/play.html (Accessed: 10.11.14)

Reichling M. J. (1997) Music, Imagination, and Play: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 31, (1) pp. 41-55 (Spring) JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333470 (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Welsh Assembly Government (2008) Framework for Children’s Learning for 3 to 7 Year olds in Wales, Uk: Her Majesties Office.

White J. P (1968) Creativity and Education: A Philosophical Analysis. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 16, (2) pp. 123-137 (Jun), JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118455. (Accessed: 16/10/2014).

Creativity in todays Curriculum.

Due to the way in which the economy has changed, it is of no wonder that Craft (2001) makes the bold statement that:

‘Creativity is an integral aspect of learning and human development, present and ongoing in the daily interactions of any community’ p.177.

Children should feel confident in decision-making and develop the skills needed to adapt in an ever-changing economy. Educators should equip children with the skills and knowledge base needed to think independently and use imagination confidently. Creative enquiry empowers children’s independent learning and confidence in problem-solving (Mitchell and Kowalik, 1999). Children can explore areas of thinking creatively through philosophical enquiry (Cam, 1997). Scientific enquiry supports curiosity for learning and as Ryan and Sherrington (2002) mentions, helps children to become independent investigators. Jones (2013) argues that Children have diverse capabilities, and therefore teachers should address the individual needs of children and consider learning styles (Clark, 2011) and multiple intelligences that need to be nurtured (Gardner, 1993).

Creativity should be encouraged in the curriculum, and should be regarded as just as important as other subjects. Students may struggle with some academic areas but creativity can help build self-esteem.

A number of influences have impacted teacher’s implementation of creativity in education especially regarding the importance of creative play in the Foundation Phase. The Steiner approach views imagination and creativity as integral in learning (Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship Ltd, No Date).Maria Montessori who founded the first Casa dei Bambini in 1906 educated children with constructive, sensory learning experiences that involved age-appropriate tools resulting in an increase in children’s self-worth and parent recognition of children’s value (Cornerstone Montessori Ltd, 2014). In 1960, the American Montessori Society was established whose president was Rambusch. It produced pedagogical resources and developed standards for teacher training (American Montessori Society, 2014).

The Montesorri approach offers children an exciting environment for them to explore and learn through curiosity.

Maria Montessori believed that the natural world could influence creativity. Due to the influence of Montessori’s belief in the influence of nature on creativity (Turner, 1982), and her approach, the foundation phase offers an active environment where children can learn through their curiosity and explore (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008). The Reggio Emilia approach, founded by Loris Malaguzzi during 1920-1994 in Emilia Romagna City (Loh, 2006, YellowPages TM, 2014) offers teachers a methodology to enrich experiences resulting in enhancement of children’s creativity and curiosity (McGrue, No Date). Highscope was developed by Dr David Weikart in the 1960s and benefits pedagogy by setting out ten key experiences for pre-school children, all of which enhance creative play opportunities (Once upon a time, 2013). It supports Reggio Emilia’s emphasis on the vital importance of parent involvement (Moorhouse, 2012) and that children construct their learning with support from adults (NEYCE CIC, 2014). Educators should therefore consider the variety of methodology that supports creativity in the curriculum.

Ken Robinson talks about creativity, learning and curriculum.

Dr Ken Robinson, an expert in the area of creativity in education (Principle Voices, No Date) worked with Governments in Europe, USA and Asia as well as leading a national commission in the UK about creativity and culture for the economy (Robinson, 2011). During his talk called ‘How schools kill creativity’ (TED Conferences LLC, 2006) the importance of creativity within the curriculum was addressed and he emphasised the need for educators to acknowledge and embrace it (The Huffington Post, 2014). According to Craft (2003), initiatives have taken place to foster the creativity of pupils and teachers within schools and also to bring together technology, science, social sciences and art. Strict guidelines within the curriculum might impede the implementation of artistic creativity, however teachers can incorporate it when children document information on to paper. Children’s spontaneity can be fostered and encouraged during discussions and activities. Robinson (2006) states that creativity is equally important to literacy within education because children should be enabled to express ideas in different forms. Considering that creativity is not ‘subject-specific’, I conclude that it could be fostered within each area of the curriculum (Craft, 2003) by informed, enthusiastic educators.

Sensory play in the Foundation Phase and Foundation Stage gives children another area to develop creatively.

Forest Schools give children an exciting environment to explore which can impact on creativity within the classroom.

References:

American Montessori Society (2014) American Montessori Society Records 2006.0230, http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/findaids/ams/MSS20060230.html#adminInfo (Accessed 11.12.14)

Cam, P (1997) Thinking stories 3: Philosophical enquiry for children, Hale and Iremonger: UK

Clark, D. (2011) Learning styles and preferences, http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html (Accessed: 10.11.14)

Cornerstone Montessori Ltd, (2014) Maria Montessori, http://montessoritraining.net/what_is_montessori/history.htm (Accessed 11.12.14)

Craft, A. (Jun., 2003) The Limits to Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator Author(s): British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 pp. 113-127 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Society for Educational Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3122416 . Accessed: 16/10/2014 11:20

Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. (2001) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum.

Gardner, H. (1993) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, UK: Fontana Press.

Jones, R. and Wyse, D. (2013) Creativity in the Primary Curriculum. 2^nd edn. London: David Fulton.

Loh, A. (2006) Reggio Emilia Approach, http://www.brainy-child.com/article/reggioemilia.shtml (Accessed 11.12.14).

Mitchell and Kowalik (1999) Creative problem solving, http://www.roe11.k12.il.us/GES%20Stuff/Day%204/Process/Creative%20Problem%20Solving/CPS-Mitchell%20&%20Kowalik.pdf (Accessed 11.12.14).

McGrue, C. (No Date) The Reggio Emilia Approach: A brief description, http://freshstartchilddevelopment.org/Reggio.html (Accessed: 11.12.14).

Morehouse, P. (2012) The Reggio Emilia Approach, http://www.petemoorhouse.co.uk/education/inset-teacher-training/the-reggie-emila-approach/ (Accessed: 11.12.14).

NEYCE CIC (2014) One year on with EYFS – How is your Foundation Stage doing?, https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/KELSI/School%20e-Bulletin/NEYCE%20HIC%20training%20March%202014.pdf (Accessed: 11.12.14)

Once upon a time (2013) Highscope … http://www.onceuponatimedaynurseries.co.uk/html/highscope.html (Accessed 11.12.14).

Principle Voices (No Date) Ken Robinson, http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/ken-robinson.html (Accessed 11.12.14).

Robinson, K. (2011) Out of our minds: Learning to be creative, UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd.

Ryan, L. and Sherrington, R (2002) Teaching scientific enquiry; Booster book for key stage one, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship Ltd (No Date) Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, http://www.steinerwaldorf.org/steiner-education/what-is-steiner-education/ (Accessed: 10/12/14)

TED Conferences LLC (2006) How schools kill creativity, http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity (Accessed: 05.10.14)

The Huffington Post (2014) Do schools kill creativity? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sir-ken-robinson/do-schools-kill-creativity_b_2252942.html (Accessed 11.12.14)

Turner, J. (1982) Art and Montessori: The constructive triangle, American Montessori Society’s official magazine, Volume IX, No 2, p.4-42.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008) Framework for children’s learning for 3 – 7-year-olds in Wales, http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/141111-framework-for-childrens-learning-for-3-to-7-year-olds-en.pdf (Accessed: 11.12.14).

YellowPages TM (2014) Reggio Kids, http://www.reggiokids.com/the_reggio_approach.html (Accessed: 11.12.2014).

Bibliography.

American Montessori Society (2014) American Montessori Society Records 2006.0230, http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/findaids/ams/MSS20060230.html#adminInfo (Accessed 11.12.14)

Cam, P (1997) Thinking stories 3: Philosophical enquiry for children, Hale and Iremonger: UK

Clark, D. (2011) Learning styles and preferences, http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html (Accessed: 10.11.14)

Cornerstone Montessori Ltd, (2014) Maria Montessori, http://montessoritraining.net/what_is_montessori/history.htm (Accessed 11.12.14)

Craft, A. (Jun., 2003) The Limits to Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator: British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 51, (2) pp. 113-127 JSTOR [Online] Available at: URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3122416 . (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. (2001) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum.

Fisher, R. and Williams, M. (2004) Unlocking creativity: Teaching across the curriculum, London: David Fulton Publishers.

Gardner, H. (1993) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, UK: Fontana Press.

Gregerson, M.B., Snyder, H.T. and Kaufman, J.C. (2013) Teaching creatively and teaching creativity, NY: Springer.

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

Loh, A. (2006) Reggio Emilia Approach, http://www.brainy-child.com/article/reggioemilia.shtml (Accessed 11.12.14).

McIntosh, P. and Warren, D (2013) Creativity in the classroom: Case studies in using the arts in teaching and learning in higher education, UK: Intellect.

Mitchell and Kowalik (1999) Creative problem solving, http://www.roe11.k12.il.us/GES%20Stuff/Day%204/Process/Creative%20Problem%20Solving/CPS-Mitchell%20&%20Kowalik.pdf (Accessed 11.12.14).

McGrue, C. (No Date) The Reggio Emilia Approach: A brief description, http://freshstartchilddevelopment.org/Reggio.html (Accessed: 11.12.14).

Morehouse, P. (2012) The Reggio Emilia Approach, http://www.petemoorhouse.co.uk/education/inset-teacher-training/the-reggie-emila-approach/ (Accessed: 11.12.14).

Newton, L (2012) Creativity in the new curriculum: 5-11, London: Routledge.

NEYCE CIC (2014) One year on with EYFS – How is your Foundation Stage doing?, https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/KELSI/School%20e-Bulletin/NEYCE%20HIC%20training%20March%202014.pdf (Accessed: 11.12.14)

Once upon a time (2013) Highscope … http://www.onceuponatimedaynurseries.co.uk/html/highscope.html (Accessed 11.12.14).

Principle Voices (No Date) Ken Robinson, http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/ken-robinson.html (Accessed 11.12.14).

Robinson, K. (2011) Out of our minds: Learning to be creative, UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd.

TED Conferences LLC (2006) How schools kill creativity, http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity (Accessed: 05.10.14)

The Huffington Post (2014) Do schools kill creativity? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sir-ken-robinson/do-schools-kill-creativity_b_2252942.html (Accessed 11.12.14)

Turner, J. (1982) Art and Montessori: The constructive triangle, American Montessori Society’s official magazine, Volume IX, No 2, p.4-42.

YellowPages TM (2014) Reggio Kids, http://www.reggiokids.com/the_reggio_approach.html (Accessed: 11.12.2014).

Art Versus Science debate.

The Art Versus Science debate is an ongoing argument regarding the importance and relevance of art and science within education. Murray (1982) argues that art and science involve essentially the same process which enables a better understanding of the world to be developed within the learner. Two misconceptions take place whereby art is considered by some to be inconsequential and science, a closed system of actualities that can simply be memorised (Murray 1982). A debate took place in the London Museum regarding the similarity between science and art whereby Arkani-Hamed explains that both areas focus on that which seems out of the reach of the individual and also that which some might at times consider to be trivial (The Guardian 2013). It could also be considered that all areas of the curriculum are based on an underpinning science, however achievement is attained by the art of producing relevant pieces of work that displays the creative capacity and ground knowledge that an individual has attained.

When completing scientific enquiry, students follow a specific structure. During a lecture at University, a cycle of scientific enquiry was produced to consider the areas that would need to be considered.

External traits like the environment might be what causes Art and science to be considered so different (Zink, S. 1944). Another consideration includes structure because science takes a logical approach which includes; planning, preparation, prediction, investigation and conclusion, supported by critical, creative (DCSF, 2008) and mathematical thinking (Simanek, 2002) to find conclusions whereas art begins with a plan and develops during the active process. Creativity in science could be considered to be logical because it focuses on previous knowledge. Repetition takes place in science to discover new information which Leonardo De Vinci (1452-1519) regarded as extremely important. It is argued however, that art and science are linked because both are based on practical experiences and an end product. Experiential practice of a cycle of scientific enquiry in University leads me to believe that scientific enquiry demands more structure in comparison with Art. Hutchinson (2014) highlights that the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan does not advise people to study art at University despite the need for creativity within the workforce. The impact of this mind-set is shown by Sands (2009) when revealing readers concerns regarding discouragement due to Government cuts and fear of lack of employability. Therefore it could be argued, that politically science is still considered to be the better option academically.

Mr. Fabian Oefner explains that art and science both look at the world but in very different ways. He explains that science gives a rational approach and art an emotional approach and therefore both are valuable.

Little attention has been given to interrelations between art and science (Topper D.R and Holloway J.H, 1980). Although perceived as different at first (O’Connor, 2014), both are products of active creativity. The artist and scientist Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) blended together the subjects when discovering the Fibonacci sequence which might have been used to create the Mona Lisa (1505). The Fibonacci sequence develops perfect structures in objects (Fox, No Date), including the human form (Meisner, 2012) possibly due to proportions needed for function. Deeper thinking, development of imagination and expression is gained through producing art and also dynamic thinking and discovery through science can impact art. Deeper thinking can take place both when conducting scientific enquiry or in art production. Both subjects therefore, help to build a deeper understanding of the external world. Alfert (1986) comments that creative activity is needed in the areas of both art and science in order to produce an end result. For this reason and also due to the understanding that children love to construct their own learning (Driscoll, 2013), I consider that the use of such methods as the Emelia Approach and the Leonardo Effect when planning and preparing learning experiences will help to merge art and science together. Creative enquiry, critical thinking and skills in critical analysis can be promoted in learners as they actively experience education.

Science can be used to support some areas of artistic creativity.

References.

Alfert, M. (1986), Creativity and Merit in Art and Science, Leonardo, Vol. 19, (4) pp. 323-328 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578380 (Accessed: 16.10.14)

DCSF (2008), Developing creative and critical thinking: In science, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https:/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Developing%20critical%20and%20creative%20thinking%20-%20in%20science.pdf (Accessed: 10.12.14)

Driscoll, A. and Nagel N.G. (2013) Reggio Emilia Approach. http://www.education.com/reference/article/reggio-emilia-approach/ Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall (Accessed 23.10.2014)

Fox, K. (No Date) The fibonacci sequence in nature, http://www.inspirationgreen.com/index.php?q=fibonacci-sequence-in-nature.html (Accessed: 10.12.14)

Hutchison, D. (2014), Education secretary Nicky Morgan: Arts subjects limit career choices, http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2014/11/education-secretary-nicky-morgan-arts-subjects-limit-career-choices/ (Accessed 21.11.14)

Murray, J.J. (1983) Art, Creativity, and the Quality of Education Daedalus, Vol. 112, (3), The Arts and Humanities in America's Schools (Summer), pp. 129-147 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024872 (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Meisner, G. (2012) Human hand and foot, http://www.goldennumber.net/human-hand-foot/ (Accessed: 10.12.14)

O’Conor, A (2014) Is Art and Science Speaking the same language? http://riaus.org.au/articles/are-art-and-science-speaking-the-same-language/ (Accessed: 25.10.14)

Sands, S. (2009) The Art vs Science Debate: Your views, in London Evening Standard, London: Evening Standard Ltd.

Simanek, D. E. (2002) Uses and misuses of logic, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm (Accessed: 10/12/2014).

The Guardian. (2013) Nima Arkani-Hamed and Ian McEwan: The Science Museum Live Stream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPDrXORYzE (Accessed: 23/10/2014)

Topper, D.R. and Holloway, J.H. (1980) Interrelationships between the Visual Arts, Science and Technology: A Bibliography. Leonardo, Vol. 13 (1) pp.29-33 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1577916. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Zink, S. Art, Science, and Experience: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 41 (14) pp. 365-375 (Jul. 6) JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019649. (Accessed: 16/10/2014).

Bibliography

Aldous, C.R. (2007) Creativity, problem solving and innovative science: Insights from history, cognitive psychology and neuroscience: International Education Journal, 2007, 8(2), 176-186.

Alfert, M. (1986), Creativity and Merit in Art and Science, Leonardo, Vol. 19, (4) pp. 323-328 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578380 (Accessed: 16/10/14)

Aziz-Zadeh, L., Liew, S. and Dandekar, F (2013) Exploring the neural correlates of visual creativity, Vol.8 pp.475-480 Oxford Journals [Online] Available at: http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/ (Accessed: 16/10/14)

Bermúdez, J., Agutter, J., Foresti, S., Westenskow, D. Syroid, N., Drews, F., Tashjian, E. (2005) Between Art, Science and Technology: Data Representation Architecture. Leonardo, Vol. 38, (4) pp. 280-284, 296-297. JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20206068. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Changeux, J. and Goldhammer, A. (1996) Creativity and Neuroscience: Grand Street, Vol.58 (Autumn) pp.75-86 JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25008087. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Dietrich, A., (2004) The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Vol.11 (6), pp. 1011-1026 (Accessed: 10/11/14)

Driscoll, A. and Nagel N.G. (2013) Reggio Emilia Approach. http://www.education.com/reference/article/reggio-emilia-approach/ Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall (Accessed 23/10/2014)

Fox, K. (No Date) The Fibonacci sequence in nature, http://www.inspirationgreen.com/index.php?q=fibonacci-sequence-in-nature.html (Accessed: 10/12/14)

Jung, R.E., Gasparovic, C., Chavez, R., Flores, R.A., Smith, S.M., Caprihan, A. and Yeo, R.A. (2009) Biochemical Support for the “Threshold” Theory of Creativity: A Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study: The Journal of Neuroscience, (April. 22) Vol. 29 (16) pp.5329-5325

Meisner, G. (2012) Human hand and foot, http://www.goldennumber.net/human-hand-foot/ (Accessed: 10/12/14)

Murray, J.J. (1983) Art, Creativity, and the Quality of Education. Daedalus, Vol. 112, (3), The Arts and Humanities in America's Schools (Summer), pp. 129-147 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024872 . (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

O’Conor, A (2014) Is Art and Science Speaking the same language? http://riaus.org.au/articles/are-art-and-science-speaking-the-same-language/ (Accessed: 25/10/14)

Sands, S. (2009) The Art vs Science Debate: Your views, in London Evening Standard, London: Evening Standard Ltd.

Simanek, D. E. (2002) Uses and misuses of logic, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm (Accessed: 10/12/2014).

The Guardian. (2013) Nima Arkani-Hamed and Ian McEwan: The Science Museum Live Stream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPDrXORYzE (Accessed: 23/10/2014)

Topper, D.R. and Holloway, J.H. (1980) Interrelationships between the Visual Arts, Science and Technology: A Bibliography. Leonardo, Vol. 13, (1). pp. 29-33 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1577916. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)

Zink, S. Art, Science, and Experience: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 41 (14) pp. 365-375 (Jul. 6) JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019649. (Accessed: 16/10/2014).