Introduction

The 21st Century global skills framework includes learning and innovation skills such as critical thinking, problem solving and decision-making, creativity and innovation and learning to learn, and metacognition (Lamb et al. 2017). These skills are interwoven throughout the Australian curriculum, listed as general capabilities across all learning areas (ACARA 2013). In Australia, the Ministers for Education developed a new national declaration on education goals for all Australians, known as the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (2019). This declaration was devised to create a national vision for education, acknowledging the importance of 21st Century skills for improved educational outcomes. Neurological evidence has found that there is a critical period in the first 10 years of a child’s life, where creativity flourishes (Goswami 2004; Doidge 2007). It is therefore essential that we look to early childhood education as the foundation for developing 21st Century skills.

As with many OECD countries, curricular goals have largely focused on ‘emergent’ literacy and numeracy skills. This research draws from the Australian early childhood curriculum as one example for how 21st Century skills are taking a back seat, often referred to as ‘soft’ skills, separating them from the ‘hard’ skills such as letter recognition that form part of academic school readiness (Sylva et al. 2020). In contrast, the world-renowned Reggio Emilia approach encourages children to express themselves at a high level by using many ways of symbolic expression, referred to as the hundred languages of children. From a historical perspective, the Reggio Emilia approach has long embraced creativity, making it a central tenet to children’s programs. Given the success and world-wide interest in the Reggio Emilia approach, this research provided an opportunity to highlight some of the differences between how educators from Australia and Italy are documenting the creative thought processes of young children in their centres.

Italian researchers believe that creativity surfaces in children aged 0–5 years (Pinto et al. 1977; Tallandini and Varsano 2003). According to the educators from Reggio Emilia, every act of learning is a creative act, not in relation to products but rather in terms of process. Within the Australian educational landscape, it is not evident in the documentation that there is a well-defined understanding of creativity for children’s learning (Leggett 2017). Rather than viewing creativity as a cognitive skill, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) refers to creativity as a child’s ‘disposition’ stating that ‘play’ is a context for learning that ‘enhances dispositions such as curiosity and creativity’ (AGDE 2022, p. 8). This research initiated dialogue around creative thinking to explore the following question: How are educators documenting the creative thinking of children? To commence, a review of the Australian and Italian context, together with core curriculum tenets and influential theorists, provides a background for understanding the main differences underpinning the pedagogical approaches of educators in this study.

The Australian context

The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education declaration for young Australians (Education Council 2019) lists two goals: Goal 1 ‘The Australian education system promotes excellence and equity’ and Goal 2 as ‘all young Australians [are to] become confident and creative individuals (p. 4)’. In recognition of these goals, State, Territory and Commonwealth governments worked together to develop world-class education curriculums in Australia. In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments developed a curriculum framework to maximise young children’s potentials and to develop a foundation for successful learners.

The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (AGDE 2022) for early childhood recognises these goals within its vision of the National Quality Framework stating that ‘all children engage in learning that promotes confident and creative individuals (p. 6)’. However, from a word search of the curriculum framework, ‘creative’ is mentioned only eight times with the majority of contexts in reference to children’s expression through the creative arts, rather than an important cognitive ability essential for all learning (Malaguzzi 1998; Prentice 2000; Weisberg 2006). There is only one reference to ‘creative thinking’ (AGDE 2022) which states that: ‘Active involvement and engagement in learning builds children’s understandings of concepts and the creative thinking and inquiry processes that are necessary for lifelong learning (p. 50)’. While this is reflective of Goal 2 of the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Education Council 2019), it is not expanded on throughout curriculum framework into practice or outcomes for children’s learning. As is with most educational curriculums, creativity, situated within the creative arts, sits on the fringe as an accessory to core academic subjects.

The EYLF (AGDE 2022) states that the ‘5 Learning Outcomes are designed to capture the integrated and complex learning and development of all children across birth to five age range (p. 29)’. Table 1 provides an overview of a word search for ‘creative’ within the five learning outcomes if the EYLF (AGDE 2022).

Table 1 Word search for ‘creative’ within the EYLF (AGDE 2022)
Full size table

Within Outcome three of the EYLF (AGDE 2022) creative development is categorised as part of children’s holistic growth and well-being. This Outcome states that: ‘Educators attend to all children’s wellbeing by developing warm, trusting relationships, and providing predictable and child safe environments, affirmation and respect for all aspects of their physical, emotional, social, cognitive, linguistic, creative and spiritual being (p. 44)’. It is interesting to note that earlier in the document as part of educator’s holistic practices, the word ‘creative’ is omitted, stating: ‘When educators take a holistic approach, they pay attention to children’s physical, personal, social, emotional and spiritual wellbeing and cognitive aspects of learning (AGDE 2022, p. 20)’. Whether this is a typo or not, the inconsistency does suggest a lack of importance for its inclusion. What is evident from the data presented in the table is that how creative development is understood as part of children’s overall cognitive growth, is not fully understood within the Australian curriculum framework. The majority of the text in the EYLF links creativity to the creative arts and self-expression. For inspiration, we often turn to global curriculums that are leading the field in creativity. The Reggio Emilia approach is one that positions creative thinking within cognitive and non-cognitive processes, and it is here that we find creativity central to teaching and learning.

The Italian context

Loris Malaguzzi (1998) founder of the Reggio Emilia approach believed that creativity expresses itself through cognitive, affective, and imaginative processes. Malaguzzi (1998), stated: ‘We know that children’s thinking is generated above all when it is dealing with problems, and that it develops when it is researching solutions to problems in the same way as adult thinking…children’s thinking is inextricably composed of cognitive elements and non-cognitive elements (Cagliari et al. 2016, p. 311)’. Cognitive elements relate to the divergent and convergent thought processes that are necessary skills for problem solving or finding novel solutions.

For children to develop such cognitive skills, educators also need to consider dispositions such as curiosity, imagination, flexibility, experimentation, risk taking and openness to new perspectives (Prentice 2000). It is the combination of these cognitive and non-cognitive elements that promote creative abilities in children. Within early childhood contexts, the role of the educator becomes a significant factor for making visible the creative thinking of children. Malaguzzi (1998) explained that, ‘creativity becomes more visible when adults try to be more attentive to the cognitive processes of children than to the results they achieve in various fields of doing and understanding (p. 77)’.

Respect for the child as a curious being is central to the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education and care (ECEC). Malaguzzi (1998, pp. 75–77) proposed that:

  • Creativity should not be considered a separate mental faculty but a characteristic of our way of thinking, knowing, and making choices.

  • Creativity seems to express itself through cognitive, affective, and imaginative processes that come together and support the skills for predicting and arriving at unexpected solutions.

  • Creativity requires an interpersonal exchange, with negotiation of conflicts, comparison of ideas and actions as the decisive elements.

  • Creativity finds its power when adults are less tied to prescriptive teaching methods; instead become observers and interpreters of problematic situations.

  • Creativity is favoured or disfavoured according to the expectations of teachers, schools, families, and communities according to the ways children perceive expectations.

  • Creativity becomes visible when adults try to be more attentive to the cognitive processes of children than to the results they achieve in various fields.

  • Creativity is enhanced when teachers are convinced that intellectual and expressive activities have multiplying and unifying possibilities, the more creativity favours friendly exchanges with imagination and fantasy.

  • Creativity requires that the school of knowing finds connections with the school of expressing, opening doors to the hundred languages of children (the slogan of the Reggio Emilia approach).

Creative expression through various representations or the ‘hundred languages’ of children is central to the Reggio Emilia approach. Malaguzzi (1998) suggested, ‘we should not consider creativity sacred or extraordinary, but rather as likely to emerge from daily experience’ (p. 75). To understand creativity, Malaguzzi drew largely from Vygotsky (1987), a socio-cultural theorist who also theorised on children’s creative and imaginative thought as part of their developing cognition.

Vygotsky: creative thinking and imagination

Vygotsky claimed that all human beings, even small children, are creative (Vygotsky 1987; Lindqvist 2010). He called this creative ability ‘imagination’, for imagination is the basis of every creative act. The power of the imagination is also valued as a way for children to explore their own thinking, combining what they know with what they want to know more about. It is the imagination that creates a bridge between the ‘known’ and ‘unknown’.

Vygotsky put forth a theory that creative imagination introduces ‘something new into the flow of our impressions, the transformation of these impressions such as something new, an image that did not previously exist, emerges (Vygotsky 1987, p. 339)’. Vygotsky (1925/1971) supported the theory of catharsis, stating that ‘people are liberated through an explosion of emotions, which makes the imagination flourish (Lindqvist 2010)’. For young children, their emotions are freed as they engage in imaginative play. Smolucha and Smolucha (1986) summarise Vygotsky’s theory of creativity presenting four key components:

  1. 1.

    Imagination is the internalisation of children’s play.

  2. 2.

    Imagination is a higher mental function and is a consciously directed thought process.

  3. 3.

    Creative thinking involves the collaboration of imagination and thinking in concepts, which occurs first in adolescence but matures in adulthood.

  4. 4.

    Both artistic and scientific creativity require the collaboration of imagination and thinking in concepts.

Smolucha (1992) stated that:

creativity exists not only where it creates great historical works, but also everywhere human imagination combines, changes, and creates anything new (p. 53).

The work of Vygotsky has assisted the Italian educators to understand that creativity is fundamental to all learning, is part of everyday experiences and that imagination plays an important role in the advancement of cognitive and creative thought processes. The power of the imagination in children’s learning was also embraced by a well-known Italian identity. The next section introduces the philosophies of Giovanni Rodari (1973) to the world stage.

Rodari (1920–1980)

Relatively unknown to Australia, Giovani (Gianni) Rodari is notorious in Italy for uniting a fantastical imagination with a deep interest in education. A frequent visitor to Reggio Emilia, Rodari actively participated in discussions about languages, imagination, education and creativity that inspired his book, La Grammatica della fantasia (the grammar of fantasy). This book was designed as a guide for educators interested in stimulating children to develop their own writing and to demonstrate to others how to invent stories for children. In the foreword of this book, Herbert Kohl asks: ‘What is the place of the imagination in education?’ The word imagination does not appear in the government’s lists of ‘Goals 2000’, nor does it turn up on lists of behavioural objectives or educational outcomes. There is no imagination curriculum or pedagogy of the imagination in our schools (Rodari 1973, p. ix). Rodari explores how people can collaborate in imaginative play. For him, the role of the teacher is an ‘animator’, someone who brings to life creative play across all subjects in the curriculum. The educators of Reggio Emilia, adopting a Rodarian philosophy to their teaching, has meant that they are ready and open to the whimsical ideas of children across all domains of learning.

Many of Rodari’s ideas were developed in the schools of Reggio Emilia where he worked directly with children and educators. Educators learnt to delight in the ‘creative error’ whereby a story can arise from an interesting mistake. For example, Rodari explains how he once typed ‘Lampland’ instead of ‘Lapland’, and by doing so, he discovered a new country. Rather than erase mistakes, Rodari (1973) embraced them, stating: ‘It would be a sin to banish it from the map of possibilities with an eraser. It would be better to explore it like a tourist of the imagination (p. 23)’. Educators from Reggio Emilia who understand this philosophy do not correct children’s mistakes in thinking—rather, they embrace the imagination, possibility thinking and the potential of a ‘beautiful mistake’.

Vecchi (2010) explains how discussions with Rodari in the 1970’s impacted her role as one of the first atelieristas in Reggio Emilia. She states: ‘He made me better understand how suggestions from art can give us further occasions for inquiry and new journeys to make together with children, when we investigate them further and especially their processes (p. 116)’. Rodari continues to make an impact on the educators of Reggio Emilia who understand how fantasy and rationality, cognition and imagination draw strength from each other. Vecchi (2010) states: ‘We must make them interweave, make them dance together (p. 118)’. In the following study, this thinking was expressed by Italian educators who reflected a Rodarian philosophy in their everyday pedagogical practices. The Australian participants on the other hand, echoed the principles of the EYLF, responding to children’s interests and acknowledging children’s autonomy and play as central to children’s learning.

Methods

The aim of this pilot study was to explore the ways educators were documenting the creative thinking of children in early childhood contexts from early childhood centres in Northern Italy and from NSW, Australia. This qualitative, phenomenological study explored how early childhood educators in Italy and Australia were documenting children’s creative thinking. Bringing educators together in dialogic exchange, provides the researchers with a window for investigating the everyday experiences of humans, allowing a deeper insight into how they understand the phenomenon of ‘creative thinking’.

A research team including two researchers from a University in Northern Italy, one lead Pedagogista (lead teacher) from the local municipality of early childhood centres and three researchers from the University of Newcastle, joined together for the purposes of this pilot project. For selection of the centres, the municipality of a northern town in Italy who implement the Reggio Emilia approach, were invited to participate under the guidance of a lead Pedagogista (person who oversees five centres in the one region), while in Newcastle, Australia, centres within the local area of the University were invited to participate. This resulted in a mixture of community-based and private centres, as opposed to a municipality of Italian centres. A total of 16 educators from three centres in Italy and 25 educators from four centres in Australia volunteered to participate in this pilot project. Following ethics approval from the University of Newcastle ethics committee, these centres were paired together forming three sets of ‘sister centre’ partnerships.

All participants completed pre-and-post-research questionnaires relating to their experience, qualifications and thoughts on creativity, which were translated and shared between researchers in each country for analysis. From each centre, two teachers volunteered to attend three skype meetings with their sister centre to respond and discuss questions relating to their understanding of creativity, as proposed by the researchers. Following each skype meeting, a translated transcript from each skype meeting was provided by the researchers and emailed to each centre for dissemination at team meetings for further discussion.

With the onset of Covid-19 and many centres in this study having to close their doors to families, it was not possible to hold the third skype meeting from the centres. Rather than ending the research abruptly, the educators decided to email their sister centre examples of centre documentation to remain in the study. During the shutting down of services, these educators worked from their homes, continuing the project via email exchange.

Analysis of documentation from the Italian participants

Analysis of data was implemented using a two-cycle approach (Saldana 2015). Participant information was deidentified during the first cycle, with data sorted into tables and charts for each stage of the research. The second cycle involved interpreting key aspects of the data through a process of coding according to patterns, as well as the use of NVivo codes to organise data into categories (Saldana 2015). After the sharing of documentation and the collection of comments made by sister centres, the researchers from Italy and Australia met via skype to discuss their analysis together. This paper focuses on key examples from the documentation data educators exchanged via email.

The following two examples shared by the Italian centre, features visual representations of children’s creative and imaginative thinking regarding trees. These excerpts are from documentation featuring children’s responses to the question: ‘Do trees have a soul?’

Example 1: Do trees have a soul?

Example 2: Research on the roots of trees.

After receiving the documentation, educators from the Australian sister centre were invited to respond. Two educators from the Australian sister centre wrote the following remarks:

The direct quotes of children show how educators are supporting creativity and imagination as the children have very unique ideas. I was so intrigued and amazed at the complexity of verbalised ideas the children had about the roots of the trees and if they had souls.

I am also intrigued to know if my children would come up with that sort of explanation and expression. I feel perhaps the importance of creativity is better nourished in the Italian preschool therefor this type of creative, free flowing, beautiful thinking is the norm and parents support this as well which leads to different thoughts from these children. It has made me think the even though our centre is so connected to the land and many of our beliefs and practices include nature, that we aren’t doing enough to bring this and creativity to life.

These remarks demonstrate how surprised the Australian educators were by the depth of children’s thinking and their capacity for profound scientific inquiry. The comments made by the second educator reveal what she feels is missing from their pedagogical approach in making visible the creative thoughts of children. This analysis is reflective of Malaguzzi’s (1998) theory, with an understanding that: ‘Creativity becomes visible when adults try to be more attentive to the cognitive processes of children….and that creativity is enhanced when teachers are convinced that intellectual and expressive activities have multiplying and unifying possibilities, the more creativity favours friendly exchanges with imagination and fantasy (pp. 75–77)’.

The curious nature of young children’s thinking is evident when trying to make sense of the world. Through observations of what is seen (the tree) as well as what is not (the roots), children demonstrated their prior knowledge by solving mysteries for new problems. In solving the dilemma of a fallen tree, child M attributes personification, suggesting that the roots can ‘help’ the tree to rise again. From Vygotsky (1995), it could also be noted that through empathy, the child is exhibiting her ‘perezhivanie’—lived emotional experience, whereby the child’s learning is driven from an emotional response to stimuli.

Child M’s thoughts delve deeper through personifying the tree acknowledging its ‘life and soul’. Her thinking is quite profound with the depths of thought of memory and souls remaining when new bark emerges. The Artelierista (art guide) has provided watercolour in response to the child’s thoughts of the spirit having ‘light colours’ to show it exists even though it is ‘invisible’. Supporting the child’s thinking by offering light colours to represent the transparency of the soul reveals children’s insightfulness of the spirituality of beings. The reference of ‘she’ may be metaphoric for mother nature—as ‘the tree’ (l’albero) is masculine in the Italian language. As Vecchi (2010) stated, drawing from Rodari (1973), we can weave together how cognition and imagination, and fantasy and rationality, can strengthen each other when interpreting the creative thoughts of children.

In the second example, the child demonstrates his/her knowledge of the tree’s roots serving as ‘feet’ to help it grow and become strong. Personifying the tree, likening it to a person, assists the child in making sense of the purpose of the root systems. Here the child is also expressing his/her curiosity for understanding how a tree ‘lives’. The hypothesis of the child insightfully suggests that there is a ‘connectedness’ or ‘communication’ needed between the sky, the tree and the roots to warm it and make it grow. Personification again is used to acknowledge the tree as a living entity that has feelings and the ability to communicate with other trees. Through creative thinking, children experiment with ways to represent new knowledge and to critique and analyse it in order to make sense of their world (Leggett 2017, 2022).

From these examples it is evident that young children’s everyday thinking entails a considerable degree of creativity. The combinatory ability of drawing together reality and fantasy suggest that they are more open to creative forms of expression as they have fewer inhibitions and have not yet received formal instruction (Gelman and Gottfried 2006). Preschool aged children use metaphoric language and personification to piece together their world knowledge from incomplete clues. This refined ability to ‘see’ beyond reality and beyond what is obvious, becomes refined when children are engaged in artistic activities (Wolf 2006).

Through visual art experiences, children take what they see and feel and put it to paper. Serious ‘seeing’ is what Greene (1991) suggests is a plea for being ‘fully present’. Deep observation provides the mind with a window to not only see details, but to envision emotional connections, images, and metaphors. As Wolf (2006) explains, children’s perceptions are heightened as they make choices through colour, line and shape. Similarly, their emotions are also heightened in the choices they make, what they want to show through their work to the viewer and how they want others to feel. This type of engagement with material is not purely artistic expression, but a revelation of the deep scientific thinking and their theories of the word around them.

Gopnik and Wellman (2012) explain how young children construct intuitive theories of the world around them that, like scientific theories, help them to organise experiences, make predictions and causally interpret events. Theory building is driven by the inquisitive nature of the children themselves. In this sense, children’s theories are creative, and their creative thinking is the driving force for cognitive constructs. Educators from this Italian centre have not only demonstrated their ability to acknowledge, guide and support children’s imagination and creative thinking, but have allowed them the time and opportunity to be fully present in their learning and engage scientific thinking through keen observation. This integration of imaginative and creative thinking into educational experiences provides avenues for children to become ‘confident and creative individuals’ (Education Council 2019).

Analysis of documentation from the Australian participants

Example 3 is a learning story entitled ‘The missing egg’. Here an Australian educator documents how a small group of children found an empty egg on the ground in their outdoor play area. In this documentation child (R) prompts her friend’s thinking (M) by asking him where he thought the egg came from and what was inside.

After receiving the documentation from the Australian centre, the Italian educators were invited to respond. One Italian educator made the following remark:

The verbal discussion that brings out the discovery of an egg highlights one of the many creative aspects of the children, their imagination, give rise to fantastic hypotheses. Nature offers many opportunities, in the experiences they live, in the encounters that children make. They give answers many times invented, they mix reality and fiction. Finding an egg urges children to make hypotheses to respond to their curiosity. Everyone expresses a different idea; they seek answers together.

Discussion: imaginations and fantastic hypotheses

This comment by the Italian educator has highlighted how hypotheses for learning arise from the natural world as children engage in it and in connection with others—it comes through encounters within the environment and the taking of time to be curious, to imagine, and to wonder. However, there appears to be a very different approach by the Australian educators to the children’s learning in the documentation compared with the Italian educator’s response. The Australian educators were listening to a discussion by the children who were reflecting on factual understandings of what might be in an egg and how it came to be empty, by drawing on their prior knowledge of the bush. The educator’s response was to keep the egg to do some further investigating, rather than engage in ‘possibility thinking’ or for the children to use their collective thoughts and imagination.

This response from the educator is reflective of the EYLF (AGDE 2022) where the educator is to demonstrate the practice of ‘responsiveness to children (p. 21)’. Educators are encouraged to respond to children’s curiosity and funds of knowledge. Suggested strategies for the educator are to extend children’s learning through ‘open-ended questioning, providing feedback, challenging their thinking and guiding their learning (p. 21)’. This approach to teaching and learning is also reflective of the theoretical underpinnings of the EYLF whereby the teacher mediates and co-constructs knowledge with the children (Vygotsky 1978). Global education systems tend to focus on knowledge that is assessable. However, due to the diverse nature of creativity, how to measure children’s creative thinking can be complicated.

What we can learn from the Reggio Emilia approach is that educators need to focus on the processes of children’s thinking, rather than an outcome to be measure. Malaguzzi (1998), saw young children as resourceful, questioning, competent, imaginative, creative and communicative beings (Smidt 2013). The best environments are those that allow children to set their own questions, develop their theories, talk, listen, share and participate (Smidt 2013). Providing opportunities for children to develop their ideas and thoughts is represented through what Malaguzzi (1998) refers to as the hundred languages of children.

One hundred languages to deepen knowledge

Other languages are necessary to deepen knowledge. The hundred languages of children identifies the many ways children are free to express their ideas, thoughts, feelings, questions and emotions (Malaguzzi 1998). In another email exchange from one of the Italian educators, she stated:

It is important to offer children different tools and languages in order to express their thoughts and creativity. Everyone must feel free to use the language that most belongs to them.

In this way, the Italian teacher is suggesting further investigation and that deepening of knowledge is acquired by allowing the children to learn through other mediums. Malaguzzi (1998) also stated that teachers need to redefine their roles. He stated that they are ‘creators and sustainers of relationships; they are researchers; they must learn to follow children’s time and interests; they must sometimes think ahead, be the chief protagonist, invent, prompt, design, create, be the audience and the listener, the arbiter and judge, the author and scribe, the listener and recorder (Smidt 2013, p. 67)’. In this regard, the role of the teacher also has a hundred languages. One of the main roles is that of researcher. Teachers in Reggio Emilia see themselves as ‘theory-builders’. This description of the role of the teacher is a deep refection of a pedagogical approach that values and respects the process of children’s learning.

There is certainly room for the Australian EYLF (AGDE 2022) to expand on the definition of the intentional teacher that includes a ‘researcher’ whose role is to research what children say and do, collectively engage in questions, gather data, watch, listen, observe, document, interpret, hypothesize and build theories with children. How teachers in Reggio Emilia document children’s creative thinking is reflective of this role and emphasizes the importance and value of the process of documentation.

Pedagogical documentation

Pedagogical documentation is a powerful tool for dialogue, for exchange and for sharing, providing the possibility to discuss everything with everyone (Hoyuelos 2013). It is more than a tool; it is an attitude towards teaching and learning. Great importance is given to the images and thoughts that represent a deepening of understanding of an area of interest. Key elements for moving forward come from work with children and careful analysis by adults for what is happening along the way combined with the wishes and thought of the children. As Vecchi (2010) states: ‘Choices must not betray the thinking of the children or the nature of the theme they are working on (p. 120)’. The teacher in this instance acknowledges the difficulty in documenting children’s creative thinking and for her this involves allowing children the freedom to make choices and to provide rich, complex experiences, to ensure the pathways for documentation follow the child.

Eckhoff and Urback (2008) state that ‘Early educators have the important job of designing and implementing the educational environment in such a way that children are encouraged to think imaginatively and learn to have faith and confidence in their creative imaginations (p. 184)’. Inattention to the imaginative and creative thoughts of children by the educator is in fact not attending to the holistic growth and development of each child. This paper calls for the Australian Early Years Learning framework (AGDE 2022) to also adopt what has made the Reggio Emilia approach so successful—that the creative thinking of the child is central to all teaching and learning.

Lindström (2007) wrote on Vygotsky’s views, ‘…in order to be creative you need to have a rich experience of life and an ability to combine elements in your mind in ways that a child appropriates only step by step (p. 1197)’. To produce confident and creative individuals, educators must pay attention to the diverse thoughts of young children. Their sensitivities to the world around them, and their experiences within it, promotes intuitive thinking that is both insightful and full of wonderful ideas. These gifts freely given by the child must be responded to by the educator who listens closely and steps gently by the side of the child, so that all possibilities are not missed.

Conclusion

From the examples shared by educators in this research project it is clear that young children construct intuitive theories of the world around them that, like scientific theories, help them to organise experience, make predictions and interpret causality. It is evident that this intuitive theory building is driven by the inquisitive nature of the children themselves and through their lived emotional experiences or perezhivanie (Vygotsky 1995). It is also evident that young children’s ordinary thought entails a considerable degree of creativity.

While both the Australian and Italian early childhood contexts embrace creativity as part of a social-cultural curriculum framework, the Australian EYLF tends to view creativity as a disposition that manifests through the creative arts, enhancing children’s well-being (AGDE 2022). The Reggio Emilia approach employed by the educators from northern Italy, demonstrated a more robust understanding of the creative thought processes of children—perhaps responding to the sentiments and philosophies of Rodari (1973) and Malaguzzi (1998). What is remiss from many global education curriculums and policy documentation is acknowledgment for the important role of creative thinking in young children’s learning. It is here I’d like to return to the questions proposed by Herbert Kohl who asked: ‘What is the place of the imagination in education?’ Rodari (1973, p. ix) confirms that there is no imagination curriculum or pedagogy of the imagination in our schools. Perhaps it is time it did.