PL EN


2017 | 8 | 2 | 93-101
Article title

Correlation between Psychomotor Skills and Creativity among Secondary School Students and Future Teachers

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The falling level of manual skills of the young generation is one of issues in the 21st century. The existing society asks for creative individuals who can work independently. On the other hand, the manually skilled ones are needed too. The core question of our research was to find out whether the individuals who score high on the test of creativity are at the same time manually skilled. In our opinion, it is important to be creative and manually skilful at once to become successful in these days. To ascertain the relationship between creativity and the level of manual skills, a ran-dom sample was selected from children from a secondary school and students of pedagogy. The presented research deals with research regarding levels of creativity and manual skills at secondary schools, that means in the Czech Republic kids from 10 to 14 years old, and at the faculty of education of teachers-to-be. Readers are acquainted with results of evaluating the students of teaching and the pupils/learners at secondary schools from the point of creative abilities in relation with the level of their manual skills. There was used the Urban´s test of creative thinking to test creativity, the level of psychomotor skills was tested using Testing batteries for psychomotor skills, which was made for the research purpose by as. Prof. Honzíková. Those research results as well as the unique testing battery for psychomotor skills are introduced.
Year
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
93-101
Physical description
Dates
published
2017
Contributors
  • University of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Faculty of Education, Czech Republic
author
  • University of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Faculty of Education, Czech Republic
References
  • Amabile, T. (1992). Creativity in Context. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Amabile, T. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review, September–October. Retrived from: https://hbr.org/1998/09/how-to-kill-creativity (3.2017).
  • Alimardani, K., Soheili, J. (2014). On the Effect of Physical Attributes of Classroom Environment on the Creativity of Educable Mentally Retarded Students. International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning, 24 (1), 9–14.
  • Brady, R., Auslen, L. (2012). Study Reveals Global Creativity Gap. San Jose: Adobe Systems Incorporated.
  • Chráska, M. (2013). Úvod do výzkumu v pedagogice. [Introduction to Research in Pedagogy]. Olomouc: UPOL.
  • Cropley, D., Kaufman, J., Cropley, A. (2011). Measuring Creativity for Innovation Management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6 (3), 60–81.
  • Honzíková, J., Krotký, J. (2014). Nonverbal Creativity in Students of Pedagogy for Technical Education at Elementary Schools. American International Journal Contemporary Research, 4 (6), 48–54.
  • Honzíková, J., Novotný, J. (2014). Problematika výzkumu neverbální tvořivosti. [Problems of Research on Nonverbal Creativity]. Paidagogos, 8 (1), 39–51.
  • Honzíková, J., Sojková, M. (2014). Tvůrčí technické dovednosti. [Creative Technical Skills]. Pilsen: ZĈU.
  • Janovec, J., Honzíková, J. (2013). Conceptual and Methodical Procedures of Psychomotor Learning. Computer and Information Science, 6 (1), 15–32.
  • Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., Neubauer, A.C. (2013). The Relationship between Intelligence and Creativity: New Support for the Threshold Hypothesis by Means of Empirical Breakpoint Detection. Intelligence, 41 (4), 212–221. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003.
  • Jurĉová, M. (2009). Tvorivosť v každodennom živote a vo výskume. [Creativity in Daily Life and in Research]. Bratislava: Iris.
  • Kárpáti, A., Gyebnár, V. (1994). A TCT/DP Rajzos kreatív gondolkodás teszt. [Test of Creative Thinking]. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.
  • Krotký, J., Korytář, J., Simbartl, P. (2016). Interdisciplinary Approach to Technical Education. Edukacja – Technika – Informatyka, 17 (3), 82–88.
  • Krotký, J., Simbartl, P. (2016). Metody evaluace fyzických výrobků ņáků z hlediska projevené kreativity a dalších vybraných parametrů. [Methods of evaluating physical products of pupils from the point of creativity view and other selected parameters]. Journal of Technology And Information Education, 8 (2), 151–160.
  • Lokńová, I., Lokńa, J. (2001). Teória a prax tvorivého vyučovania. [Theory and Pracice of Creative Teaching]. Preńov: ManaCon.
  • Mastracci, A. (2012). Échange de pratiques portant sur l’évaluation des apprentissages de la créativité en conception graphique [Possibilities ofevaluation of student creativity in graphic design]. Montreal: Cégep Marie-Victorin.
  • Reis, S., Renzuli, J. (2004). The Assessment of Creative Product in Programs for Gifted and Talented Students, Program Evaluation in Gifted Education. Thousand Oaks: Corwin press, A sage Publication Comp.
  • Scott, G., Leritz, L., Mumford, M. (2017). The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 361–388.
  • Simpson, E. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington D.C.: Gryphon House.
  • Stefanidis, D., Korndorffer, J., Black, W. (2005). Psychomotor Testing Predicts Rate of Skill Acquisition for Proficiency-based Laparoscopic Skills Training. Surgery, 140 (2), 252–262.
  • Urban, K. (2005). Assessing Creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking Drawing Production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6 (2), 272–280.
  • Urban, K., Jellen, H., Kováĉ, T. (2003). Urbanův figurální test tvořivého myšlení (TSD – Z), [Urban’s figural test of creative thinking (TSD – Z)]. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostika.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-11b3eab3-e732-4b2e-b546-c3592d277f02
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.