The Impact of an Ecological Dynamics-Based Physical Education Program on Creative Thinking in Primary School Children

Abstract

The World Health Organization identifies creative thinking as a key life skill essential for health promotion, personal development, and well-being. In line with recent perspectives on motor learning within the ecological dynamics approach, this study highlights the importance of self-organization, free initiative, and divergent thinking as processes that are deeply connected to individual emotional, experiential, and bodily engagement within dynamic environments. With this quasi-experimental study, conducted in Italy, we aimed to examine the impact of a physical education program, designed according to the principles of ecological dynamics, on the development of creative thinking in children. The sample included 107 primary school students (58 girls, 49 boys; mean age = 7.51 ± 0.50 years) who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (n = 57) or a control group (n = 50). Creative thinking was assessed before and after the intervention using the WCR test. The WCR (Widening, Connecting, and Reorganizing) test assesses three core components of creative thinking through age-appropriate visual and verbal tasks. The results showed that there was a significant improvement (p < 0.05) in cognitive widening for the experimental group compared with the control group. The findings of this study suggest that physical education grounded in the ecological dynamics framework promotes the generation of ideas, cognitive flexibility, and motor adaptability, allowing children to explore original and self-determined movement solutions. Such programs may play a crucial role in supporting creativity and holistic development in educational contexts.

1. Introduction

In recent years, research on creativity has expanded to include motor and sports sciences (Rominger et al., 2022). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) considers creativity to be a key objective of the 21st century (Lucas et al., 2013), asserting that schools should prepare students to think creatively to tackle complex challenges (Lucchiari et al., 2019). Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has included creativity among essential “life skills”, as documented in “Life Skills Education for Children and Adolescents in Schools” (World Health Organization Division of Mental Health, 1993) and the more recent “Life Skills Education School Handbook” (World Health Organization, 2020). Life Skills are described as essential for well-being, the development of one’s personality, and social inclusion (World Health Organization Division of Mental Health, 1993). Both the WHO and OECD guidelines emphasize the importance of fostering creative thinking as a life skill particularly for primary school children, supporting their personal and social growth.

Collectively, from the European Council’s recommendations for the promotion of eight key competences (Unione Europea, 2018) to the national guidelines for the curriculum of kindergarten schools and the first cycle of education (MIUR, 2012), policy documents describe creativity as one of the key competences for lifelong learning.

In this context, physical education plays a central role by valuing the spontaneity of motor action (Minghelli & Palumbo, 2024) as a means of self-expression and shared meaning-making. It thus becomes a privileged space–time that engages the individual in all dimensions of being and promotes the fullest possible participation of every student. In this way, every child has the opportunity to acquire new motor and functional skills, starting from personal initiatives and using different materials and tools that stimulate the search for creative solutions (Minghelli et al., 2023), according to a nonlinear approach (Chow, 2013).

Since these skills encompass a broad spectrum of human life, from cognitive to emotional, personal, and interpersonal domains, creativity is regarded as an integral component of cognitive dimension, alongside problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking (Coppola et al., 2024c). Creativity, as posited by Lucchiari et al. (2019), Piya-Amornphan et al. (2020), Ruiz-del-Pino et al. (2022), and Segundo-Marcos et al. (2023), can be conceptualized as a complex, dynamic, and multifaceted phenomenon involving the development of innovative, functional, and efficient ideas or solutions. Antonietti and Pizzingrilli (2009) describe creativity as an aptitude, a potential, and a set of mental processes. These aspects include openness to new experiences, risk acceptance, and the ability to restructure thinking to find innovative solutions. Stimulating creative thinking in children is crucial for their growth, enabling them to face challenges and enhance their self-esteem (Marcos et al., 2020; Segundo-Marcos et al., 2023). Physical education offers an ideal context for developing creativity through movement (Bournelli et al., 2009; Konstantinidou et al., 2011; Marinšek & Lukman, 2022), facilitated by team games, sports practices, and improvised movements. Therefore, movement constitutes an essential component of a child’s life, significantly contributing to their overall growth and development, not only providing physical benefits but also stimulating the mind and fostering cognitive skill development (Coppola et al., 2024c), including creativity. In this context, spontaneous movement takes on a central value not only as an expression of creativity but also as a lever for the inclusion and self-determination of the child (Ryan & Deci, 2007). An educational context that values free and meaningful motor experiences allows each pupil to express their intrinsic motivations, explore personal solutions, and feel empowered in their personal development journey (Minghelli & Palumbo, 2024). Active participation, supported by stimulating environments and practices that are attentive to individual variability, is a fundamental prerequisite for the integral development and recognition of each child’s potential. Nonlinear, motor-expressive activities focused on discovery have been proven to be effective in promoting divergent thinking in primary school settings, as shown in early childhood studies (Marinšek & Lukman, 2022; Pallonetto, 2023; Marchesano et al., 2025). In the context of contemporary research, an embodied view of creativity is increasingly gaining ground, wherein creative processes emerge from dynamic interactions between the body, mind, and environment (Malinin, 2019).

From this perspective, cognition represents the result of a holistic process in which the mind, body, and environment interact and redefine each other within a simultaneous and non-hierarchical circular dialog (Barsalou, 1999; M. Wilson, 2002; A. D. Wilson, 2005, 2014; Gomez Paloma, 2009; Glenberg et al., 2013; A. D. Wilson & Golonka, 2013; Caruana & Borghi, 2016; D’Anna et al., 2025; Matrisciano et al., 2025a). According to this perspective, movement is not merely an expression of thought; rather, it is a constitutive part of it.

Recent studies in motor science have investigated the role of the body as a tool for creative expression (Richard et al., 2021). Numerous studies highlight how gestures, postures, and movements directly influence cognitive flexibility and ideational fluency (Andolfi et al., 2017; Malinin, 2019; Hyusein & Göksun, 2024). Research also suggests that bodily engagement and the characteristics of the surrounding environment shape embodied strategies that support divergent thinking (Sargent et al., 2023). In this regard, educational space should be conceived as a landscape of affordances capable of eliciting motor adaptation and the discovery of creative solutions (Malinin, 2019), thereby promoting a pedagogy centered on the body, the environment, and the learner’s autonomy. In line with the reflections deriving from both the dynamic ecological perspective (Gibson, 1979; Newell, 1986) and the bio-psycho-social perspective promoted by the introduction of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (World Health Organization, 2001, 2007), this approach is an effective tool for enhancing children’s motor and cognitive diversity, encouraging the active and equal involvement of each child in the learning process (Gomez Paloma et al., 2017).

From the perspective of the ecological dynamics approach, creativity is interpreted as a process of change involving the exploration and discovery of new behaviors to enhance motor skills. This perspective emphasizes the cooperation among various motor subsystems that self-organize to achieve functional outcomes (Rudd et al., 2020). Affordances, a fundamental pillar of the ecological dynamics perspective (Oppici et al., 2020; Coppola et al., 2024a), delineate the possibilities for action provided by the environment, promoting exploration and the development of innovative motor solutions (Rietveld & Kiverstein, 2014; Bruineberg & Rietveld, 2014). Applying this approach in physical education involves designing open-ended tasks, introducing variability in motor activities, manipulating constraints, and encouraging spontaneous exploration to allow students to actively construct original responses to motor problems (Chow et al., 2006).

In this context, when designing physical education interventions, it is crucial to consider movement variability and the manipulation of constraints (Romano et al., 2023). Gomez Paloma et al. (2017) emphasize the role of embodied actions in didactics, showing how structured motor activities within educational settings enhance learning by mediating cognitive and perceptual processes. These elements enable successful engagement with motor challenges and promote the development of creativity.

Considering what has been outlined in this section, various studies show that physical education can be a learning context conducive to discovery; such environments can enhance creative thinking (Cheung, 2016; Dupri et al., 2021). Therefore, we hypothesize that by taking part in a creative physical activity intervention using a divergent discovery style, students’ creative thinking will improve.

In the context of physical education and creativity, it is important to consider both the aspects of lesson design and the tools used to investigate creative thinking abilities. In this regard, Antonietti et al. (2011b) created and validated a test used to assess the three basic capabilities of the creative process: Widening, Connecting, and Reorganizing (WCR). Neuroscientific studies have shown that the widening process engages the brain’s default mode network, a system involved in spontaneous ideation and mental simulation, which further confirms the role that it plays in creative generation (Jung & Vartanian, 2018). Educational interventions based on open-ended, embodied tasks—such as those typically found in physical education—have been found to be particularly effective in enhancing amplification and fostering depth, originality, and autonomous thinking (Richard et al., 2021). Therefore, with this study, we aim to investigate the impact of a physical education program, based on the principles of the ecological dynamics approach, on creative thinking in primary school children.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants in this study were selected following conventional sampling procedures, in accordance with the aims of the research and the characteristics of the school context involved. The sample consisted of 107 students: 58 girls (45.8%) and 49 boys (54.2%). The average age of the participants was 7.51 years (±0.50); in total, 48.6% were 7 years old (n = 52) and 51.4% were 8 years old (n = 55).

Out of all the students, 52 were enrolled in second-grade classes and 55 in third-grade classes at a primary school in Southern Italy (province of Naples). To be included in this study, the students had to be enrolled in the selected classes and have parental consent to participate.

The sample was randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group (57 students), for which the average age was 7.51 years (±0.51), and a control group (50 students), where the average age was 7.52 years (±0.50); both groups were homogeneous in terms of gender (58 girls, 49 boys).

2.2. Research Design

This is a quasi-experimental study. A conventional sample selection and random assignment of classes to control and experimental groups was conducted. This design was chosen because, within the school context, it was not feasible to randomly assign individual students to different groups without interfering with the organization of classes and teaching activities (

Table 1. Research design.

Group	Phase I: Pre Test	Phase II: Physical Education Intervention	Phase III: Post Test
CG	T0	X1	T1
EG	T0	X2	T1

EG: experimental group; CG: control group; T0: the point before physical education intervention; T1: the point after physical education intervention; X1: physical education intervention for CG; X2: physical education intervention for EG.

). This quasi-experimental approach thus allowed for the implementation of the intervention in a natural educational environment, ensuring ecological validity while maintaining the possibility of comparing groups. Control over variables is partial, as it was not possible to monitor the physical activities undertaken by the students outside of the weekly physical education class scheduled for the study. This limitation was acknowledged in the analysis phase, and teachers were instructed to maintain comparable curricular conditions across groups. Furthermore, informal reports from classroom teachers were collected to confirm that no structured extracurricular physical activities differed substantially between groups during the intervention period.

2.3. Tools

2.3.1. Creativity Assessment

To obtain pre- and post-test measures of creative thinking in both the experimental and control groups, the WCR test (Antonietti et al., 2011b) was used, validated for investigating creative thinking capacity (Antonietti et al., 2011a). It is an easily administered tool that helps teachers understand and monitor students’ creative abilities in the school context. There are different versions of the test depending on the age group considered. Specifically for this study, the following versions were used:

-

Junior version for students aged 6–7 years.

-

Senior version for students aged 8–10 years.

Each version consists of three sections: multiple-choice question sections, including subtest W (Widening) and subtest C (Connection); open-ended question section in subtest R (Reorganization).

For this study, only the multiple-choice sections (subtests W and C) of the WCR test were administered in both the junior and senior versions. These subtests include both visual and verbal stimuli and were selected for their closed-ended format, which ensures a more objective evaluation of the results.

Subtest W, for both the junior and senior versions, consists of three items and focuses on the mental operation of “Widening”, helping to investigate children’s ability to imagine multiple interpretations and think divergently. For both versions, the child observes a visual or verbal stimulus (e.g., a geometric figure, an object, a word). They must choose from several response options, each with a different degree of creativity.

The most obvious answers receive a low score, while the most unusual and original answers receive a higher score.

Subtest C, on the other hand, aims to assess the child’s ability to connect different mental elements, stimulating the original association of ideas. Subtest C1 presents a stimulus word (e.g., a color such as “yellow”) and the child must choose from various options those that are best associated with it: common choices receive a low score, while unusual ones receive a high score. Item C2 explores conceptualization: starting from a stimulus term, three related words are selected; the evaluation rewards more abstract associations that are far from common sense.

The Reorganizing subtest was not included because it requires complex hypothetical reasoning and the ability to evaluate multiple alternative scenarios, cognitive operations that are not yet fully consolidated in children of this age group. This choice ensured that the tasks remained developmentally appropriate and consistent with the study’s focus on early creative thinking abilities.

2.3.2. Physical Education Interventions

During physical education lessons, two different instructional protocols were implemented for the experimental and control groups.

The experimental group followed a program based on the principles of the ecological dynamics approach, which encourages learning through active exploration of the environment. This approach does not rely on the mechanical repetition of predefined motor solutions but fosters the emergence of individual responses through interactions with contextual stimuli and action opportunities (Chow et al., 2020). Emphasis on movement variability allows students to explore a range of possible solutions, promoting more functional and efficient motor behaviors (Davids et al., 2003; Pesce et al., 2019; Chow et al., 2019). Specifically, a divergent discovery teaching style (Colella, 2018) was adopted, with the aim of stimulating autonomous production, reorganization, and innovation of motor responses (Scibinetti & Zelli, 2019).

The control group, in contrast, engaged in physical education activities following a traditional prescriptive approach, characterized by imitation and repetition of motor actions. In this setting, the teacher defined the tasks, explained the execution modalities, and provided feedback to support technical skill acquisition. This teaching style can be described as an explicit form of instruction, in which learners rely on declarative knowledge (e.g., facts and rules) to perform movements (Kok et al., 2022). Explicit learning typically involves cognitive stages and depends on working memory engagement. It usually takes place through detailed, step-by-step prescriptive instructions that guide learners in approximating the desired movement execution, focusing primarily on the body movements that are to be performed (Kleynen et al., 2014).

In summary, the experimental group followed a student-centered teaching style characterized by exploration, divergent discovery, and individual problem solving, while the control group adopted a prescriptive approach centered on imitation and teacher-guided repetition. This distinction reflects what is described in Mosston’s and Ashworth’s (Mosston & Ashworth, 2008) Spectrum of Teaching Styles, which places teaching methods along a continuum ranging from teacher-centered to student-centered approaches, thus clarifying the contrast between the two intervention protocols.

Both groups participated in the same set of physical education activities derived from the Joy of Moving method (Pesce et al., 2015), specifically from the section dedicated to motor creativity and creative thinking. The program emphasizes the enhancement of motor, cognitive, and socio-emotional skills through play-based movement experiences. The key difference between groups remained the instructional approach: divergent discovery for the experimental group versus teacher-directed prescriptive execution for the control group. A detailed description of all activities is provided in Appendix A.

Program fidelity was maintained by ensuring that the intervention was delivered exclusively by a single teacher holding a degree in physical education and specialized training in the delivery of physical activity programs in primary education. The teacher possessed certified expertise in both the traditional, prescriptive–reproductive approach to physical education and the ecological dynamics framework. This ensured methodological consistency and standardization of the implementation across all sessions and participant groups.

2.4. Methodological Procedure

After obtaining the appropriate permissions from the school and informed consent from the parents, participants were randomly divided into control and experimental groups.

The design involves 3 phases:

-

In the first phase, during the first week of April 2024, the two groups took an input test (T0) to collect data on creativity, using the WCR test (only subtest W and subtest C), before the physical education intervention. The test was administered in the school setting, during regular school hours, in the students’ classrooms to ensure a quiet and familiar environment. Each administration lasted for approximately 60 min. Both the junior and senior versions were delivered in paper-and-pencil format. Each student was assigned an anonymized six-letter identification code (composed of the first letter of their name; birth month; hair color; eye color; gender; and last letter of their name) to link the pre- and post-intervention results anonymously. The purpose of the intervention was explained clearly and understandably based on the participants’ age, emphasizing the importance of individual test execution. It was clarified that all responses provided would be considered valid as they were personal.

-

For both the junior and senior versions of the WCR test, the multiple--choice sections (subtests W and C) were administered. These sections were chosen for their predominantly closed-ended multiple-choice questions, ensuring a more objective evaluation of the results.

-

In the second phase of the design, all classes took part in physical education lessons conducted over nine weeks, with one session per week. The four classes in the experimental group engaged in creative movement games structured according to the divergent discovery method, while the control group followed traditional physical education lessons based on a reproductive approach.

For the experimental group, each session involved semi-structured motor tasks that encouraged exploration, adaptation, and originality. Activities included creative movement tasks and variable-rule games, allowing students to achieve objectives in multiple ways and fostering flexible motor responses.

Conversely, the control group performed standardized exercises focusing on imitation and repetition, which were performed after teacher demonstrations and accompanied by corrective feedback to refine technical execution.

-

In the third phase, the test output was conducted (T1); the WCR test (only subtest W and subtest C) was administered again to assess the evolution of the students’ creative capacities. The same test instructions were provided for this second administration.

2.5. Data Analysis

A sensitivity power analysis was performed to determine the minimum effect size that the study was adequately powered to detect, based on the sample size employed. The analysis was conducted using GPower 3.1, modeling the Group × Time contrast as a two-sample t-test on changing scores (two-tailed α = 0.05).

To further characterize pre- and post-intervention changes in the W and C subtests, the mean ± SD, Cohen’s effect size, and 95% CI were computed for both the experimental and control groups.

A mixed-design 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the main effects of Group and Time, and their interaction, on performance in the W and C subtests; family-wise Type I error across the two primary interactions was controlled using Bonferroni adjustment (α = 0.025).

Correlations between pre- and post-intervention scores were computed separately for the experimental and control groups in sections W and C to assess within-group temporal stability and to contextualize mean-level changes.

3. Results

The descriptive statistics outline the sample characteristics, providing an overview of gender and age distribution across the experimental and control groups.

Table 2. Gender distribution of the students.

Gender	Group	Counts	% of Total	Cumulative %
Female	Control	28	26.20%	26.20%
	Experimental	30	28%	54.20%
Male	Control	22	20.60%	74.80%
	Experimental	27	25.20%	100%

shows the distribution of students by gender in the two groups of the study: control and experimental. It includes the number of students (Counts), the percentage of the total (% of Total), and the cumulative percentage (Cumulative %) for each combination of gender and group.

Table 3. Age distribution of the students.

Age	Group	Counts	% of Total	Cumulative %
7	Control	24	22.40%	22.40%
	Experimental	28	26.20%	48.60%
8	Control	26	24.30%	72.90%
	Experimental	29	27.10%	100%

shows the distribution of students by age group in the two study groups: control and experimental. It shows the number of students (Counts), the percentage of the total (% of Total), and the cumulative percentage (Cumulative %) for each combination of age and group.

The sample consists of 107 students: 58 girls (45.8%) and 49 boys (54.2%). The average age was 7.51 years (±0.50); in total, 48.6% were 7 years old (n = 52) and 51.4% were 8 years old (n = 55).

From the sensitivity power analysis, it emerged that, given the final sample size (experimental n = 57; control n = 50; total N = 107), the study achieved 80% power to detect a between-group effect size of Cohen’s d = 0.55 (two-tailed α = 0.05), indicating adequate power to detect medium-to-large effects, whereas smaller effects (d < 0.50) may not have reached statistical detectability.

Table 4. Comparison between pre- and post-intervention scores for subtests W and C.

Group	n	W Pre (Mean ± SD)	W Post (Mean ± SD)	95% CI Change	d Within	C Pre (Mean ± SD)	C Post (Mean ± SD)	95% CI Change	d Within
Control	50	4.84 ± 1.48	4.18 ± 1.40	[−1.10, −0.22]	−0.43	19.26 ± 3.20	18.24 ± 3.23	[−2.38, 0.34]	−0.21
Experimental	57	4.66 ± 1.78	4.87 ± 1.63	[−0.26, 0.69]	0.12	18.87 ± 2.80	19.29 ± 3.21	[−0.23, 1.07]	0.17

shows the results of the W and C subtests administered before (pre) and after (post) the physical education intervention for each group (control and experimental). For each measure, the number of participants (n), the mean and standard deviation (mean ± SD), the 95% confidence interval for the change (95% CI change), and the effect size within the group (d within) are reported.

As shown in Table 4, for Widening (W), the control group showed a mean decrease from 4.84 (±1.48) at t0 to 4.18 (±1.40) at t1, corresponding to a mean change of Δ = −0.66 (95% CI [−1.10, −0.22]) and d within = −0.43. In contrast, the experimental group recorded a slight increase from 4.66 (±1.78) to 4.87 (±1.63), with Δ = +0.21 (95% CI [−0.26, 0.69]) and d within = 0.12 (Figure 1a).

For Connecting (C), the control group exhibited a non-significant reduction from 19.26 (±3.20) to 18.24 (±3.23), with Δ = −1.02 (95% CI [−2.38, 0.34]) and d within = −0.21. The experimental group increased slightly from 18.87 (±2.80) to 19.29 (±3.21), with Δ = +0.42 (95% CI [−0.23, 1.07]) and d within = 0.17 (Figure 1b).

Table 5. Mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA (Group × Time).

Variable	Effect	F (1, df2)	p	η2p	90% CI (η2p)
W (TOT W)	Group × Time	7.339 (1, 104.95)	0.0079	0.065	0.010–0.159
C (TOT C)	Group × Time	3.670 (1, 70.86)	0.059	0.049	0.004–0.136

shows the results of the mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA statistical analysis conducted to examine the effect of the interaction between the group (control vs. experimental) and time (pre vs. post) on two variables, namely TOT W and TOT C, corresponding to the overall scores of the W and C subtests.

The 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA (Group × Time) (Table 5) revealed a significant interaction for W, F(1, 104.95) = 7.34, p = 0.0079, indicating that changes over time differed between groups. Specifically, the experimental group showed greater improvement from pre- to post-test compared with the control group. The associated effect size was η²_p = 0.065, with a 90% confidence interval [0.010, 0.159], suggesting a small-to-moderate magnitude of effect. For C, the Group × Time interaction did not reach conventional significance, F(1, 70.86) = 3.67, p = 0.059, although the effect size (η²_p = 0.049, 90% CI [0.004, 0.136]) suggested a trend in the same direction. No significant main effects of group or time were observed for either variable.

After applying the Bonferroni correction (α = 0.025), the adjusted p-values were 0.0158 for W and 0.118 for C. Thus, the Group × Time interaction remained significant for W, whereas it was no longer significant for C.

Table 6. Pre-post intervention correlation for each group.

Variable	Group	N	r	95% CI (r)	p-Value
Section W	Control	50	0.442	[0.19, 0.64]	0.0013
	Experimental	57	0.456	[0.22, 0.64]	<0.001
Section C	Control	50	−0.108	[−0.38, 0.18]	0.4535
	Experimental	57	0.674	[0.50, 0.80]	<0.001

shows the correlation coefficients between the pre- and post-intervention measurements for each group (control and experimental) in subtests W and C. For each combination, the number of participants (N), the correlation coefficient (r), the 95% confidence interval for r (95% CI r), and the p-value are reported.

For the W section, the control group showed a correlation of r = 0.442 (95% CI [0.19, 0.64], p = 0.0013), and the experimental group showed a correlation of r = 0.456 (95% CI [0.22, 0.64], p < 0.001). For the C section, the control group’s correlation was r = −0.108 (95% CI [−0.38, 0.18], p = 0.4535), whereas that of the experimental group was r = 0.674 (95% CI [0.50, 0.80], p < 0.001) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of a physical education program grounded in the principles of the ecological dynamics approach on creative thinking in primary school children, as assessed through the WCR test.

In the 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA (Group × Time), W (Widening) showed a significant interaction, F(1, 104.95) = 7.34, p = 0.0079, η²_p = 0.065 [90% CI 0.010, 0.159], whereas for C (Connecting), the interaction did not reach significance after multiplicity control, F(1, 70.86) = 3.67, p = 0.059, η²_p = 0.049 [90% CI 0.004, 0.136]. After applying Bonferroni correction for the two primary tests (α = 0.025), W remained significant, but C did not.

From the results, we found that in the control group (traditional prescriptive approach), the mean Widening score decreased between the pre- and post-test. The 95% confidence interval for the change is [−1.10, −0.22], which does not include zero and therefore suggests a statistically significant decrease. The within-group effect size (d = −0.43) corresponds to a small-to-moderate decrease (McGuigan, 2017). In contrast, a minor increase was observed in the experimental group (ecological dynamics approach). The 95% confidence interval for the change is [−0.26, 0.69], which includes zero, indicating that the change is not statistically distinguishable from no change with a very small effect size (d = 0.12) (McGuigan, 2017).

Taken together with the ANOVA and considering the Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold (α = 0.025), these results indicate a time-by-group divergence consistent with attenuation or prevention of the decline in W among the participants in the experimental group (adjusted p = 0.0158), whereas the corresponding interaction for C did not reach significance (adjusted p = 0.118).

This result can be interpreted in light of the ecological dynamics approach used in the intervention, which structures the educational environment as an open learning space capable of stimulating decision-making, perceptual processes, and motor resources. In response to situational tasks, students are encouraged to explore spontaneous, effective, and personal solutions (Hepler & Feltz, 2012). Within the approach implemented with the experimental group, the affordances played a central role, allowing for the experience to be adapted to the individual characteristics of each child, promoting flexible, active, inclusive learning and enjoyment (Costa et al., 2025). These conditions seem to promote the development of creativity and transversal skills that can also be applied in extracurricular contexts (Coppola et al., 2024c).

In the control group, Connecting showed a non-significant pre–post difference (95% CI [−2.38, 0.34]), with a small effect size (d = −0.21) (McGuigan, 2017). For the experimental group, the 95% confidence interval for the change is [−0.23, 1.07] and includes zero with a small effect size (d = 0.17) (McGuigan, 2017).

Thus, for C, both groups exhibited only small, non-significant changes (CIs including zero; small d within), indicating no reliable pre–post change.

These inferences should be considered in light of design constraints: single-site setting with class-level allocation, lack of assessor blinding, and no adjustment for clustering or extracurricular activity. Each of these inferences could bias the estimates and attenuate or inflate the observed effects. This lack of statistical significance may also be related to the short duration of the intervention and to the children’s limited experience with abstract associative tasks. Nevertheless, the data suggest a possible positive influence of the intervention on the ability to generate original associations, which might emerge more clearly with a larger sample, a longer intervention, or a less stringent level of significance (e.g., p < 0.10).

The results of the pre-test and post-test correlations show that for section W of the test, the experimental group (r = 0.456, 95% CI [0.22, 0.64], p < 0.001) and the control group (r = 0.442, 95% CI [0.19, 0.64], p = 0.0013) showed similar levels of association. This indicates a comparable degree of stability in the individual rankings in both groups, suggesting that the measure is relatively reliable and that the intervention does not appear to have altered the relative ordering of the participants’ scores. These values appear to indicate that the within-group dependence is consistent across the conditions.

For section C, the experimental group showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.674, 95% CI [0.50, 0.80], p < 0.001), while the control group showed no significant association between the pre- and post-scores (r = −0.108, 95% CI [−0.38, 0.18], p = 0.454). This divergence indicates the lower overall correlation: the strong within-subject consistency observed in the experimental group contrasts with the lack of a systematic relationship in the control group, which could reflect greater variability, a narrow score range, or random fluctuations.

This finding aligns with prior evidence indicating that teaching style exerts a measurable influence on the development of creative thinking. According to Scibinetti and Zelli (2019), the productive style, particularly the divergent discovery style, promotes the development of creative thinking and, specifically, motor creativity.

Furthermore, recent research has emphasized that the benefits of creative and cognitively engaging physical activity extend beyond cognitive and motor domains; they also include psychological well-being. In particular, physical activity that stimulates executive functions—such as working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility—can enhance emotional regulation and mental health in children (Matrisciano et al., 2025b). These findings suggest that creativity-oriented physical education programs, by fostering autonomy, adaptive decision-making, and self-expression, may serve as effective tools for promoting students’ mental well-being and resilience within the school context.

This approach reflects the ecological dynamics perspective, which supports learner-centered, exploratory environments that promote variability and self-organization (Chow et al., 2021; Davids et al., 2013). Recent research reinforces this view. Pesce (Pesce et al., 2025) underscores the role of cognitively enriched physical activity in enhancing creativity, while Coppola et al. (2024c) show that ecological dynamics-based PE supports creative problem solving by engaging learners with adaptive systems. Empirical studies also confirm that higher physical activity levels are linked to increased creative behaviors (Rominger et al., 2022), and that motor creativity correlates with physical fitness in children (Pesce & Tocci, 2024). Furthermore, Coppola et al. (2024b) found that students in exploratory, constraint-led PE programs improved significantly in terms of motor creativity compared with those taught via traditional methods. Collectively, these findings support a shift toward exploratory, variable, and cognitively engaging pedagogies to effectively foster creativity in physical education.

The central aspect of this style lies in encouraging the generation of multiple responses to a task, placing the student at the center of the learning process and stimulating their active participation. Through the exploration of the material and information acquired during the activity, students are led to construct their own knowledge independently (Alfieri et al., 2011). This approach, which is based on an ecological dynamics perspective, differs from the non-ecological dynamic approach, which provides detailed instructions on how the exercise should be performed (Pugliese et al., 2023; Serra et al., 2025).

Evidence from the current study reinforces the hypothesis that physical activity interventions implemented according to the principles of the dynamic ecological approach can have positive effects on the development of creative thinking in children. This approach, oriented towards discovery, variability, and autonomous exploration, appears to stimulate both the originality of ideas and cognitive flexibility. In reference to this, Alper and Ulutaş (2022) outlined the concept of creative movement as a coordinated action involving both the body and the mind, which is fundamental for children’s development, as it allows them to communicate and express themselves through body language (Alper & Ulutaş, 2022; Pamuk et al., 2022). This process not only promotes greater awareness of the body and its parts but also contributes to children’s cognitive, emotional, and mental development in a supportive educational environment. Without this support, the child’s holistic development can be hindered (Alper & Ulutaş, 2022).

On the other hand, activities planned according to a non-ecological dynamics approach, which is more rigid and prescriptive, can reduce growth opportunities for highly adaptive, motivated, and emotionally engaged children. This type of approach tends to limit the ability to integrate perception, cognition, emotion, and action within dynamic and complex learning environments (Woods et al., 2020).

Therefore, adopting a teaching style that values exploration and experimentation with emerging motor solutions should not be seen as a mistake to be corrected but rather as a valuable resource for dealing with environmental constraints and ever-changing tasks. In this way, the development of flexible, adaptive, and creative behaviors over time is encouraged (Seifert & Davids, 2012).

Furthermore, the absence of significant gender differences reinforces the hypothesis that motor creativity can be promoted in a fair way, regardless of sociocultural variables, provided that the educational environment is inclusive, stimulating, and non-prescriptive (Gomez Paloma et al., 2017). Physical education, in this view, is not limited to the development of motor skills but rather becomes a privileged space for the construction of meanings, the valorization of individual differences, and the promotion of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2007), in line with national and international guidelines on competences for active citizenship (MIUR, 2012; Lucas et al., 2013).

5. Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the implementation of physical activity, according to the principles of the ecological dynamics approach, could help improve children’s creative thinking. In this study, the experimental group, engaged in divergent creative motor activities, showed greater improvements in generating original and functional solutions compared with the control group. However, given the limited sample size, these results should be interpreted with caution.

In this context, the ecological dynamics approach, which prioritizes variability, adaptation, and exploration within the learning environment, is a particularly suitable methodological framework to promote the development of cognitive and motor skills simultaneously. To stimulate creative skills more effectively, physical education lessons should also include interdisciplinary activities anchored in real-life contexts, allowing students to integrate different types of knowledge to address concrete problems. This type of approach not only activates prior knowledge but also promotes the development of transversal skills and greater self-awareness (Coppola et al., 2024a; D’Anna et al., 2024). From a pedagogical perspective, these results support the adoption of dynamic and exploratory teaching methods that promote creativity. Shifting the focus from prescriptive teaching to creative processes could help children develop greater autonomy, confidence, and flexibility in both physical and cognitive domains. The children in the experimental group, engaged in divergent and exploratory motor activities, showed significant improvements in their ability to generate original and functional motor solutions compared with those in the control group. These results, although promising, must be interpreted carefully because of the limited sample size of this study and the relatively short duration of the intervention.

Future research should consider including larger samples and longitudinal designs to better understand the long-term effects of creativity-focused physical education. It would also be valuable to explore interdisciplinary lessons that combine physical and academic activities to clarify how motor creativity can support cognitive development.

According to the principles of the ecological dynamics approach, as well as the fundamental assumptions of the bio-psycho-social model (Minghelli et al., 2023), the results of this study suggest that motor activity can promote the development of creative thinking and motor originality in children. Moreover, such activities appear to foster more effective participation, guided by inclusive principles of motivation and intentionality (Minghelli et al., 2025). From this perspective, movement is not simply an expressive tool but instead a constitutive process of thought itself, capable of activating divergent, flexible, and adaptive cognitive pathways (Glenberg et al., 2013; A. D. Wilson & Golonka, 2013). The results of this intervention confirm the effectiveness of educational strategies based on motor variability, manipulation of constraints, and spontaneous exploration (Minghelli & Palumbo, 2024; Minghelli et al., 2025), elements key to fostering the emergence of personalized and creative motor responses (Davids et al., 2008; Rudd et al., 2020).

In light of these findings, a review of primary school physical education curricula should be performed, which uses a more integrated and transformative approach through interdisciplinary activities grounded in everyday life. This approach could help to stimulate reflection, cooperation, and meaningful movement experiences (Whitehead, 2010). The inclusion of body experiences oriented to discovery and creative production represents a powerful driving force for personal education, fostering the development of an open, critical, and adaptable cognitive disposition to address complex contemporary challenges.