An Exploratory Study for the Development and Application of a Questionnaire of Creative Home Environment

Sung Eun-Hyun; 성은현; Kaufman J. C.; KaufmanJ.C.

ISSN : 1229-0718

Article Contents

Prev Next

e-Submission

Vol.25 No.3

Citation
Share

An Exploratory Study for the Development and Application of a Questionnaire of Creative Home Environment

Eun-Hyun Sung (Hoseo University, Dept. of Early Childhood Education)
J. C. Kaufman (California State University, San Bernardino Dept. of Psychology)

The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology / The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, (P)1229-0718; (E)2671-6542

2012, v.25 no.3, pp.107-124

Sung, E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). An Exploratory Study for the Development and Application of a Questionnaire of Creative Home Environment. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 107-124.

copy

Abstract

The present study was conducted to develop a questionnaire to measure creative home environment and to explore the differences of various domains of creativity according to creative home environment. The questionnaire for creative home environment (measuring both psychological support and creative/intellectual stimulus) and Kaufman-Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) were administered to 463 university students. The students were asked to respond about both their current creative home environment and what they believed to be an important creative home environment. We examined the difference between students' current home environment and their perception of the important creative home environment. The results were as follows. Students in the high creative home environment group achieved higher scores than students in the low creative home environment group in the domains of Everyday, Scholarly, Writing and Music, and Artistic creativity. Valuing creative achievement at home was needed to promote a creative home environment. Finally, we discussed the meaning and limits of this study.

keywords

Submission Date: 2012-07-15

Revised Date: 2012-08-23

Accepted Date: 2012-08-24

Reference

김상윤 (2003). 초등학생의 창의적 언어 및 도형 조합능력의 발달. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 16권 4호

김종안 (1998). 통합적 접근에 기초한 아동의 창의성측정 도구 개발. 성균관대학교 박사학위논문

김혜숙 (1998). 다원적 접근에 기초한 창의성 진단측정 도구의 개발 및 타당화 연구. 숙명여자대학교, 박사학위논문.

김혜숙, 최인수 (2002). 창의성 구조 모형의 검증. 교육심리연구, 16(4).

송인섭, 김혜숙 (1999). 창의성 개념정립을 위한 탐색적 연구-암시적 창의성 이론을 중심으로-. 교육심리연구, 13(3), pp. 93-117.

성은현 (2001). 심상적 사고를 통한 창의력 증진 프로그램 개발 및 효과검증. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 14권 1호

성은현 (2003a). 창의성의 개념과 이론. 영재와 영재교육, 2권 1호.

성은현 (2003b). 창의성 상하 집단의 지적 능력과 인성특성 비교. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 16권 3호

성은현 (2004). 어머니의 내외통제성과 창의적 가정환경 및 자녀의 창의적 인성과의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 17권 3호

10.

성은현, 김누리(2010). 소득과 거주지역이 아동의 창의성에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 23권 1호

11.

성은현, 한순미, 하주현, 이정규, 류형선, 한윤영, 박병기 (2008). 한국적 창의성과 창의적 환경에 대한 대학생들의 암묵적 이론. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 14(1), 367-390.

12.

유경훈 (2007). 초등학생의 창의성에 영향을 미치는관련 변인 구조분석. 상명대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.

13.

유연옥 (2003). 그림 창의성 검사(TCT-DP)에 의한아동의 창의성 발달. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 16권 2호

14.

이신동, 이정규, 박성은, 김은진 역 (2006). 창의성의이해 -사회학, 심리학, 생물학적 접근의 통합.John S Dacey, Kathleen H. Lennon,Understanding Creativity. 박학사.

15.

조성연 (1997). 도시와 농촌아동의 창의성과 자아존중감 및 어머니 양육행동에 관한 연구, 한국가족복지학, 2(2), pp. 17-32.

16.

한순미, 김선, 박숙희, 이경화, 성은현(2005). 창의성-사람, 환경, 전략, 학지사.

17.

한순미, 성은현, 이정규 (2008). 창의적 가정 및 학교환경에 대한 한미 대학생의 암묵적 개념과 현실환경. 교육심리연구, 22(1). 151-168.

18.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, Co. West view, pp. 212-213.

19.

Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.

20.

Borich, G. D. (1980). A Needs Assessment for Conducting Follow-up Studies. The Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3). pp. 39-42.

21.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, Culture and Person: a systems view of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg(Ed.) The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 325-339.

22.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S.(1993). Talented teenagers: The Roots ofSuccess and Failure. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

23.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspectives for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 313-335.

24.

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the Gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

25.

Feldman, D. H. (1999). The Development of Creativity. in Sternberg, R. J., Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 169-186.

26.

Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In Sternberg, R. (Ed), The nature of creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

John-Steiner, B. (1997). Notebooks of the Minds: Explorations of Thinking. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

28.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative—but not in mathematics! Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.

29.

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J. (2005a). The Amusement Park Theory of Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Kaufman, J. C., J. Baer (Eds.) (2005b). Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. Spribger Publishing Company

32.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., Baer J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. John Willey & Sons, Inc.

33.

Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Counting the Muses: Development of the Kaufman-Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). in press.

34.

MacKinnon, D. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484-495.

35.

Mendecka, G. (1996). Attitudes of Parents and Development of Creativity. In A. Croply & D. Dehn (Eds.), Fostering the Growth of High Ability: European Perspectives, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

36.

Miller, B. C., Gerard, D. (1979). Family influences on the develpoment of creativity in children: An integrative review. Family Coordinator, 28, 295-312.

37.

Plucker, J., Beghetto, R. A, & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn't Creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls and future directions in creativity research, Educational psychologist, 39, 83-96.

38.

Robinson A. (2010). Sudden Genius? The general path to creative breakthroughs. Oxford university press.

39.

Runco M. A. (2007). Creativity-Theories and Themes : Research, Development, and Practice. Academic Press

40.

Ruokonen I., Vikat M. (2005). The Creativity of gifted children in Estonia and Finland from music and environmental perspective. A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences. Vol. 9 Issue 1, p49-68.

41.

Stremikis (2002). The personal characteristics and environmental circumstances of successful women musicians. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 85-92.

42.

Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in Creativity. American Psychologist, 51, July, pp. 677-688.

43.

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

44.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall..

45.

Vernon, P.E. (1989). The nature-nurture problem in creativity, in A. Gliver, R. R. Ronning, C. R. Reynolds (ed.), Handbook of creativity, New York: Plenum Press, 93-110

46.

한국교육학술정보원(KERIS:http://www.riss.kr/)

47.

http://xerxes.calstate.edu

48.

EBSCO HOST(http://web.ebscohost.com)

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.25 No.3

An Exploratory Study for the Development and Application of a Questionnaire of Creative Home Environment

Abstract

Reference