Creativity and Drawing Abilities of Chinese Students in Hong Kong: Is There a Connection?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recognizing that arts education is important in facilitating learning and in enhancing creativity in students, recent education reform in Hong Kong has sought to promote arts education and efforts to encourage creative expression through different art forms. Among different modes of creative arts expression, drawing has been suggested as the best choice for allowing creative expression by students with high ability in visual arts. Therefore, the connection between students' drawing and creativity warranted investigation.\n \nAims: This study explored the drawing abilities and creativity of Chinese students in Hong Kong based on their drawing performance, and examined their connection in relation to students' self-perceived artistic characteristics and involvement in drawing activities.\n \nSample: 105 Hong Kong Chinese primary and secondary school students, nominated by their schools to participate in the gifted programs of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, participated voluntarily in this study.\n \nMethod: Students completed two drawing tasks adapted from Clark's Drawing Abilities Test and a self-report questionnaire that included the Artistic Characteristics Scale of the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students and the Drawing Activity Checklist. The drawings were rated on students' drawing abilities and creativity by three Chinese visual artists as expert judges.\n \nResults: Judges agreed more on their ratings on students' drawing abilities than on students' creativity. Judged drawing abilities and creativity were found to be moderately but significantly correlated. While judged drawing abilities were found to correlate significantly with students' self-reported artistic characteristics and drawing activities, judged creativity was found to correlate minimally with these variables.\n \nConclusion: This study provided supportive evidence on the connection between drawing abilities and creativity. The findings also suggested that creativity enhancement via increasing participation in drawing activities and heightening awareness of artistic characteristics could be mediated by increased drawing abilities.\n \n背景：近年香港認識到藝術教育對促進學生學習和提升創造力的重要性，故教育改革提出應重視藝術教育和鼓勵以各種藝術方式表達創意。繪畫被認為最適合具視覺藝術才能學生表達創意的方法；因此，學生繪畫能力與創造力的關係值得探討。\n \n目的：根據香港華人學生所畫的圖畫，評定其繪畫能力和創造力，並檢視兩者與學生的藝術特質及參與繪畫活動的關係。\n \n研究對象： 105 名由學校推薦參加香港中文大學資優課程的中小學生。\n \n研究方法： 學生繪畫兩幅採自Clark's Drawing Abilities Test 的項目和填答一份問卷。問卷包括評定高能力學生行為特質的藝術特質量表和學生參與繪畫活動量表。學生繪畫的圖畫由三位華人視覺藝術家作評分。\n \n研究結果：專家們對學生畫畫能力的評分比給學生創造力的評分較一致。學生繪畫能力得分和創造力得分有顯著性中等相關。繪畫能力得分也與自我評定藝術特質和參與繪畫活動有顯著性相關，但創造力得分即與上述兩個變項只有極微的相關性。\n \n總結：本研究為繪畫能力和創造力的相關性提供具支援性的數據，提出多參與繪畫活動和提高藝術特質意識，將有助提高繪畫能力，從而有助提升創造力。 [Copyright of New Horizons: The Journal of Education, Hong Kong Teachers' Associationl is the property of Hong Kong Teachers' Association at http://www.hkta1934.org.hk/]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".