The Evaluation of Creative
Works of Students of Art Speciality
Aleksandra Slahova, Ilze Volonte, Maris Cacka, Jolanta Savvina, Baiba
Valpetere
Department of Art, Daugavpils University,
Latvia
ABSTRACT
The evaluation of students’ creative works of art
speciality is a major issue. Art pedagogy has always put a question how and
according to which criteria the evaluation of creative works can take place.
While presenting
the evaluation of pedagogical work at Daugavpils University, in Collage of Art
“Saules School” and in other educational establishments, we need to conclude
that the evaluation of students’ creative work takes place as viewed by the
individual educator who sometimes can not be understood.
This problem arises because some educators do not see
the significant difference between creativity and innovative work.
By evaluating pedagogical
and psychological literature we can conclude that many authors understand
creative work and creativity differently. Pedagogical practice indicates that
there is significant amount of literature on academic and creative works.
It is substantially to
study students’ opinions about their intentions, because more often the teacher
by observing the piece of art gives a remark: “This work of art is not good”.
Such evaluation prevents the desire of a student to
participate in a creative process again. At the worst the evaluation might
cause a negative attitude towards the courses of study and provoke a
disinclination to participate in courses. In this aspect a table with the most
significant criteria for the evaluation of academic creative works had been
worked out. There are present the scale of evaluation of creative works in this
article.
INTRODUCTION
The
evaluation of creative works is dependent on how effectively the process of
teaching and learning itself is organized.
As a result of a wrong attitude towards the
evaluation the educator can lessen ones creative abilities. More often the
attention is concentrated only on the result of action ignoring a creative
process, without a clear understanding of the content of a creative work.
Having analyzed the correspondence between the evaluation of pedagogical action and the model of the evaluation of teaching and learning within the context of a humanistic paradigm, some shortcomings of the evaluation of art works are to be singled out:
l
Evaluation is
orientated towards the pedagogue’s comfort, not towards assistance to pupils.
l
The process of
creative activity is not evaluated (the result is mainly evaluated).
l
The evaluation
criteria are not worked out. So the control and evaluation is of little
effectiveness and the result of evaluation does not reflect the real situation.
l
Students’ stress and
a fear of evaluation lessen the quality of evaluation.
The
most important function of any control is a possibility to obtain information
about the process of the acquisition of knowledge, skills and abilities as well
as about the development of students’ abilities to devote themselves to
cognitive and creative activity. Therefore the following principles of the
evaluation must be followed in the process of teaching and learning:
1.Evaluation is a continuous
process of information search to judge and to make decisions about the
effectiveness of students’ and pedagogues’ work.
2.Evaluation must be fair to all and evaluation
must assist students to realize their growth.
3.The criteria for evaluation must be
understandable. The substantiation of evaluation must be accessible and
understandable. A pedagogue cannot evaluate something that is not possible to
teach.
4.Evaluation must be a positive contribution
towards studies and the development of personality. To evaluate the process of
work is as essential as to evaluate the result. It is extremely important to
evaluate the students’ achievements, knowledge, comprehension, abilities and
attitudes.
5.Evaluation must correspond with the achievements of teaching and learning as in the curriculum.
In connection with this the aim of the
research is set: to work out and approve experimentally the criteria of the
evaluation of creative works of the students majoring in art basing on diverse
features of academic works of art on one side and creative works on the other
side.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION OF CREATIVE WORKS
Monitoring
and evaluation of knowledge, skills and abilities is indispensable to a
teaching and leaning process and is also one of the major tasks. Success
in teaching and learning process depends on a right stance on the evaluation of
knowledge (Amonashvili, 1995, pp. 364-371; Кlarin,
1994, p. 101; Rogers, 1994, p. 351 Albrehta, 2001, p. 158).
Key aspects of the evaluation
plan that must be tailored include the questions the evaluation is to answer, the
methods and procedures to be used in answering those questions, and the nature of
the evaluator-stakeholder relationship (Peter H. Rossi, Mark W. Lipsey, Howard
E. Freeman, 2004, p.61).
Evaluation is connected with the
aims of teaching and learning. It is essential to remember that evaluation is
not to ascertain the result, but to perfect teaching and learning. The process
of teaching and learning is considered to be successful if students acquire
abilities how to put knowledge into practice. Testing of the results of
teaching and learning is necessary to make sure whether students have
understood properly the notions, laws and regularities explained by the
pedagogue, whether they have acquired and grasped the material overall.
The evaluation of the results of
teaching and learning in orientated towards the improvement in results. That is
why it is necessary to take into consideration the initial level of cognitive
activity of each student to organize the process of acquisition (Krisko, 1999,
p. 318; Talizina, 1998, p. 136).
Evaluation is often understood
as giving a mark, but it is not the only way of evaluation. In pedagogy two
types of evaluation have been distinguished: assessment and appreciation.
Assessment by giving a mark is the
determination of the achieved result. Its basic function is to determine the
changes in knowledge, abilities and mutual relationships, to make a comparison
of the set aim and the achieved result. Assessment includes self – assessment,
the assessment of the others and the assessment of a pedagogue (Shpona, 2001,
p. 100).
Appreciation is verbal and descriptive
evaluation. The aim of verbal evaluation is to improve, change and facilitate
the process of further teaching and learning.
The students often consider the
mark to be unjust because they do not know or do not understand the criteria of
assessment. It is very desirable to supplement assessment with appreciation.
Students very often consider appreciation more significant rather than
assessment by giving a mark (Grigule and Silova, 1998, pp. 35-37;
Melik-Pashayev and Novoyavlenskaya, p. 121; Eisner, 2002, p. 178). It is
necessary to note that such a combination of two types of evaluation of
creative works give the best results. The analysis of the experience of the
evaluation of students’ artworks at Department of Art Daugavpils University
testify to it.
The analysis of scientific literature (Renge, 1999, p. 73) and the experience of creative activity allow to ascertain that two types of artworks exist:
Type 1
- artistic works that are designed according to a certain plan (mainly academic
artistic works) and that stimulate creative abilities of a
student. The student demonstrates particular abilities in the perception
of a task, the composition and the stylistic solution. This type corresponds
with the stage of the developing stage of creative activity.
Type 2 – works that are created as if out the artist’s will. At the same time these works are also the expression of the artist’s nature. These are the works of art that are created without the intention of the author. The artist might be unaware of this, revelation or inspiration can spring up simultaneously developing artistic masterhood.
Having analysed the development of creative activity
from the point of the assessment of a creative work as well as the experience
of pedagogical practice, we can acknowledge that only artistic works of type 1
are to be assessed in teaching and learning. In this case the students are
required to accomplish educational tasks particularly.
The creative fulfilment of academic tasks or an
innovative process viewed as characteristic to a person, which can be viewed in
creative attitude of students towards the content and a process of education,
which fosters a more effective acquisition of knowledge and skills. In this,
creative activity process students demonstrate their ability to use knowledge
in creative works (Cacka, Slahova, Volonte, Savvina, 2003). Creative activity
particularly is a process that characterizes the student’s inner readiness to
create works of art as well as develop creative abilities (Students, 1998, p. 244).
In this conception both action and behaviour unite in creative activity. The
action becomes creative if a student initiates this activity and deliberately
and with enthusiasm converts it into reality (Alijevs, 1998, p. 12; Chehlova,
2002, p. 30).
Creativity may not
only require motivation, but also generate it. Research has shown that when
creative students are taught and their achievements are then assessed in a way
that values their creative abilities, their academic performance improves
(Stenberg, Lubart, 1999, p. 9; Policastro, Gardner, 1999, p. 214).
It should be noted that any evaluation should be
connected with a specific task and a pedagogue should evaluate only the quality
of a particular work to let every student prove his/her abilities. The easiness
of the skills and abilities acquisition, tempo and stability as well as the
elements of creativeness testify to students’ abilities. Now we shall dwell
upon the features and characteristics of creative abilities of the students
majoring in art in order to analyse the problem of the evaluation of creative
activity more successfully.
2.
ABILITIES, THE CHARACTERISTIC OF CREATIVE ABILITIES
The
problem of abilities has been investigated in both pedagogy and
psychology. Abilities- an individual
psychological property of a person that constitutes a ground for successful
activity or a number of activities, irreducible to knowledge and skills but
conditioning the easiness and rapidity of the acquisition of new ways and modes
of activity (Zinchenko, 1996, p. 368).
Speaking
about abilities of a person, a gift for a particular type of activity- maths,
literature, art, sport etc. is understood. There are also such abilities that
are necessary to fulfil many types of activity, for instance, intellectual
abilities (Vorobjovs, 2000, p. 196). In connection with this, psychologists
distinguish two types of abilities: general and special. General abilities
usually manifest themselves in the process of the acquisition and fulfilment of
many and various modes of activity. Special abilities – the abilities that
manifest themselves in particular modes of activity and condition the
peculiarities of their acquisition and fulfilment. Special abilities have got
as many forms of manifestation as many are the modes of activity. Abilities are
professional manifestations and abilities can be artistic, pedagogical or
musical etc.
In
conformity with the set aim, we shall dwell upon the development of artistic
abilities that are necessary for the organization creative activity
more successfully.
The structure of artistic abilities is complicated.
Every concrete activity comprises the principal abilities and the auxiliary
abilities (Кuzin, 1999, p.
292).
The distinguishing characteristics of the principal artistic abilities are the following:
l
A characteristic of
creative imagination, perception and thinking. These provide the formation of
an original composition;
l
A characteristic of
visual memory. Visual memory particularly assists an artist to create and
picture a vivid artistic object;
l
Emotional attitude
towards the object that has been depicted;
l Willpower of an artist’s personality that provide the realization of creative intentions.
The distinguishing characteristics of the
auxiliary artistic abilities are the following:
l
A characteristic of
a visual analyzer to reflect the texture of the perceived objects: softness,
hardness and velvetiness;
l
Sensory-motor
qualities connected with the actions of the artist’s hand that provide quick
and precise acquisition of technical techniques.
The characteristics mentioned above are closely
interconnected and only a harmonious combination of them provides a high level
of the development of artistic abilities.
More successful and more early development of one
ability leaving behind another abilities constitutes new prerequisites for the
further development of the ability which more or less considerably and
extensively emerges in a particular person (Rubinshtein, 1999, p. 542).
Many psychologists (Druginin, 1999, p. 348; Кuzin, 1999, p. 294; Rubinshtein, 1999, p. 535; Vorobjovs, 2000, p. 201) acknowledge
that the development of artistic abilities is closely connected with the
strengthening an inclination or a gift for fine arts. As a rule an inclination
for any activity and an ability to perform this activity coincides and they
both develops further in parallel.
An artist who possesses a high level of the
development of abilities is considered to be a talented master.
The development of artistic abilities is possible in
the course of the development of the acquisition and practical application of
special knowledge, skills and acquired habits. So, having acquired the
knowledge and rules of aerial and linear perspective, chiaroscuro, rules of
floriculture, composition, having mastered the technical modes and skills of
using artistic materials, the students simultaneously evolve their inclinations
for fine arts.
One cannot identify abilities with knowledge, skills
and acquired habits. Studies, in the course of which students majoring in
artistic specialities acquire special knowledge, skills and habits, presuppose,
first of all, permanent work. Work, practical activity – the most important
preconditions and means of the development of artistic abilities (Yeryemkin,
2003, p. 267; Tjurin, 2001, p. 39).
Investigations
of scientific and methodical literature (Vygotsky, 1991; Druginin, 1999; Кuzin, 1999; Hibnere, 1998), the analysis of pedagogical
practice allows to determine concrete criteria to judge about students’ aptitude
for fine arts:
1.Ability to
render a similarity between the picture and the depicted object;
2.Ability to create an expressive
composition;
3.Ability to think
figuratively;
4.Ability to produce
various ideas;
5.Ability to depict
originally and non-standard;
6.Ability to contemplate,
compare and see the most typical and characteristic features;
7.Ability to perfect
decisions by adding details;
8.Ability to be able to
work;
9.Ability to convey
emotions in a work of art;
10.Ability to perceive the
set problem adequately;
11.Ability to use the
academic fundamentals of imagination;
12.Ability to use various
artistic techniques;
13.Ability create a work
of good technical accomplishment.
However,
pedagogical practice reveals that not all abilities become apparent in a
particular completed work. It depends on students’ aptitude and on a particular
aim of an assignment. From all the abilities mentioned above there are such
abilities that should definitely manifest themselves in any educational
artistic task, for instance:
l
ability to use the
academic fundamentals of imagination;
l
ability to create a
work of good technical accomplishment;
l
ability to depict
originally and non-standard
l
and others.
The development of all the abilities mentioned above leads to the perfection of creative abilities. It in its turn has a beneficial influence on the activation of a creative process. Between creative abilities and a creative process there exist interconnections.
Scientists
started to seek common characteristics of all kinds of a creative process as a
result of attempts to develop a general theory of a creative process and
creative abilities (Izard, 2000, p. 136; Landau, 2002, p. 25; Fontana, 1998, p.
115; Volkov, 1999, p. 208; Rozet, 1999, p. 539; Gardener, 1994, p. 276;
Martindale, 1999, p. 138; Lubart, 1999, p. 141). It has been acknowledged more
often that a process that constitutes the basis for all kinds of creative works
is the same: a combination of elements with the purpose to gain a new quality
and, afterwards, to search for the revelation and the selection of
“significant” combinations. The difference is reduced to the difference in an
idea. Now we shall elaborate on the analysis of some conceptions in this
direction.
A widespread
theory of a threefold process of creative work exists in psychology. That is
expounded in A.Vorobjev’s work (2000, p. 144):
a preparatory stage, a corrective stage and an approbation stage.
Many scientists (Landau, 2002, p. 25; Fontana, 1998, p. 115; Martindale, 1999, p. 138) distinguishes four stages of a creative process: preparation, incubation, inspiration and verification.
Creative process has been substantiated in N. Vishnyakova’s work (1995, p. 158) where she depicts modelling and describes a creative process comprising five stages of creative abilities:
1.A creative act –
presupposes the emergence of an idea and actualization of this idea;
2.A creative informative
field – information apprehension and processing proceeding to the formation of
a new model;
3.A creative strategic
process – searching, apprehension and modelling and actualisation of a
strategy;
4.Creative technologies –
a search for a tactic and the up building of the system of innovative
technologies;
5.A creative result – the enforcement of results.
Such
modelling is more complete and reveals more precisely the essence of a creative
process. The analysis of pedagogical experience in work with students majoring
in art specialities approves the model of the development of a creative process
proposed by Vishnyakova.
Thus,
when in the course of the organization of the process of teaching and learning
all the conditions that facilitate the development of creative abilities are
taken into consideration, the students’ creative activity will develop, improve
and gradually proceed to a further stage, that is, a creative attitude of a
person and the willingness to be engaged in creative activity independently.
3.
THE GROUNDS OF THE EVALUATION OF ARTWORKS
The analysis of pedagogical literature confirms that
the evaluation and the diagnostics of a person’s creative potential remains an
extremely difficult task (Bogoyavlenskaya, 2002; Chehlova, 2002; Talizina, 1999; Tjurin, 2001; Vishnyakova, 1995). As well as
the analysis of pedagogical practice of visual art reveals that each pedagogue
has got his/her own principles of assessment. This is the reason why the
students are assessed differently by different tutors and get different marks
for the same accomplished assignment.
The aims of teaching condition a
particular programme of the types of cognitive abilities in each course of
study and each its part. The aims of teaching comprises either the system of
assignments that are to be accomplished in a particular course of study or the
system of cognitive and creative abilities corresponding to these tasks. The
aims of teaching give an answer to a question: what types of activity (what
abilities) testify to the acquisition of knowledge. Thus, it is naturally to
presume that not only special abilities that are specific for a particular
course of study should be controlled, but also creative techniques of the
accomplishment of a task. Control presupposes the acquirement of differential
markers of each of the criteria.
At Department of Art Daugavpils
University it was decided to compile the system of specially selected criteria
(abilities) that need expertise and reflect the aims of teaching all courses of
art most of all. Control of creative activity without these criteria cannot be
substantiated.
48 teachers of art from different regions of Latvia
were asked to distinguish the most significant abilities to accomplish an
artistic task out of the 13 abilities (see the second subchapter of the paper).
Every ability was awarded points on a 5-point scale. (5 points for the most
significant ability).
The analysis of
the results allowed to distinguish five the most significant abilities:
1.Creative approach (originality) (98%);
2.The solution to a
composition (95%);
3.The use of the academic
fundamentals (colour scheme / the graphic solution) (92 %);
4.The quality of technical
accomplishment (85%);
5.The adequate perception
of an assignment (81%).
It should be noted that the abilities distinguished
coincide with the five levels of the development of a creative process (see a
model proposed by Vishnyakova):
1.The emergence of an idea
- the adequate perception of an assignment;
2.Information apprehension
and processing – the use of the academic fundamentals;
3.Searching, apprehension
and modelling – the solution to a composition;
4.The creation of the
system of innovative technologies – the quality of technical accomplishment;
5.The enforcement of
results – a creative approach (originality).
These abilities are regarded as the criteria for the
evaluation of creative works and are included in Table 1.
The table below had been worked out by M. Kopeikin, (a Dean at the International Institute of Applied Psychology in Riga) and supplemented by a Professor A. Slahova.
Table 1. The
evaluation of creative works
|
Nr. |
The
student’s name, surname |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
|
1 |
Janis |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
2 |
Madara |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
|
|
|
The adequate perception of
an assignment |
The solution to a composition |
The solution to colour
scheme / the graphic solution |
The quality of technical
accomplishment |
A creative approach
(originality) |
|
Deciphering
of figures:
0 – complete
incongruity;
1 – incomplete congruity;
2 – complete congruity.
Evaluating creative works 2 points are
scored for the congruity of each criterion, 1 point is scored for
incomplete congruity, 0 – complete incongruity. Total
– 10 possible points. If the total score of points is less than 4, the work is
not tested.
In Figure 1 work of student Elena Rudakova is shown.
Figure 1.
Drawing is appreciated by the following
criteria:
l
Application of rules
of perspective construction – 2;
l
The solution to a
composition – 1 (Concerning a composition, the composite decision would be
better, if subjects of a still-life have been moved a little more to the
right);
l
The graphic solution
– 2;
l
The quality of
technical accomplishment –2;
l
A creative approach
– 2.
Total
– 9
points.
Figure 2.
In the figure 2 you can see the photo of a process of drawing of a
girl’s portrait, and in the figure 3 the drawn portrait of this girl by the
student Galina Jansone is shown. The executed portrait is appreciated by the
following criteria:
l
Similarity to the
model – 2;
l
Application of rules
of perspective construction – 2;
l
The solution to a
composition – 2;
l
The quality of
technical accomplishment –1;
l
A creative approach
– 2.
Total
– 9 points.
Figure 3.
Evaluation and control should be understandable explained carefully to
the students who should fully understand the criteria for evaluation of their
works. The students probably might form their self-assessment basing on these
criteria.
78% of 52
students questioned acknowledge the necessity to evaluate creative works and
fully approves of the evaluation criteria mentioned above and substantiate it
like that:
l
It is possible to
evaluate the students’ abilities more fully.
l
The evaluation is
objective.
l
The evaluation
according to these criteria can be substantiated, the evaluation is fair.
l It is possible to find out something more about the work, to focus on shortcomings.
Thus, the problem of scientifically approved norms
of marking is topical. We cannot neglect this problem.
SUMMARY
We have not
elaborated on all the problems connected with scientific basis for assessment
and evaluation of creative activity in education. It is clear though that the
evaluation in any course of study must be the evaluation of the acquisition of
all levels of expertise, special abilities and habits characteristic of a
particular course of study.
Creativity develops when a personality is given full
freedom to express thoughts and feelings. A creative personality can dare
engage in ambiguous situations irrespective of fear, search for new ways, find
new aspects in something that is familiar and congenial creating new emotional
experience. Each of us possess these abilities to a higher or a lesser degree,
but not each of us dares realize them because of a fear of failure or a
possibility to remain unaccepted in the society (Landau, 2002, p. 23).
So further investigations will be conducted into an
extensive analysis of the system proposed and its significance in teaching and
learning and new ways of the perfection of this system will be searched.
REFERENCES
Albrehta,
Dz. (2001). Didactics. Riga: RaKa.
Alijevs, R. (1998). School of development of creative ability. Riga: RaKa.
Alijevs, R. (1999). Creativity of pupils of high school in training. Riga: Raka.
Amonashvili, S.A. (1995). The contemplation on the humane pedagogy.
Moskow: Publishing House “Shalva Amonashvili”.
Bogoyavlenskaya, D. (2002). Psychology of creative ability. Moskow: Akademiya.
Cacka, M., Slahova, A.,
Volonte, I., Savvina, J. (2003). Interest from creative
activity to creativity. 6th
International Conference and Exhibition “Generative Art 2003” – 10-13
December, 2003, Milan, Italy, http://www.generativeart.com/papersGA2003/b20.htm
Chehlova, Z. (2002). Сognitive activity in education. Riga:
RaKa.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1999). Implications of a systems perspective
for the study of creativity. Handbook of Creativity, Ed. by Robert J.
Sternberg, Cambridge University Press, pp. 297-312.
Druginin, V.N. (1999). Psychology of general abilities.
Sankt-Peterburg: Publishing House “Peter Com”
Fontana, David (1988). Psychology for teachers. Second edition.
Printed in Hong Kong.
Gardener, Howard (1994). The arts and human development. New
York: A Wiley – Intersiencs publication.
Geivin, H. (2003). The essence of cognitive psychology (Transl.
from English). Sankt-Peterburg: Piter.
Grigule, L. and Silova, I. (Eds.). (1998). We study to cooperate.
Riga: Macibu
gramata.
Hibnere, V. (1998). Art activity of children. Rīga: RaKa.
Кlarin, М.V. (1994). Innovations in world pedagogics.
Moskow: Arena.
Krisko, V. (1999). Psychology and pedagogy in schemes and tables.
Minsk: Harvest.
Kuzin, V.S. (1999). Psychology. Моskow:
Аgar.
Landau, E. (2002). Endowments demands courage (transl. from
German). Моskow: Акаdemiya.
Lubart, Todd I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. Handbook of
Creativity, Ed. by Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge University Press, pp.
339-350.
Melik-Pashayev, А.А. and Novoyavlenskaya, Z.N. (1995). Steps
to creativity. Moskow: Iskusstvo v shkole.
Mey, Р. (1995). Courage to create. A sketch of
psychology of creativity (transl. from English). Ljvov: Iniciativa.
Nickerson, Raymond S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. Handbook of
Creativity, Ed. by Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge University Press, pp.
392-430.
Osho (2002). Creativity. Unleashing the forces within (transl.
from English). Sankt-Peterburg: Vesj.
Policastro, Emma and Gardner, Howard (1999). From case
studies to Robust generalizations: An approach to the study of creativity / Handbook
of Creativity. Ed. by Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 213-225.
Zinchenko, V.P (Ed.)(1996).
Glossary of psychology. Moskow: Pedagogika-Press.
Zogla, I. (2001). Theoretical bases of didactics. Riga: RaKa.
Blinken, A. ed. (2000). Glossary of pedagogical terms. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC.
Renge, V. (1999). Psychology. Psychology theory of person. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC.
Rossi, Peter H., Lipsey Mark w., Freeman, Howard E. (2004). Evaluation:
A systematic Approach. Seventh edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi.
Rogers, Carl R. (1994). On becoming a person. A therapist’s view of
psychotherapy (transl. from English). Moscow: Progress, Univers.
Rozet, I.М. (1999). Theoretical
concepts of imagination. Psychology of Art Creativity, Ed. by K.V.
Selchyonok, Мinsk: Harverst, pp. 511-568.
Rubinshtein, S.L. (1999). Basics of general psychology. Sankt-Peterburg:
Piter.
Skuinya, V. (Ed.). (2000). Glossary of pedagogical terms. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC.
Shpona, A. (2001). Theory and methodology of upbringing. Riga:
RaKa.
Stenberg, Robert J. and Lubart, Todd.I. (1999). The
concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms/ Handbook of Creativity.
Ed. by Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-16.
Students, J. (1998). General pedagogy, Part II. Riga: RaKa.
Talizina, N.F. (1999). Educational psychology. Moskow: Akademiya.
Tjurin, P. (2001). Introduction in psychology of design creativity.
Riga:
JUMI.
Vishnyakova, N. (1995). Creative psychology. Psychology of creative learning. Minsk.
Volkov, N. (1999). Creativity of
the artist, process of the image and perception of the image. Psychology of
Art Creativity, Ed. by K.V.
Selchyonok, Мinsk: Harverst, pp. 191-241.
Vorobjovs, A. (2000). General psychology. Riga: Izglitibas soli.
Vygotsky, L.S. [1991]. Imagination and creativity of children.
Moscow: Prosvescheniue.
Yeryemkin,
А. (2003). School of endowments. Secret of a birth of geniuses.
Мoskow: АiF Print.