The capacity to imagine new, unique solutions to complex problems is a distinctively human trait and is important for our survival and development (Welch & McPherson, 2012). The importance of creativity is recognized as a central aspect of ‘21^st century skills’ which are supposed to be leading in today’s educational policy. A number of prominent educators have concerns about the increasing trend of standardization in education and an emphasis on ‘basic skills’ such as reading, writing and mathematics, which they fear is detrimental for students ‘creative development (Robsinson, 2011).
                Forming an understanding of the creative process is an important first step for teachers and policy makers who wish to nurture students’ creativity. Arts education seems a logical context in which creativity can be studied, as artistic assignments offer room for creative thinking. The aim of this study is to analyze creativity from moment to moment in teacher-student and peer interactions during a musical composition task, with a specific emphasis on the role of autonomy and autonomy support in these interactions. This will help us understand how teachers can best foster students’ creativity.
                Creativity is often defined as a product or response (to a problem) that is both novel and useful (Amabile, 1983). In the research literature, a distinction can be made between ‘Big-c’ creativity (the work of world-renowned artists, musicians or scientists) and ‘little-c’ or emergent creativity, which refers to more everyday forms of creativity, such as creative expressions of students while theyr are working on a creative task or their creative products (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). For research in education, the latter is most relevant. A second distinction can be made between creativity as an aggregated personal characteristic (such as IQ) or as a process that occurs over time, from moment to moment (Kupers, Lehmann-Wermser, McPherson, & van Geert, submitted). In a review of the empirical literature of primary school children’s creativity of the last decade, we found that by far most studies defined and measured creativity as an aggregated variable, for example by means of well-known tests of creative thinking. This is in contrast with the most influential theoretical approaches to creativity, which see it as an intrinsically social process which occurs over time (Kupers, Lehmann-Wermser, McPherson, & van Geert, submitted).  Much less is known about how creativity occurs from moment to moment in students’ everyday tasks.
                An exception to this rule is the work of MacDonald, Miel, & Morgan (2000) who looked in detail at students’ collaborative processes while they were working together on a musical composition task. They looked at whether students’ consecutive turns in their interactions could be labeled as ‘transactive’ (e.g. building upon each other’s ideas).  They found that the frequency of transactive turns could be linked to the outcomes of the creative process; the more transactive turns, the better the quality of the end product. The study of Craft, Cremin, Burnard, and Chappell (2007) looked at the role of teachers in facilitating students ’creativity. Five specific strategies could be distinguished as facilitative in the creative process: asking questions, imagining what could be, making connections, exploring options and reflecting critically. This is reminiscent of an autonomy supportive style of teaching, which has been found to relate to students’ engagement and performance (Stroet, Opdenakker & Minnaert, 2013). However, in despite of the promising role of autonomy support in learning in general, its exact role in creative tasks has yet to be established.

Research questions
1. How do student expressed autonomy and teacher autonomy support relate to different phases in the creative process?
2. What are the differences in the creative process between teacher-student and peer dyads?

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 45(2), 357–376. Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2002). Mapping pathways: fostering creativity in composition. music education research, 4(2),245-261. Burnard, P. & Younker, B. A. (2004). Problem-solving and creativity: insights from students 'individual composing pathways. international journal of music education, 22, 59-76. Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Chappell, K. (2007). Teacher stance in creative learning: a study of progression. Thinking Skills and Creativity 2(2), 136-47. Kaufman, J.C., & Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology 13(1), 1-12. Kupers, W. E., van Dijk, M. W. G., & van Geert, P. L. C. (in press). Analyzing change in teacher-student interactions: a multiple case study from individual music lessons. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Kupers, Lehmann-Wermser, McPherson, & van Geert (submitted). A theoretical framework to describe children’s cretive development. Macdonald, R., Miell, D., & Morgan. (2000). Social processes and creative collaboration in children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 405-415. doi: 10.1007 /BF03172984 Mellor, L. (2007). Computer-based composition in the primary school: An investigation of children's 'creative' responses using the CD Rom Dance eJay. Musicae Scientiae, 11, 61-88. Robinson, K. (2011). Out of Our Minds. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd. Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need-supportive teaching on adolescents motivation and engagement: a review of the literature. Educational Research Review 9(1), 65-87. Welch, G. F., & McPherson, G. E. (2012). Introduction and commentary: Music education and the role of music in people’s lives. In G. E. McPherson & F. H. Welch (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 5–20). New York: Oxford University Press.