Prenos in potrditev Kaufmanove lestvice ustvarjalnih področij na hrvaškem vzorcu učencev v zgodnjem otroštvu in predšolskih otrok

  • Marijana Županić Benić Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb, Croatia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.708
Ključne besede: samoocena ustvarjalnosti, ustvarjalna področja, faktorska analiza, Kaufmanova lestvica ustvarjalnih področij, potrditev veljavnosti lestvice

Povzetek

Sodobna literatura opisuje ustvarjalnost kot področno specifičen pojav. Po Kaufmanovem petfaktorskem modelu se lahko ustvarjalnost izrazi na naslednjih specifičnih področjih: osebnem/medosebnem, študijskem, izvedbenem, tehnično/znanstvenem in umetniškem. Cilj raziskave je bil potrditev hrvaške različice Kaufmanove lestvice ustvarjalnih področij, ki je bila uporabljena na vzorcu učencev v zgodnjem otroštvu in predšolskih otrok (N = 222). Rezultati eksploratorne faktorske analize so pokazali, da nekatere naloge osebnega/medosebnega področja niso bile prisotne na nobeni lestvici, medtem ko so se nekatere naloge v povezavi z glasbo ločile od preostalih nalog izvedbenega področja v ločen dejavnik. Tovrstne rezultate je mogoče pojasniti z značilnostmi slučajnega vzorca, uporabljenega v raziskavi. Rezultati konfirmatorne faktorske analize petfaktorskih modelov in testov skladnosti so enako zadovoljivi in konsistentni kot pri prejšnjih validacijah, zaradi česar se Kaufmanova lestvica ustvarjalnih področij uvršča med potencialno izvedljive lestvice za ocenjevanje ustvarjalnosti kot področno specifičnega pojava. Za potrditev veljavnosti hrvaške različice lestvice so potrebne dodatne raziskave z reprezentativnim naključnim vzorcem.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

Amabile, T. (2011). Componential theory of creativity (Working Paper No. 12-096). Harvard Business School.

Awofala, A. O., & Fatade, A. O. (2015). Validation of the domains of creativity scale for Nigerian preservice science, technology, and mathematics teachers. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(1), 131–150.

Beghetto, R. A. (2005a). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254–263.

Beghetto, R. A. (2005b). Preservice teachers’ self-judgments of test taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 376–380.

Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–463). Cambridge University Press.

Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press.

Cheung, R. H. P., & Mok, M. M. C. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ perception of creative personality as a predictor of their support of pedagogy important for fostering creativity: A Chinese perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 276–286.

Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233–240.

Craft, A. (2003). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice. Routledge.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The Systems Model of Creativity (pp. 47–61). Springer.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000

Feist, G. J. (2004). Creativity and the frontal lobes. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5(1), 21–28.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10(1), 10–15.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3), 231–247.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. Basic Books.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. McGraw-Hill.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.

Haylock, D. W. (1987). Mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(1), 48–59.

Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152–165.

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.

Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. Springer Publishing Company.

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.

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.

Maksić, S. B., & Spasenović, V. Z. (2018). Educational science students’ implicit theories of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 287–294.

McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Measuring the muses: validating the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(2), 216–230.

Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 46–58.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.

Robinson, K. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin.

Runco, M. A. (1999). Implicit theories. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 2–30). Academic Press.

Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.3738&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Sekulić-Majurec, A. (2007). Uloga sudionika odgojno-obrazovnog procesa u stvaranju, provedbi i vrednovanju kurikuluma [The role of participants in the education process in creating, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum]. In V. Previšić (Ed.), Kurikulum: teorije–metodologija–sadržaj–struktura [Curriculum: Theories-methods-contents-structure] (pp. 351–380). Zagreb, Školska knjiga.

Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 97–106.

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Investing in creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 229–232.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.

Zoglowek, H. (2018). Teacher of the gifted – What is needed. In J. Herzog (Ed.), Challenges of working with gifted pupils in European school systems (pp. 265–274). Verlag Dr. KovaÄ.

Objavljeno
2021-09-28
Kako citirati
Županić Benić, M. (2021). Prenos in potrditev Kaufmanove lestvice ustvarjalnih področij na hrvaškem vzorcu učencev v zgodnjem otroštvu in predšolskih otrok. Revija Centra Za študij Edukacijskih Strategij , 11(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.708
Številka
Letn. 11 Št. 3 (2021): The Contexts and Processes of Shaping Teacher Identity
Rubrike
VARIA

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
  2. The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
  3. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.