Advertisement

Creativity and Early Talent Development in the Arts in Young and Schoolchildren

  • Anna N. N. HuiEmail author
  • Mavis Wu-jing He
  • Elaine Suk Ching Liu
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter argues and provides research evidence that creativity can be nurtured in young schoolchildren through early arts education in preschools and primary schools. The data presented in this chapter lend supports to the hypotheses that early arts education inside the classrooms and outside the schools is associated with creativity in typical schoolchildren. Implications and limitations for implementation will be discussed.

Keywords

Verbal Creativity Talent Development Gifted Education Professional Artist Regular Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The work described in this chapter was supported by three grants from the Arts Development Council and the Quality Education Fund of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the City University Start-Up Grant. Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be addressed to Anna Hui, Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, HKSAR, China (e-mail: annahui@cityu.edu.hk).

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bryce, J., Mendelovits, J., Beavis, A., McQueen, J., & Adams, I. (2004). Evaluations of school-based arts programmes in Australian schools. Australia: Department of Education, Science & Training, Australian Government, Australia Council for the Arts, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Australian Government.Google Scholar
  4. Burnard, P., & Swann, M. (2010). Pupil perceptions of learning with artists: A new order of experience. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 5(2), 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, J. M., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: The question of transfer. Studies in Art Education, 4(3), 228–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, D. W. (2000a). The TALENT approach: An integrated model for promoting quality education in Hong Kong. Education journal, 28(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  7. Chan, D. W. (2000b). Identifying gifted and talented students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 22(2), 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, D. W. (2005). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, D. W. (2007a). Leadership competencies among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: The connection with emotional intelligence and successful intelligence. Roeper Review, 29(3), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, D. W. (2007b). Musical aptitude and association responses in music listening among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 29(5), 30–36.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, D. W. (2008). Assessing visual arts talents of Hong Kong Chinese gifted students: The development of the impossible figures task. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(3), 364–385.Google Scholar
  12. Cheung-Yung, J. W. Y., Cham-Lai, E. S. C., & Mak, C. (2008). The impact of music education policy on creative music making in the school music curriculum. In C. C. Leung, L. C. R. Yip, & T. Imada (Eds.), Music education policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 97–110). Hirosaki, Japan: Hirosaki University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, A. S., Papandrea, F., & Bennett, J. (2007). Assessing cultural values: Developing an attitudinal scale. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31(3), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craft, A. (2010). Possibility thinking and wise creativity: Educational futures in England? In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 289–312). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craft, A. (2011). Approaches to creativity in education in the United Kingdom. In J. Sefton-Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of creative learning (pp. 129–139). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Arts education, key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1 to secondary 3). Hong Kong: The Education Department, HKSAR.Google Scholar
  17. Curriculum Development Council. (2003). Visual arts curriculum guide. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.Google Scholar
  18. Curriculum Development Council. (2006). Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.Google Scholar
  19. Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Education Bureau. (2011). Gifted education: Rationale and principles of gifted education Policy in Hong Kong. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2377&langno=1
  21. Education Commission. (1990). Education commission report No. 4. Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  22. Feldhusen, J. F., Kolloff, M. B., Cole, S., & Moon, S. M. (1988). A three-stage model for gifted education: 1988 update. Gifted Child Today, 11(1), 63–67.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, J. E., & Schirrmacher, R. (2012). Art & creative development for young children (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Gengage Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, J. (2000). Teaching for talent: Lessons from the research. In C. F. M. van Lieshout & P. G. Heymans (Eds.), Developing talent across the life span (pp. 231–248). Philadelphia: Psychology Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A development model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gagné, F. (2007). Ten commandments for academic talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haanstra, F. (2000). Dutch studies of the effects of arts education programs on school success. Studies in Art Education, 42(1), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harland, J., Kinder, K., Lord, P., Stott, A., Schagen, I., Haynes, J., Cusworth, L., White, R., & Paola, R. (2000). Arts education in secondary schools: Effects and effectiveness. Berkshire, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  29. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hui, A., Cheung, P. K., Wong, T. K., & He, M. (2011). How effective is a drama-enhanced curriculum doing to increase the creativity of preschool children and their teachers? Journal of Drama and Theatre Education in Asia, 2(1), 21–46.Google Scholar
  31. Hui, A., He, M., & Lee, K. (2010). Creative partnership between children’s art groups and primary schools in Hong Kong: Promoting creativity and communication skills in schoolchildren (A technical report submitted to City University Start-Up Grant). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  32. Hui, A., He, M., Tjia, L., Lee, K., & Choi, S. (2011). A pilot study on promoting arts education in preschools (A technical report submitted to Arts Development Council). Hong Kong: Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  33. Hui, A., & Lau, S. (2006). Drama education: A touch of the creative mind and communicative-expressive ability of elementary school children in Hong Kong. International Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hui, A., & Lau, S. (2010). Formulation of policy and strategy in developing creativity education in four Asian Chinese societies: A policy analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(4), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hui, A., Lee, K., & Choi, S. (2010). Quality Thematic Network (QTN) on drama in education: The second report (2009-2010) (A technical report submitted to Quality Education Fund). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  36. Hui, A., Lee, K., & Choi, S. (2011). Quality Thematic Network (QTN) on drama in education: The third report (2010-2011) (A technical report submitted to Quality Education Fund). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  37. Jalongo, M. R. (1990). The child’s right to the expressive arts: Nurturing the imagination as well as the intellect. Childhood Education, 66(4), 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creativity polymathy: What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 380–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leong, S. (2010). Creativity and assessment in Chinese arts education: Perspectives of Hong Kong. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  42. Marsh, H. (1990). Self-description questionnaire I – Manual. NSW, Australia: University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  43. McKinsey & Co. (2001). War for talent: Organization and leadership practice. New York: McKinsey & Co.Google Scholar
  44. Moga, E., Burger, K., Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). Does studying the arts engender creative thinking? Evidence for near but not far transfer. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). The cost and benefits of creative partnerships. Newcastle, UK: Creativity, Culture & Education.Google Scholar
  46. Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  47. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Soh, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Subotnik, R. F., & Rickoff, R. (2010). Should eminence based on outstanding innovation be the goal of gifted education and talent development? Implications for policy and research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. To, L. D., Chan, Y. P., Lam, Y. K., & Tsang, S. Y. (2011). Reflections on a primary school teacher professional development programme on learning English through process drama. Research in Drama Education, 16(4), 517–539.Google Scholar
  52. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual research edition – Verbal tests, form A and B, -figural tests, form A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
  53. Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The test for creative thinking—drawing production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272–280.Google Scholar
  54. Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for creative thinking—Drawing production (TCT-DP). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  55. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winner, E. (2001). The relationship between arts and academic achievement: No evidence (yet) for a causal relationship. In E. Winner & L. Hetland (Eds.), Beyond the soundbite: Arts education and academic outcomes (pp. 17–31). Los Angeles: The Getty Center.Google Scholar
  57. Winner, E. (2007). Visual thinking in arts education: Homage to Rudolf Arnheim. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(1), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna N. N. Hui
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mavis Wu-jing He
    • 2
  • Elaine Suk Ching Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Social StudiesCity University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.Department of Special Education and CounsellingThe Hong Kong Institute of EducationHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations