共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Enikő Orsolya Bereczki 《Curriculum Journal》2016,27(3):330-367
In the past 20 years, creativity has increasingly been recognised as an important aspect of young people's education around the world. The global interest in creativity is fuelled by various economic and social considerations. One concern of the approach to creativity in education is the curriculum. The research reported in this paper aimed at identifying the curriculum-level enablers and barriers to nurturing creativity in Hungarian public education by investigating the place of creativity, as well as that of creative pedagogy, in the Hungarian National Core Curriculum (HNCC) using content analysis. Findings revealed that creativity and the components of creative pedagogy were recurring elements of the HNCC. In Arts and Mathematics, the high importance of creativity was also supported by the strong presence of the elements of creative pedagogy. The barriers identified include the lack of clear and consistent definitions of creativity, the varied incidences of creativity and components of creative pedagogy, with extremely low attention to nurturing creativity in Foreign languages, Man and nature (science), and The Earth – our environment (geography). It has been concluded, therefore, that a more coherent and consistent approach to creativity across the HNCC is required. 相似文献
2.
创造力教育是建立在创造力开发基础上的一种教育理念,适应创造力经济的现代大学教育,无疑应当注重学生的创造力发展,因此创造力教育是现代大学的一种必然选择。作为大学的创造力教育,要以创造力开发(创造力的发现、创造力的培养、创造力的整合)为基本目标、以学科创造力为核心、以主动性实践为关键来构建其教育体系。 相似文献
3.
在知识经济的背景下,创造力是全社会的追求,也理所当然地成为了当前学校教育的应然选择。但作为一种价值取向,追求中小学生的创造力必然会付出一定的代价,明确并减少这种代价具有重要的理论和现实意义。由于创造力的破坏性、创造力评价标准的模糊性和中小学生创造力的潜在性,追求中小学生的创造力存在着危害学生社会化进程、挑战学校教育权威、增加学生负担等代价。只有正确认识创造力的价值及其限度、把追求中小学生的创造力视为一种“理智的冒险”,并将研究重心放在创造力发展所需要的条件上,才能有效地减少代价。 相似文献
4.
Geir Kaufmann 《Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research》2013,57(3):235-251
It is argued that the concept of creativity is too loosely defined, and too much driven from a bottom-up operationalist view. It is also argued that current popular definitions of creativity, by focusing on novelty and appropriateness, do not distinguish the concept of creativity in a satisfactory way from standard definitions of the concept of intelligence, which also focus on novelty and appropriateness as key defining features. A solution to this conceptual dilemma is offered by way of making a clear-cut distinction between novelty on the stimulus and novelty on the response side. This distinction is used as a platform for the development of a new taxonomy of different kinds of creativity and intelligent behaviour. A major feature of this new model is the distinction made between proactive and reactive creativity. Finally, the conceptual model is used as a basis for pointing out some shortcomings of existing tests of creativity and, with a practical-educational perspective in mind, some specific suggestions on the anatomy of a new kind of creativity assessment are made. 相似文献
5.
Relationships between measures of creativity and measures of intelligence were analysed to show that even when the intercorrelations among the former are not appreciably larger than correlations between creativity and intelligence measures, dimensions of creativity are found to be psychometrically and conceptually distinct from dimensions of intelligence. One hundred eighty-eight art and engineering college students were administered objective tests and questionnaires designed to tap a number of ability and nonability indicants of creativity and intelligence. Some of these measures were of a kind that some investigators would regard as “criterion” measures of creativity and intelligence. Data were analysed by means of correlational and factor analytic procedures. Eight major influences were indicated by independent factors rotated to approximate simple structure. The influences represented by these factors were identified as: fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, memory, fluency, rule-orientation versus intuitive thinking, and self-sufficient-calculated-risk-taking. The fourth, seventh, and eighth factors were discussed as representing distinct cognitive, motivational, and temperamental aspects of creativity. At the level of test intercorrelations discriminant validity did not obtain–measures of creativity did not intercorrelate more highly among themselves than they correlated with measures of intelligence. The putative factors of creativity did correlate more highly with creativity criteria, however, than did the factors identified as representing intelligence. Moreover, the intelligence factors were more highly related to intelligence criteria than to creativity criteria. Thus the evidence of this study suggests that it is useful to think of creativity and intelligence as the outgrowths of distinct (although overlapping) sets of influences, even when this is not well indicated by discriminant-convergent validation analyses carried out with respect to tests (in contrast to factors). 相似文献
6.
Soon Ye Hwang 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2017,49(3):220-230
Often defined as originality and innovation and desired for the economic profits it can produce for both individuals and their societies, creativity has been examined in order to find ways in which it can be promoted through various instructional practices in and beyond schools. Nonetheless, creativity as a fundamental basis of human existence and learning in a shared world is largely understudied. In this article, I examine the commonly held assumptions of creativity as it is incorporated into educational practices—that is, the notion of creativity as developable and achievable, and often as measurable and evaluable. I explore some of the (negative) consequences of understanding creativity in this way and assert the need to reclaim the notion of creativity in order to recognize the ways in which creativity is a part of our everyday lived experiences, always including interactions with the bodily self, co-existing others, and the phenomenal world. Understanding creativity as an expressive mode and way of being in the world encourages a rethinking of creativity in education, positioning creativity as implicitly interwoven in the act of expression as it is undertaken in a community and advocating that this expression ought to be encouraged in both processes and products of learning. 相似文献
7.
Creativity and the way it could be supported in schools is understood differently by policy makers, practitioners and scientists. This article reviews, with a chronological lens, the development of policies that include teaching creativity and teaching for creativity. The epistemic tensions between the intentions of government and the nature of creativity as it emerges in learning or scientific work is introduced and reflected upon. There have been more than nine key educational policies that have been introduced over the last 50 years. Each of these are considered in this article and related to the ways that creativity is understood and expected to be taught, supported or enacted in schools by policy makers. In light of the need to support creativity as a key twenty-first-century skill, to ultimately enable current students (who will become the next generation of scientists) to develop the capabilities to address global concerns, this article highlights issues related to this issue. Epistemic insights are offered that relate to the development of aspects of creativity, including questioning, developing alternate ideas, ‘seeing’ things differently, innovation, curiosity, problem solving and evaluating. The ways that policy related to creativity in science appears not to recognise how creativity can be reified in these ways in schools suggests the need for rapid review, especially in light of the upcoming international creativity tests in 2021. 相似文献
8.
根据团队创造力相关理论,基于变革型领导、团队沟通和个体创造力的作用,构建大学生科技创新团队创造力的结构和关系模型,提出它们之间的假设关系。本研究通过采集90个大学生科技创新团队的样本数据,采用探索性因素分析、验证性因素分析、结构方程等方法对假设进行检验。结果表明,变革型领导对团队沟通、个体创造力及团队创造力皆具有正向影响作用;团队沟通和个体创造力对团队创造力也具有正向影响作用;个体创造力在变革型领导与团队创造力之间起部分中介作用;团队沟通没有起中介作用。建议高校要重视大学生科技创新团队的团队领导培养,提高大学生团队沟通能力和个体创造力,进而提升团队创造力。 相似文献
9.
The objective of the study was to explore the cognitive profile of creativity in design by applying a new approach to the assessment of creativity based on the theory of meaning (Kreitler & Kreitler). The assessment of meaning enables to identify cognitive processes that characterize an individual as well as those necessary for good performance of some cognitive act, such as creativity. It was hypothesized that creativity in design will include partly cognitive components identified in previous studies of creativity and partly new ones. The participants were 52 students in a school of design, who were administered a designing task and the Meaning Test, assessing a broad range of cognitive processes. The design products were assessed for creativity by three experienced architects. The cognitive processes, differentiating significantly between the students who produced highly creative designs and those who produced less creative ones, were interpreted as constituting the cognitive profile of creativity in design. The obtained profile supported the hypothesis and provided information about the cognitive processes of creativity in design, which may also be used for promoting creativity in design students. 相似文献
10.
Jeanie Goertz 《Roeper Review》2013,35(3):158-162
One of the most contentious areas in creativity theory is the question of domain specificity. How we conceptualize creativity — as something that transcends content domains, or as something that varies depending on the domain in question — has important implications for both creativity research and creativity training programs. The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity is the first creativity theory to successfully bridge the gap between these contrasting views of creativity. The APT model uses the metaphor of an amusement park to explore creativity. There are four stages: Initial requirements, general thematic areas, domains, and micro‐domains. The first level (initial requirements) is very general, and each subsequent level gets more and more domain‐specific. The APT model can provide a powerful framework for creativity assessment, selection of students for gifted education programs, and the development of creativity training programs. 相似文献
11.
Vlad Petre Gl?veanu 《Thinking Skills and Creativity》2011,6(2):122-131
This article addresses the question of whether children are or are not creative by exploring the assumptions underlying each possible answer. It is argued that our position regarding children's creativity steams from larger systems of representation concerning children on the one hand, and creativity on the other. Arguments for and against the idea that children can be creative are then considered from four different perspectives: the product, process, person and press factor. On the whole, children's creativity is accounted for in terms of a particular ‘reading’ of children as active and interactive beings and of creativity as a social and cultural phenomenon. In contrast, children's lack of creative expression is linked with a passive and receptive image of the child and with theorising creativity through the lenses of the genius and of great creations. In the end, the benefits of acknowledging children's creativity are considered for child and developmental psychology, for creativity research and for educational practices. 相似文献
12.
Effective teachers are often creative ones, yet an examination of creative teaching is largely invisible in the North American creativity literature. Even within education there is little about teachers’ own creative practice. Nonetheless, there are benefits to studying creative teachers: in education it can explicate ways of enhancing teachers’ creativity and enriching praxis; and in psychology it can extend our understanding of social and interpersonal creativity, as well as everyday creativity. This paper reviews 12 Canadian case studies of creative teaching conducted by a creative teaching research group. An in-depth elaboration of two themes, creative person and community, is presented. 相似文献
13.
论大学生创造性的基本特征 总被引：10，自引：0，他引：10
从教育学的角度来看 ,创造性的本质是“人性”与“人力”的统一 ;按照这个标准 ,可将人的创造性划分为自我性的创造性与社会性的创造性。大学生的创造性存在个体差异 ;大学生的创造性处于由自我性向社会性过渡的关键期 ;大学生的创造性是全面的 ,但同时也具有明显的专业特征 相似文献
14.
段若荧 《昆明师范高等专科学校学报》2007,29(3):87-90
创造力是正常人普遍具有的潜在的心理能力,创造力内隐理论对创造力的非正式评价及培养都起着重要的潜在作用。创造意识的产生在一定程度上建立在创造力内隐理论基础之上,可以说内隐理论是创造意识产生的最初形态。正因为创造力内隐理论的存在,随着逐步的显现、认识,不断的深化、发现,会逐渐明朗,最后成为创造意识。教师是否具有创造意识将直接影响中小学生创造潜能的开发和创造力水平的提高。所以培养每位未来教师形成正确的创造意识,是当前教师教育的重要任务。 相似文献
15.
Kevin Gormley 《Critical Studies in Education》2020,61(3):313-328
ABSTRACT This paper resists normative definitions of ‘creativity’ to argue that the concept is constructed by neoliberal discourses in education policy. The analysis is firstly centred on the Australian context, and this is further informed and complimented by a global perspective. Focusing on two pivotal policies, The Melbourne Declaration of Educational Goals for Young Australians and PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving, the paper argues that universal versions of creativity, such as those that align the concept with problem-solving or design endeavour, are a product of market logic. Using Foucault’s concept of homo economius, it traces how creativity is subsumed into discourses of workplace readiness and rapidly changing environments, and proceeds to identify how select and partial discourses of the concept, such as creativity as instrumental and determinable are supported, while there is a silence around alternative conceptualisations. The paper concludes with a discussion on how the discursive positioning of creativity by neoliberal themes and formations brings about real effects: certain work practices are valued more than others and particular student and teacher subjectivities are endorsed or demoted ‘in the name of’ creativity. 相似文献
16.
唐婉 《宁波教育学院学报》2010,12(5):35-38
创造力内隐理论(implicit theories of creativity)是指一般公众(专家和外行人)在日常生活和工作背景下所形成的,且以某种形式存在于个体头脑中的关于创造力概念、结构及其发展的看法(也称为"内隐观"或"公众观")。研究教师的创造力内隐理论有助于研究者了解教师对于创造力的观念以及他们对待创造性儿童的态度,从而把握教师实施创造性教学的状况,有针对性地对教师进行培训,改进教师的教学,从而有利于在教育教学中对学生创造力的培养。通过教师对创造力的理解,对创造性学生的态度及人格特征的认识,对创造力的培养等论述,以期有助于我国教师创造力内隐理论的研究。 相似文献
17.
What are the relations between creativity, curricula and paradigms? In this paper the historical development of major curriculum theories are interpreted in terms of their relation to creativity as a goal of organised learning. Further, the development is analysed by discussing the organising of learning for creativity from the viewpoints of different sociological paradigms. These represent mutually exclusive ways of understanding knowledge production and societal change. A synthesis of how schools try to reach creativity as a goal for organised learning, seen through the 'dark glasses' of curriculum traditions and paradigms, is presented. The paper ends with some concluding remarks regarding how creativity fits into a curriculum profile needed under the present level of economic globalisation. 相似文献
18.
Brenda G. Stone 《Psychology in the schools》1980,17(1):106-108
A relationship between creativity and misbehavior in the classroom often has been presumed by educators, but actually has had little substantiation. The present study attempts to clarify the dynamics of that relationship by determining the extent to which creativity test scores predict identification of students by teachers and/or peers as misbehavers. Intercorrelations between creativity subtests and peer perception of creative behavior suggest that students high in elaboration and in originality are more likely to be described by peers as exhibiting creative behavior. Results generally failed to support that high creativity scores predict teacher identification of students as behavior problems. However, the sociometric variables of popularity and misbehavior were significantly correlated with high creativity scores. Implications for further study are discussed. 相似文献
19.
Cognitive preference, a cognitive style acquired through life and learning experiences and representing a distinct orientation to the processing of information, is related to creativity in this study. Significant correlations were observed between cognitive preference and verbal creativity but not with figural creativity as measured by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. 相似文献
20.
通过对上海市11所高校的全国“挑战杯”获奖者创新素养和创造力现状进行实证调查,研究发现：全国“挑战杯”获奖者创新素养评价指标体系包含创新人格、创新意识、创新思维、创新行为、创新支持感知和创新自我效能感6个维度共19个因子。通过构建“挑战杯”获奖者创新素养与创造力的结构方程模型发现:创新意识、创新思维、创新行为和创新自我效能感对创造力产生直接的正向影响,创新人格以创新意识和创新思维为中介对创造力产生正向影响,创新支持感知以创新行为和创新自我效能感为中介对创造力产生正向影响,而创新人格和创新支持感知作为创新素养的内部和外部动机,通过交互作用共同影响创造力。 相似文献