A Development of Tasks and Scoring Rubrics for Assessing Primary School Students’ Creativity in Arts
Keywords:
assessment of art tasks, rubric scoring for creativity in art, generalizability theoryAbstract
The purposes of this research were to: 1) develop assessment tasks and rubrics for evaluating creativity in arts produced by elementary school students, and 2) validate these assessment tasks and scoring criteria using the generalizability theory. The sample consisted of 180 students. This study adopted a two-facet study with p x t x r design, which p, t, r denoted person, task, and rater, respectively. Specifically, there were students, tasks, and raters involved. The research tools included developed tasks for assessing creativity in arts and the scoring rubrics applied according to creativity theory’s Sternberg. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliability and reliability coefficients based on the generalizability theory.
The results indicated that: 1) the creativity assessment tasks (visual arts) and scoring rubrics demonstrated a content validity index of 1.0, with discrimination indices ranging from.46 to .66, and difficulty indices ranging from .36 to .46. The inter-rater reliability coefficient was .78. 2) Variance estimation revealed that the component associated with the student accounted for the largest variance (58.53 %), followed by the interaction between student and task (18.45%), and the interaction between student, task, and rater (16.10%). 3) G-coefficients estimation illustrated acceptable reliability coefficients for both relative and absolute decisions ( = .84,
= .83). The d-study suggested that, to attain acceptable precision of measuring creativity in art, students should complete three assessment tasks rated by two raters.
References
Alabbasi, A. M., Paek, S. H., Kim, D., & Cramond, B. (2022). What do educators need to know about the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: A comprehensive review. Front. Psychol. 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000385
Atilgan, H. (2013). Sample Size for Estimation of G and Phi Coefficient in Generalizability Theory. Eurasiam Journal of Educational Research, 51, 215-228.
Barabasch, A. (2020). Creativity and arts-based learning. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 26(1), 3-5.
Barbot, B., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing Creativity. The Open Education Journal, 2011, 4, 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1020643
Bart, W. M., Hokanson, B., & Can, I. (2017). An Investigation of the Factor Structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 515-528. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.2.0051
Changwa, P. & Tuksino, P. (2023). The comparison of reliability and validity of the raters' scoring criteria with different characteristics of raters of essay tests for measuring scientific competence of grade 9 students. Journal of education measurement Mahasarakham University, 29(1), 133-147. [in Thai]
Earnshaw, R. (2023). Introduction. In: Creativity in Art, Design and Technology. Springer Series on Cultural Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24869-6_1
Eisner, E. (1976). Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: Their Form and Functions in Educational Evaluation. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10(3), 135-156.
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). The Measurement of Interrater Agreement. In J. L. Fleiss, B. Levin & M. C. Paik (Eds.), Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). (pp. 598-626). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428.ch18
Kanli, E. (2020). Assessment of Creativity: Theories and Methods. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93971
Kongprapan, R. (2023). Development of reading ability assessment model for grade 1 students: an application of generalizability theory [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Naresuan University. [in Thai]
Krumm, G., Lemos, V., & Filippetti, V. A. (2014). Factor structure of the Torrance tests of creative thinking figural Form B in Spanish-speaking children: Measurement invariance across gender. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 72–81.
Matharach, S. & Tuksino, P. (2023). Quality comparison of scoring of essay tests to measure mathematics problem solving ability using different scoring designs: application of generalizability theory. Journal of education measurement Mahasarakham University, 29(1), 274-290. [in Thai]
McCaffrey, D.F., Oliveri, M.E. and Holtzman, S. (2018), A Generalizability Theory Study to Examine Sources of Score Variance in Third-Party Evaluations Used in Decision-Making for Graduate School Admissions. ETS Research Report Series, 2018,1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12225
McTighe, J. (2015, April). What is a Performance Task? (Part 1). https://blog.performancetask.com/what-is-a-performance-task-part-1-9fa0d99ead3b
Metwaly, S. S., Noortgate, W., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Creativity. De Gruyter, 4(2), 238-275.
Nakorn, N. N. (2018). Methods for measuring and evaluating thinking based on real conditions. Bangkok: Santisiri Printing House. [in Thai].
Nathan, L. F. (2019). Creativity, the Arts, and the Future of Work. In Cook, J.W. (Eds). Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education (pp.283-310). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Pelowski, M., Ledar, H., & Tinio, P. P. L. (2017). Creativity in the Visual Arts. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu, & J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity across domains (pp. 80–109). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.006
Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From Potential to Realization (pp. 153-167). American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10692-009
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Sanguanwai, C. & Kanjanawasee, S. (2016). Comparison of test reliability for measuring mathematics creative problem solving ability: an application of generalizability theory. OJED, 11(4), 743-76. [in Thai]
Sithajan, B. (2018). Guideline for art instruction bases on STREAM education enchaning creative process for the fifth graders. Veridian E-Journal Silpakorn University, 11(2), 763-780. [in Thai].
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The Assessment of Creativity: An Investment-Based Approach, Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652925
St-Onge, C., Frenette, E., Côté, D. J., & Champlain, A. D. (2014). Multiple tutorial-based assessments: a generalizability study. BMC Med Educ, 14, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-30
Thepsen, w. & Chompuwiset, P. (2023). The construction of a mathematical reasoning abilities test on fractions literacy for primary 6 students of Udon Thani primary education service area office 3 by application. MBU Roi Et Journal of Global Education Review, 3(3), 37-50. [in Thai].
Vinther, B. (2021, September 22). Creativity in art: the ultimate overview to understanding the foundation of your art. https://www.thepointlessartist.com/post/creativity-in-art-the-ultimate-overview
Wancham, K., & Tangdhanakanond, K. (2023). Development of The Double Layer Scoring Rubric for Scoring Physics Problem-Solving Performance. Journal of Graduate Studies Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, 17(1), 16-31. [in Thai]
Whitney, D. R. & Sabers, D. L. (1970). Improving Essay Examinations III, Use of Item Analysis, Technical Bulletin II, (Mimeographed). Iowa City: University Evaluation and Examination Service.
World economic forum. (2020). The future of jobs reports2020. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020.
World economic forum. (2023). The future of jobs reports 2023: insight report. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023.
Zhang, L. F. & Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Revisiting the Investment Theory of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 229-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595974
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Kasetsart Educational Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความทุกบทความเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารคณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ วิทยาเขตบางเขน
วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ปริทัศน์ (Kasetsart Educational Review)
