DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the findings in relation to the theoretical perspectives on creativity and ownership. It begins by redefining the concept of ownership within music education, reflecting on the results of the case studies and their limitations, concluding with directions for future research.
Rethinking the New Concept of Ownership
In existing literature, the concept of ownership is not adequately defined; in fact, some studies focus only on psychological ownership, while others focus on ownership of learning. This research proposes a more integrated view where ownership is explained as a combination of both. Psychological ownership refers to an internal, emotional process, a feeling that “this is mine”, which becomes especially strong when students feel connected to what they are doing. Ownership of learning, on the other hand, emerges from an external, pedagogical process, where the learning environment actively invites students to participate, make decisions, and take responsibility (Pierce et al., 2003; Wiley, 2009).
This study suggests that these dimensions are not separate but mutually reinforcing. The educational environment should facilitate ownership through creative and personal choices, while students actively and emotionally engage with their own learning. It is when they begin to recognize meaningful elements, such as overcoming difficulties, results that resonate with their self-identity, or simply feeling proud of their own process, that true ownership might be cultivated among students. Therefore, in the context of this study, creative thinking is not considered the ultimate goal, but as a means of activating the cognitive and affective dynamics of ownership.
Main Findings from the Case Studies
The findings from both case studies offer indications that the creative activities influenced the students’ sense of ownership in the learning. In case study 1, students were more engaged and involved when making autonomous choices and interpreting creatively. Similarly, in case study 2, integrating creative and collaborative tasks further enhanced the sense of ownership as students co-constructed shared meanings and supported each other in risk-taking and exploration (Sangiorgio, 2020; Burnard, 2017). Although not formally verified yet, an emerging observation across both case studies suggests that pairing more explorative students with more compliant ones may help balance group dynamics and foster growth through peer support.
In addition, teachers’ interviews recognized the value of shifting from a traditional, transmissive teaching role to one that facilitates student autonomy and self-expression. In fact, responding to Fiske’s (2012) call for music education that prioritizes student engagement and ownership over the mere transmission of information, they observed how a personalized and centered teaching approach can foster genuine moments of ownership in the students.
In line with Fiske’s (2012) advocacy for student-centered music education, teachers observed that personalized approaches fostered genuine moments of ownership. These findings resonate with Gazibara’s (2022) constructivist framework, which views music learning as an active, dialogic process shaped by autonomy, interaction, and teacher facilitation.
Reflections and Limitations
This study also challenged some of my initial teaching assumptions. At the beginning of the research, drawing from my experience as a clarinet student, I had the intuition that creative activities could help students develop a sense of ownership. The literature supported this view, revealing a strong connection between creativity and ownership, which helped guide the design of the activities.
While the activities were successful in promoting ownership and engagement, the investigation revealed that although most students responded positively to the creative teaching approach, some preferred more structured, teacher-led instruction. Furthermore, the study was limited to a small group of students within a narrow age range. A supplementary analysis of students aged 10–11 indicated a shift toward greater autonomy and risk-taking behaviors, suggesting that age may influence how ownership develops.
It also became clear how much the educational context shapes outcomes. In the Netherlands, creative and student-centered learning is largely encouraged, and this environment likely contributed to the results. Reflecting on my own experiences in Italy, where more traditional, teacher-centered methods are still dominant, I recognize that a similar teaching approach might require significant adaptation to be effective in different educational cultures.
Future Research Suggestions
Further research could explore which teaching approaches better embrace students' diverse needs and learning predispositions, and how similar creative strategies might work across various age groups, skill levels, or instrument specializations.
Additionally, it would be valuable to investigate the long-term impacts of ownership cultivated through creative tasks, whether this sense of ownership affects students' musical self-image and expression, practice habits, or academic achievement over time.
Lastly, as mentioned before, the educational and cultural context is critical to investigate these didactic approaches. Since teaching styles and school systems can differ between countries, the same creative approach might not be as effective in diverse settings. Therefore, encouraging research in such environments might contribute to establishing more sensitive and receptive teaching and learning habitats.