Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance
Author(s): Pamela Tierney and Steven M. Farmer
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6 (Dec., 2002), pp. 1137-1148
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069429
Monday, July 27, 2009
Primer on Self-efficacy
Title: Self-efficacy. By: Bandura, Albert, Harvard Mental Health Letter, 10575022, Mar97, Vol. 13, Issue 9
Database: Academic Search PremierHTML Full TextSELF-EFFICACY
Section: INSIGHTS
To realize their aims, people try to exercise control over the events that affect their lives. They have a stronger incentive to act if they believe that control is possible -- that their actions will be effective. Perceived self-efficacy, or a belief in one's personal capabilities, regulates human functioning in four mayor ways:
Cognitive: People with high self-efficacy are more likely to have high aspirations, take long views, think soundly, set themselves difficult challenges, and commit themselves firmly to meeting those challenges. They guide their actions by visualizing successful outcomes instead of dwelling on personal deficiencies or ways in which things might go wrong.
Motivational: People motivate themselves by forming beliefs about what they can do, anticipating likely outcomes, setting goals, and planning courses of action. Their motivation will be stronger if they believe they can attain their goals and adjust them based on their progress. Self-efficacy beliefs determine the goals people set for themselves, how much effort they expend, how long they persevere, and how resilient they are in the face of failures and setbacks.
Mood or Affect: How much stress or depression people experi`ence in threatening or difficult situations depends largely on how well they think they can cope. Efficacy beliefs regulate emotional states in several ways: (1) People who believe they can manage threats are less distressed by them; those who lack self-efficacy are more likely to magnify risks. (2) People with high self-efficacy lower their stress and anxiety by acting in ways that make the environment less threatening. (3) People with high coping capacities have better control over disturbing thoughts. Research shows that what causes distress is not the sheer frequency of the thoughts but the inability to turn them off. People with high self-efficacy are able to relax, divert their attention, calm themselves, and seek support from friends, family, and others. For someone who is confident of getting relief in these ways, anxiety and sadness are easier to tolerate.
(4) Furthermore, low self-efficacy can lead directly to depression in at least three ways: (a) A person who feels unable to prevent recurrent depressive thoughts or dejected rumination is more likely to have repeated episodes of depression. (b) Low self-efficacy causes the defeat of one's hopes, and the resulting low mood further weakens self-efficacy, creating a vicious downward cycle. (c) People with low self-efficacy do not develop the satisfying social relationships that make chronic stress easier to bear. The resulting sense of social inefficacy not only contributes directly to depression but further reduces social support.
People with high self-efficacy, by contrast, attract support from others, which reinforces their ability to cope. Others supply incentives and resources, provide good examples to model, and demonstrate the value of perseverance.
People who believe in their efficacy create benign environments in which they exercise some control. The effect on their choice of careers and the course of their lives is profound. Studies show that they consider more career options, show greater interest in them, prepare themselves better for different careers, and persevere more in their chosen pursuits.
Optimism is necessary for accomplishment and a sense of well-being. In a world full of impediments, adversities, and frustrations, people with a robust sense of personal efficacy are more likely to succeed. To some they may seem unrealistic, but so called realists too often abandon difficult pursuits or become cynical about the prospects for change. Optimism about oneself is an adaptive bias, not a cognitive failing.
To sum up, people with a low sense of efficacy avoid difficult tasks. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to their goals. They turn inward on their self-doubts instead of thinking about how to perform successfully. When faced with difficult tasks, they dwell on obstacles, the consequences of failure, and their personal deficiencies. Failure makes them lose faith in themselves because they blame their own inadequacies. They slacken or give up in the face of difficulty, recover slowly from setbacks, and easily fall victim to stress and depression.
People with high perceived self-efficacy, by contrast, approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than threats to be avoided. They are deeply interested in what they do, set high goals, and sustain strong commitments. They concentrate on the task, not on themselves. They blame their failures on remediable ignorance, lack of skill, or insufficient effort. They redouble their effort in the face of obstacles and soon recover confidence after a setback. This outlook sustains motivation, reduces stress, and lowers any vulnerability to depression.
Psychological treatments work best when they provide not specific remedies for particular problems but tools for managing any situation that might arise. Treatment should equip people to take control of their lives and start a process of self-regulative change guided by a resilient sense of personal efficacy. There are four main ways to accomplish this:
(1) Experience of success or mastery in overcoming obstacles: The kind of success that makes a person stronger results from perseverance through difficulties and setbacks. A person who has only easy successes may be easily discouraged by failure.
(2) Social modeling: If you see people like yourself succeed, you are more likely to believe that you have the capacity to do so. Observing the failures of others instills doubts about one's own ability to master similar activities.
(3) Social persuasion: If people are persuaded to believe in themselves, they will exert more effort and increase their chances of success. But effective social persuaders do more to strengthen self-efficacy: they try to arrange things for others in ways that bring success and avoid placing them prematurely in situations where they are likely to fail.
(4) Reducing stress and depression, building physical strength, and learning how to interpret physical sensations: People rely on their physical and emotional states to judge their capabilities. They read tension, anxiety, and depression as signs of personal deficiency. In activities that require strength and stamina, they interpret fatigue and pain as indicators of low physical efficacy.
Here are some examples of the way self-efficacy works in psychological treatment:
Phobias: It is often assumed that phobias are mainly the result of anxiety. In this view, people with phobias avoid many situations and constrict their lives because they fear being overcome by a panic reaction or other catastrophe. But apparently a perceived lack of coping efficacy breeds anxiety, not the other way around. Studies have shown that low self-efficacy predicts variation in phobic behavior even when anxiety is removed, but anxiety does not predict phobic behavior when variation in self-efficacy is removed. This result has been corroborated for a wide variety of threats in a wide variety of situations.
Phobias can be treated by a method known as guided mastery. First the therapist models feared activities (shows the patient how to confront them). Then the task of overcoming fear is broken down into readily mastered small steps. At each stage, patients are asked to perform for a slightly longer time, doing only what is within their capacities. Most guided mastery treatments also try to alter maladaptive thinking. In the final phase, the therapist uses self-directed mastery experiences designed to confirm the patient's coping capacity. In this way even the most taxing or threatening activities become possible. Guided mastery works faster and more effectively than exposure alone in eliminating anxiety and phobias. Studies show that it reduces both subjective and physiological anxiety, transforms fearful attitudes, stops phobic ruminations and nightmares, and lowers high levels of stress hormones.
Physical Health: Efficacy beliefs affect physical health in at least two ways. First, a belief in the ability to cope with sources of stress reduces biological reactions that can impair immune function. Second, efficacy beliefs largely determine whether people consider changing their health habits and whether they succeed in making and maintaining the change. Perceived self-efficacy also helps to prevent existing disease from becoming worse. New case management systems based on self-regulation have been successful in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and improving the functioning of people with chronic illnesses.
Alcohol and Drug Abuse: In the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse, perceived self-regulatory capacity predicts not only who will relapse and how soon, but what the response to a relapse will be. People with a strong belief in their efficacy regard a slip as a temporary setback and redouble their efforts; those who distrust their capacity for self-regulation are more likely to give up and relapse permanently. Ratings of efficacy in various domains can be used to reveal areas in which substance abusers are vulnerable or treatments deficient.
~~~~~~~~
by Albert Bandura
Albert Bandura, Ph.D., is the David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University. He is the author of Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: Freeman 1997).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: from Harvard Mental Health Letter, Harvard Health Publications, Copyright 1997 by President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. Harvard authorizes you to view or download a single copy of the Harvard Content on EBSCOhost solely for your personal, noncommercial use if you include the following copyright notice: "Copyright, President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved" and other copyright and proprietary rights notices which were contained in the Harvard Content. Reproduction and/or redistribution of the Harvard Content is expressly prohibited. Any special rules for the use of other items provided on EBSCOhost may be included elsewhere within the site and are incorporated into these Terms and Conditions. The Harvard Content is protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. Title to the Harvard Content remains with President and Fellows, Harvard College. Any use of the Harvard Content not expressly permitted by these Terms and Conditions is a breach of these Terms and Conditions and may violate copyright, trademark, and other laws. Harvard Content and features are subject to change or termination without notice in the editorial discretion of Harvard. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to President and Fellows, Harvard College. If you violate any of these Terms and Conditions, your permission to use the Harvard Content automatically terminates and you must immediately destroy any copies you have made of any portion of the Harvard Content.MEDICAL DISCLAIMERThe information contained in this online site is intended to provide accurate and helpful health information for the general public. It is made available with the understanding that the author and publisher are not engaged in rendering medical, health, psychological, or any other kind of personal professional services on this site. The information should not be considered complete and does not cover all diseases, ailments, physical conditions or their treatment. It should not be used in place of a call or visit to a medical, health or other competent professional, who should be consulted before adopting any of the suggestions in this site or drawing inferences from it.The information about drugs contained on this site is general in nature. It does not cover all possible uses, actions, precautions, side effects, or interactions of the medicines mentioned, nor is the information intended as medical advice for individual problems or for making an evaluation as to the risks and benefits of taking a particular drug. The operator(s) of this site and the publisher specifically disclaim all responsibility for any liability, loss or risk, personal or otherwise, which is incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the material on this site.
Format and Delivery OptionsView:
Database: Academic Search PremierHTML Full TextSELF-EFFICACY
Section: INSIGHTS
To realize their aims, people try to exercise control over the events that affect their lives. They have a stronger incentive to act if they believe that control is possible -- that their actions will be effective. Perceived self-efficacy, or a belief in one's personal capabilities, regulates human functioning in four mayor ways:
Cognitive: People with high self-efficacy are more likely to have high aspirations, take long views, think soundly, set themselves difficult challenges, and commit themselves firmly to meeting those challenges. They guide their actions by visualizing successful outcomes instead of dwelling on personal deficiencies or ways in which things might go wrong.
Motivational: People motivate themselves by forming beliefs about what they can do, anticipating likely outcomes, setting goals, and planning courses of action. Their motivation will be stronger if they believe they can attain their goals and adjust them based on their progress. Self-efficacy beliefs determine the goals people set for themselves, how much effort they expend, how long they persevere, and how resilient they are in the face of failures and setbacks.
Mood or Affect: How much stress or depression people experi`ence in threatening or difficult situations depends largely on how well they think they can cope. Efficacy beliefs regulate emotional states in several ways: (1) People who believe they can manage threats are less distressed by them; those who lack self-efficacy are more likely to magnify risks. (2) People with high self-efficacy lower their stress and anxiety by acting in ways that make the environment less threatening. (3) People with high coping capacities have better control over disturbing thoughts. Research shows that what causes distress is not the sheer frequency of the thoughts but the inability to turn them off. People with high self-efficacy are able to relax, divert their attention, calm themselves, and seek support from friends, family, and others. For someone who is confident of getting relief in these ways, anxiety and sadness are easier to tolerate.
(4) Furthermore, low self-efficacy can lead directly to depression in at least three ways: (a) A person who feels unable to prevent recurrent depressive thoughts or dejected rumination is more likely to have repeated episodes of depression. (b) Low self-efficacy causes the defeat of one's hopes, and the resulting low mood further weakens self-efficacy, creating a vicious downward cycle. (c) People with low self-efficacy do not develop the satisfying social relationships that make chronic stress easier to bear. The resulting sense of social inefficacy not only contributes directly to depression but further reduces social support.
People with high self-efficacy, by contrast, attract support from others, which reinforces their ability to cope. Others supply incentives and resources, provide good examples to model, and demonstrate the value of perseverance.
People who believe in their efficacy create benign environments in which they exercise some control. The effect on their choice of careers and the course of their lives is profound. Studies show that they consider more career options, show greater interest in them, prepare themselves better for different careers, and persevere more in their chosen pursuits.
Optimism is necessary for accomplishment and a sense of well-being. In a world full of impediments, adversities, and frustrations, people with a robust sense of personal efficacy are more likely to succeed. To some they may seem unrealistic, but so called realists too often abandon difficult pursuits or become cynical about the prospects for change. Optimism about oneself is an adaptive bias, not a cognitive failing.
To sum up, people with a low sense of efficacy avoid difficult tasks. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to their goals. They turn inward on their self-doubts instead of thinking about how to perform successfully. When faced with difficult tasks, they dwell on obstacles, the consequences of failure, and their personal deficiencies. Failure makes them lose faith in themselves because they blame their own inadequacies. They slacken or give up in the face of difficulty, recover slowly from setbacks, and easily fall victim to stress and depression.
People with high perceived self-efficacy, by contrast, approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than threats to be avoided. They are deeply interested in what they do, set high goals, and sustain strong commitments. They concentrate on the task, not on themselves. They blame their failures on remediable ignorance, lack of skill, or insufficient effort. They redouble their effort in the face of obstacles and soon recover confidence after a setback. This outlook sustains motivation, reduces stress, and lowers any vulnerability to depression.
Psychological treatments work best when they provide not specific remedies for particular problems but tools for managing any situation that might arise. Treatment should equip people to take control of their lives and start a process of self-regulative change guided by a resilient sense of personal efficacy. There are four main ways to accomplish this:
(1) Experience of success or mastery in overcoming obstacles: The kind of success that makes a person stronger results from perseverance through difficulties and setbacks. A person who has only easy successes may be easily discouraged by failure.
(2) Social modeling: If you see people like yourself succeed, you are more likely to believe that you have the capacity to do so. Observing the failures of others instills doubts about one's own ability to master similar activities.
(3) Social persuasion: If people are persuaded to believe in themselves, they will exert more effort and increase their chances of success. But effective social persuaders do more to strengthen self-efficacy: they try to arrange things for others in ways that bring success and avoid placing them prematurely in situations where they are likely to fail.
(4) Reducing stress and depression, building physical strength, and learning how to interpret physical sensations: People rely on their physical and emotional states to judge their capabilities. They read tension, anxiety, and depression as signs of personal deficiency. In activities that require strength and stamina, they interpret fatigue and pain as indicators of low physical efficacy.
Here are some examples of the way self-efficacy works in psychological treatment:
Phobias: It is often assumed that phobias are mainly the result of anxiety. In this view, people with phobias avoid many situations and constrict their lives because they fear being overcome by a panic reaction or other catastrophe. But apparently a perceived lack of coping efficacy breeds anxiety, not the other way around. Studies have shown that low self-efficacy predicts variation in phobic behavior even when anxiety is removed, but anxiety does not predict phobic behavior when variation in self-efficacy is removed. This result has been corroborated for a wide variety of threats in a wide variety of situations.
Phobias can be treated by a method known as guided mastery. First the therapist models feared activities (shows the patient how to confront them). Then the task of overcoming fear is broken down into readily mastered small steps. At each stage, patients are asked to perform for a slightly longer time, doing only what is within their capacities. Most guided mastery treatments also try to alter maladaptive thinking. In the final phase, the therapist uses self-directed mastery experiences designed to confirm the patient's coping capacity. In this way even the most taxing or threatening activities become possible. Guided mastery works faster and more effectively than exposure alone in eliminating anxiety and phobias. Studies show that it reduces both subjective and physiological anxiety, transforms fearful attitudes, stops phobic ruminations and nightmares, and lowers high levels of stress hormones.
Physical Health: Efficacy beliefs affect physical health in at least two ways. First, a belief in the ability to cope with sources of stress reduces biological reactions that can impair immune function. Second, efficacy beliefs largely determine whether people consider changing their health habits and whether they succeed in making and maintaining the change. Perceived self-efficacy also helps to prevent existing disease from becoming worse. New case management systems based on self-regulation have been successful in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and improving the functioning of people with chronic illnesses.
Alcohol and Drug Abuse: In the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse, perceived self-regulatory capacity predicts not only who will relapse and how soon, but what the response to a relapse will be. People with a strong belief in their efficacy regard a slip as a temporary setback and redouble their efforts; those who distrust their capacity for self-regulation are more likely to give up and relapse permanently. Ratings of efficacy in various domains can be used to reveal areas in which substance abusers are vulnerable or treatments deficient.
~~~~~~~~
by Albert Bandura
Albert Bandura, Ph.D., is the David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University. He is the author of Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: Freeman 1997).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: from Harvard Mental Health Letter, Harvard Health Publications, Copyright 1997 by President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. Harvard authorizes you to view or download a single copy of the Harvard Content on EBSCOhost solely for your personal, noncommercial use if you include the following copyright notice: "Copyright, President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved" and other copyright and proprietary rights notices which were contained in the Harvard Content. Reproduction and/or redistribution of the Harvard Content is expressly prohibited. Any special rules for the use of other items provided on EBSCOhost may be included elsewhere within the site and are incorporated into these Terms and Conditions. The Harvard Content is protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. Title to the Harvard Content remains with President and Fellows, Harvard College. Any use of the Harvard Content not expressly permitted by these Terms and Conditions is a breach of these Terms and Conditions and may violate copyright, trademark, and other laws. Harvard Content and features are subject to change or termination without notice in the editorial discretion of Harvard. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to President and Fellows, Harvard College. If you violate any of these Terms and Conditions, your permission to use the Harvard Content automatically terminates and you must immediately destroy any copies you have made of any portion of the Harvard Content.MEDICAL DISCLAIMERThe information contained in this online site is intended to provide accurate and helpful health information for the general public. It is made available with the understanding that the author and publisher are not engaged in rendering medical, health, psychological, or any other kind of personal professional services on this site. The information should not be considered complete and does not cover all diseases, ailments, physical conditions or their treatment. It should not be used in place of a call or visit to a medical, health or other competent professional, who should be consulted before adopting any of the suggestions in this site or drawing inferences from it.The information about drugs contained on this site is general in nature. It does not cover all possible uses, actions, precautions, side effects, or interactions of the medicines mentioned, nor is the information intended as medical advice for individual problems or for making an evaluation as to the risks and benefits of taking a particular drug. The operator(s) of this site and the publisher specifically disclaim all responsibility for any liability, loss or risk, personal or otherwise, which is incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the material on this site.
Format and Delivery OptionsView:
Student's Self Report: What Metric?
On July 27th, 2009 Lisa Mills and Randy Finch met with Eric Main to discuss our research.
One of the key problems we discussed was the measurement of student response.
We are still engaged in the process of defining our research question and what exercise we will use for our research. But we are also asking what measures to use. Randy has a bias in favor of "indirect" measures, because issues of bias and subjectivity can be finessed. Consequently, Randy is inclined to use the 3 Question ("indirect") self report of creativity from Beghetto in 2006?
I am good at coming up with new ideas?
I have a lot of good ideas?
I have a good imagination?
Or should be use the self-efficacy questions posed originally by Bandura?
We could add our own questions to these (social-constructivist) instruments, that focus more on the individual.
Here is a review of how the Research Questions could be applied:
a) Students would self-report (i.e., answer the 3 above questions or the Bandura questions). The design of our research would be to have students self-report before and after the exercise.
b) Th next level of questions might be more objective but still in the nature of self-report: e.g., Are you able to find the COP of an existing work (before and after the exercise)? We could also examine what language the subjects use to describe the COP and the process of synthesizing the COP?
c) Students then could look at their before and after tests and compare their ability. In other words, students could write a narrative about their ability to distinguish theme before and after an exercise.
d) Can we add direct measures?
e.g., Test their ability to exclude something that doesn't belong (a scene that doesn't belong per the COP). If employing such measures injects too much subjectivity, could we measure the student's ability to apply COP? Even if the result itself isn't measured, we could ask the students to engage in the process of finding a COP and see HOW the students beahve. (e.g., Ask the students to create a meaning out of disparate elements. Then the measure would be whether they have a strategy for creating meaningful relationships between scenes, even if only meaningful TO THEM.)
Can we gather additional information which might not be a part of our central research question but could (later?) be analyzed?
For example: Can we track an exercise over time? It's tough to follow our students for a period of years. But could we follow our students over a year? It would be great to track students asking: "If you report enhanced creativity, when did the lightbulb finally go off?" On a related front: Should we ask the students to retrospectively think about creativity? "Before this exercise helped you to become creative?"
Should we try to separate out extrinsic sources of creativity (e.g., positive audience reaction) versus intrinsic sources (e.g., The statement of premise has meaning for me.).
How do we measure a student's self-report. What are we going to do to account for differences in self awareness? Is it enough to obtain a report of their intention? What about their self-report of confidence about being creative in the future?
How do these questions compare to asking for a student's report of what the audience experience will be?
Can we (indirectly) ask about their world view? (e.g., Who are your role models? What do you care about?) And can we track changes in these conceptual touchstones?
Are the student's prepared to risk more?
Beghetto, R. Creative Self-Efficacy: Correlates in Middle And Secondary Students, Creativity Research Journal, Vol 18, No. 4, 447-457, 2006.
One of the key problems we discussed was the measurement of student response.
We are still engaged in the process of defining our research question and what exercise we will use for our research. But we are also asking what measures to use. Randy has a bias in favor of "indirect" measures, because issues of bias and subjectivity can be finessed. Consequently, Randy is inclined to use the 3 Question ("indirect") self report of creativity from Beghetto in 2006?
I am good at coming up with new ideas?
I have a lot of good ideas?
I have a good imagination?
Or should be use the self-efficacy questions posed originally by Bandura?
We could add our own questions to these (social-constructivist) instruments, that focus more on the individual.
Here is a review of how the Research Questions could be applied:
a) Students would self-report (i.e., answer the 3 above questions or the Bandura questions). The design of our research would be to have students self-report before and after the exercise.
b) Th next level of questions might be more objective but still in the nature of self-report: e.g., Are you able to find the COP of an existing work (before and after the exercise)? We could also examine what language the subjects use to describe the COP and the process of synthesizing the COP?
c) Students then could look at their before and after tests and compare their ability. In other words, students could write a narrative about their ability to distinguish theme before and after an exercise.
d) Can we add direct measures?
e.g., Test their ability to exclude something that doesn't belong (a scene that doesn't belong per the COP). If employing such measures injects too much subjectivity, could we measure the student's ability to apply COP? Even if the result itself isn't measured, we could ask the students to engage in the process of finding a COP and see HOW the students beahve. (e.g., Ask the students to create a meaning out of disparate elements. Then the measure would be whether they have a strategy for creating meaningful relationships between scenes, even if only meaningful TO THEM.)
Can we gather additional information which might not be a part of our central research question but could (later?) be analyzed?
For example: Can we track an exercise over time? It's tough to follow our students for a period of years. But could we follow our students over a year? It would be great to track students asking: "If you report enhanced creativity, when did the lightbulb finally go off?" On a related front: Should we ask the students to retrospectively think about creativity? "Before this exercise helped you to become creative?"
Should we try to separate out extrinsic sources of creativity (e.g., positive audience reaction) versus intrinsic sources (e.g., The statement of premise has meaning for me.).
How do we measure a student's self-report. What are we going to do to account for differences in self awareness? Is it enough to obtain a report of their intention? What about their self-report of confidence about being creative in the future?
How do these questions compare to asking for a student's report of what the audience experience will be?
Can we (indirectly) ask about their world view? (e.g., Who are your role models? What do you care about?) And can we track changes in these conceptual touchstones?
Are the student's prepared to risk more?
Beghetto, R. Creative Self-Efficacy: Correlates in Middle And Secondary Students, Creativity Research Journal, Vol 18, No. 4, 447-457, 2006.
SOAP: Questions We Could Ask Our Students
SOAP
SOAPSTone (Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject, Tone) is an acronym for a series of questions that students must first ask themselves, and then answer, as they begin to plan their compositions.
For the purposes, of our study we might use student self-report measures on "Subject," "Occasion," and "Audience" v. "Purpose."
SOAPSTone (Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject, Tone) is an acronym for a series of questions that students must first ask themselves, and then answer, as they begin to plan their compositions.
For the purposes, of our study we might use student self-report measures on "Subject," "Occasion," and "Audience" v. "Purpose."
Friday, July 24, 2009
One Possible Idea for Study Design: Does Internalizing the Rationale for a Screenwriting Exercise Improve Feelings of Creativity?
A recent study (Hyungshim Jang, 2008) suggests that teachers will be more successful in promoting student motivation to perform tough tasks when they provide a rationale that explains the lesson's value, helps the student understand why the lesson is worth their effort, and most importantly why the lesson has use and personal meaning for the student.
In 2008 Hyungshim Jang presented a study of rationales (reasons for a particular exercise, provided by the teacher) and a student's motivation, engagement, and learning during learning activities. In Jang's study, one hundred thirty-six undergraduate students worked on a relatively uninteresting short lesson after either receiving or not receiving a rationale. Students who received the rationale showed greater interest, work ethic, and determination. (Hyungshim Jang, 2008).
Jang's study went on to test three alternative models to see if they could account for how the rationale produced benefits: Model 1) an identified regulation model based on self-determination theory, Model 2) an interest regulation model based on interest-enhancing strategies research, and Model 3) an additive model that integrated both models. According to Jang, the data fit all three models; however, only the first model (based on self-determination theory) helped students' engagement and therefore, their learning.
The results of Jang's study suggest the preferred approach is to get each student to accept a rationale for undertaking a task as his or her own, rather that just generating strategies to make the task more interesting (e.g., goal setting, varying the way they do the task, working in groups, and/or making the task into a game). Getting the students to internalize the value of the learning activity seems to be the better approach.
In its broadest interpretation, Jang's study suggests how teachers can use a rationale to help students to learn.
While Jang only tested on a relatively uninteresting short lesson, we might frame our study to show how providing a rationale for a challenging exercise (i.e., persuading the students that writing a COP that has personal meaning and validity is worth the effort because it will help them with the work of filmmaking) can help students to have more positive feelings about the difficult work of creating. Specifically, can we design a study that tests whether providing students with a rationale they can internalize (getting the students to accept that writing a COP that expresses the theme of their film and their own beliefs can help with their own screenwriting), either helps or doesn't help student filmmakers to feel more creative? Does helping students to internalize the rationale for the COP exercise translate into a self-report of improved creativity?
Jang, Hyungshim . (2008). Supporting Students' Motivation, Engagement, and Learning During an Uninteresting Activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.
In 2008 Hyungshim Jang presented a study of rationales (reasons for a particular exercise, provided by the teacher) and a student's motivation, engagement, and learning during learning activities. In Jang's study, one hundred thirty-six undergraduate students worked on a relatively uninteresting short lesson after either receiving or not receiving a rationale. Students who received the rationale showed greater interest, work ethic, and determination. (Hyungshim Jang, 2008).
Jang's study went on to test three alternative models to see if they could account for how the rationale produced benefits: Model 1) an identified regulation model based on self-determination theory, Model 2) an interest regulation model based on interest-enhancing strategies research, and Model 3) an additive model that integrated both models. According to Jang, the data fit all three models; however, only the first model (based on self-determination theory) helped students' engagement and therefore, their learning.
The results of Jang's study suggest the preferred approach is to get each student to accept a rationale for undertaking a task as his or her own, rather that just generating strategies to make the task more interesting (e.g., goal setting, varying the way they do the task, working in groups, and/or making the task into a game). Getting the students to internalize the value of the learning activity seems to be the better approach.
In its broadest interpretation, Jang's study suggests how teachers can use a rationale to help students to learn.
While Jang only tested on a relatively uninteresting short lesson, we might frame our study to show how providing a rationale for a challenging exercise (i.e., persuading the students that writing a COP that has personal meaning and validity is worth the effort because it will help them with the work of filmmaking) can help students to have more positive feelings about the difficult work of creating. Specifically, can we design a study that tests whether providing students with a rationale they can internalize (getting the students to accept that writing a COP that expresses the theme of their film and their own beliefs can help with their own screenwriting), either helps or doesn't help student filmmakers to feel more creative? Does helping students to internalize the rationale for the COP exercise translate into a self-report of improved creativity?
Jang, Hyungshim . (2008). Supporting Students' Motivation, Engagement, and Learning During an Uninteresting Activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Possible Exercises
In his Appendix to Directing the Documentary, Michael Rabiger has more than 20 pages of exercises designed to help students find the focus, conflict and characterization of their documentaries. He also includes self-evaluation tools, authorship hypotheses worksheets and film analysis guidelines. I've used several of these in my Doc Workshop course and the students have had very positive feedback.
Rabiger also wrote a book on directing narrative films and I think we should get it and examine the exercises he's placed in that book. Both books have brand new editions with inaugrual companion web sites.
Rabiger also wrote a book on directing narrative films and I think we should get it and examine the exercises he's placed in that book. Both books have brand new editions with inaugrual companion web sites.
Self-Report for Creative Self-Efficacy
Creative self-efficacy. Three items were used to
assess students’ creative self-efficacy (α = .86). The
items were based on previous work done in the area of
creative self-efficacy (as presented by Tierney &
Farmer, 2002), definitions of creativity (Plucker,
Beghetto, & Dow, 2004), and the concept of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997). Specifically, items were intended
to measure students’ beliefs about their ability
to generate novel and useful ideas and whether they
viewed themselves as having a good imagination. The
three items were (a) “I am good at coming up with new
ideas,” (b) “I have a lot of good ideas,” and (c) “I have a
good imagination.”
assess students’ creative self-efficacy (α = .86). The
items were based on previous work done in the area of
creative self-efficacy (as presented by Tierney &
Farmer, 2002), definitions of creativity (Plucker,
Beghetto, & Dow, 2004), and the concept of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997). Specifically, items were intended
to measure students’ beliefs about their ability
to generate novel and useful ideas and whether they
viewed themselves as having a good imagination. The
three items were (a) “I am good at coming up with new
ideas,” (b) “I have a lot of good ideas,” and (c) “I have a
good imagination.”
Self-Report for Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Work Preference
Inventory was used to measure intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, &
Tighe, 1994). The intrinsic motivation scale includes 15
items that assess the degree to which respondents enjoy
the challenge of the work at hand. Sample items are ‘‘I
enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to
me’’ and ‘‘I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.’’
Cronbach’s alpha for the intrinsic scale was 0.71. Extrinsic
motivation was also measured with a 15-item scale.
This scale includes items such as ‘‘I am strongly motivated
by the grades I can earn’’ and ‘‘As long as I can
do what I enjoy, I’m not that concerned about exactly
what grades or awards I can earn.’’ Cronbach’s alpha
for the extrinsic scale was 0.65. Each item for both the
intrinsic and extrinsic scale was followed by a four-point
scale where 1 ¼ Never or almost never true of you, 2 ¼ Sometimes true of you, 3 ¼ Often true of you, and 4 ¼ Always or almost always true of you.
Inventory was used to measure intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, &
Tighe, 1994). The intrinsic motivation scale includes 15
items that assess the degree to which respondents enjoy
the challenge of the work at hand. Sample items are ‘‘I
enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to
me’’ and ‘‘I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.’’
Cronbach’s alpha for the intrinsic scale was 0.71. Extrinsic
motivation was also measured with a 15-item scale.
This scale includes items such as ‘‘I am strongly motivated
by the grades I can earn’’ and ‘‘As long as I can
do what I enjoy, I’m not that concerned about exactly
what grades or awards I can earn.’’ Cronbach’s alpha
for the extrinsic scale was 0.65. Each item for both the
intrinsic and extrinsic scale was followed by a four-point
scale where 1 ¼ Never or almost never true of you, 2 ¼ Sometimes true of you, 3 ¼ Often true of you, and 4 ¼ Always or almost always true of you.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Research Problem and Hypotheses
Research problem: Students do not create well-structured, meaningful films.
Egri’s Creative Model: Playwrights must develop a premise (also known as a theme or central organizing principle (COP)). According to Egri, drama requires character, conflict and resolution (CCR) but Egri also advised writers to search for a simple one sentence statement of their theme. A premise or COP is a one sentence statement of the big idea behind a dramatic work that a writer can use to organize their creative efforts.
Our Pedagogical Model: Students discover their COP and use it to develop their CCR by choosing from a list of exercises (intrinsic self-motivation) which will not be graded by the instructor (no extrinsic reward).
Research method:
1) Pre-test self-report determines a) level of intrinsic motivation and b) creative self-efficacy (other independent variable information collected, such as age, gender, etc.)
2) Test Group A: Students choose their own exercises which are not graded
Test Group B: Students are assigned exercises which are graded
Control Group C: No exercises are available or assigned
3) Post-test self-report determines which exercises were completed and creative self-efficacy (How can we test for film structure and meaning? Outside evaluators?)
Hypotheses:
H1: The higher the level of intrinsic motivation on pretest, the more exercises the student will complete
H2: The lower the level of intrinsic motivation on pretest, the fewer exercises the student will complete
H3: The more exercises the student completes, the higher their post-test score will be in creative self-efficacy
H4: The more exercises the student completes, the more significant difference will be present when comparing pretest and post-test measures of creative self-efficacy
H5: Some independent variables, such as gender, will be predictors of creative self-efficacy
RQ1: Which group will produce the best-structured and most meaningful films?
Egri’s Creative Model: Playwrights must develop a premise (also known as a theme or central organizing principle (COP)). According to Egri, drama requires character, conflict and resolution (CCR) but Egri also advised writers to search for a simple one sentence statement of their theme. A premise or COP is a one sentence statement of the big idea behind a dramatic work that a writer can use to organize their creative efforts.
Our Pedagogical Model: Students discover their COP and use it to develop their CCR by choosing from a list of exercises (intrinsic self-motivation) which will not be graded by the instructor (no extrinsic reward).
Research method:
1) Pre-test self-report determines a) level of intrinsic motivation and b) creative self-efficacy (other independent variable information collected, such as age, gender, etc.)
2) Test Group A: Students choose their own exercises which are not graded
Test Group B: Students are assigned exercises which are graded
Control Group C: No exercises are available or assigned
3) Post-test self-report determines which exercises were completed and creative self-efficacy (How can we test for film structure and meaning? Outside evaluators?)
Hypotheses:
H1: The higher the level of intrinsic motivation on pretest, the more exercises the student will complete
H2: The lower the level of intrinsic motivation on pretest, the fewer exercises the student will complete
H3: The more exercises the student completes, the higher their post-test score will be in creative self-efficacy
H4: The more exercises the student completes, the more significant difference will be present when comparing pretest and post-test measures of creative self-efficacy
H5: Some independent variables, such as gender, will be predictors of creative self-efficacy
RQ1: Which group will produce the best-structured and most meaningful films?
Evaluating Creativity
Evaluating Creativity (edited by Sefton-Green and Sinker)
Traditional certainties about value, quality and taste are not absolute, but socially contingent—a struggle for control over meaning—“taste classifies the classifier.”
(Pierre Bourdieu, 1984)
If art is about personal growth and development, then all that you can evaluate is the student, rather than the work. Is that a proper role for a teacher? Some would say no, but students seem to appreciate and expect teachers to fill that role. (Gilbert, 1989)
Evaluation is an inappropriate response to creative production (Ross et al 1993).
So then, how do you argue for the validity of arts in education? (Abbs, 1994).
(There was an increase in vocational focus in public education in the late 1980s and by the early 1990s educators were writing a lot of articles arguing about whether this was a good or bad thing. Most tried to argue it was bad)
Creativity is defined differently by each subject and this should connect with how ability and advancement are measured.
Contradictions arise most in the evaluation process, so what is the role/importance of:
-the process of making the project
-the project itself
-the evaluation of the project
-the audience
Some kind of acceptable balance must be struck.
There is an ongoing debate about the value of art in terms of what it brings to society and what it brings to the individual.
Society: development of empathy and insight, cultural heritage, enlightened populace
Individual: facilitates cognitive skills, helps people grow, think and feel
What does our film department want?
-what do we value? –what kind of rigor is expected in a student film?
-how does that affect the way we evaluate or assess our students’ work?
Evaluation: Often discursive, qualitative. Can be ambiguous, judgmental.
Assessment: Summative, quantitative. Often feels institutional, analytical.
Traditional certainties about value, quality and taste are not absolute, but socially contingent—a struggle for control over meaning—“taste classifies the classifier.”
(Pierre Bourdieu, 1984)
If art is about personal growth and development, then all that you can evaluate is the student, rather than the work. Is that a proper role for a teacher? Some would say no, but students seem to appreciate and expect teachers to fill that role. (Gilbert, 1989)
Evaluation is an inappropriate response to creative production (Ross et al 1993).
So then, how do you argue for the validity of arts in education? (Abbs, 1994).
(There was an increase in vocational focus in public education in the late 1980s and by the early 1990s educators were writing a lot of articles arguing about whether this was a good or bad thing. Most tried to argue it was bad)
Creativity is defined differently by each subject and this should connect with how ability and advancement are measured.
Contradictions arise most in the evaluation process, so what is the role/importance of:
-the process of making the project
-the project itself
-the evaluation of the project
-the audience
Some kind of acceptable balance must be struck.
There is an ongoing debate about the value of art in terms of what it brings to society and what it brings to the individual.
Society: development of empathy and insight, cultural heritage, enlightened populace
Individual: facilitates cognitive skills, helps people grow, think and feel
What does our film department want?
-what do we value? –what kind of rigor is expected in a student film?
-how does that affect the way we evaluate or assess our students’ work?
Evaluation: Often discursive, qualitative. Can be ambiguous, judgmental.
Assessment: Summative, quantitative. Often feels institutional, analytical.
Social-psychology of creativity
Amabile on Creativity Research
Psychological study of creativity: the focus is on the person and their behavior, not upon what they do or make. It is the study of the creative personality, or the study of a person with a unique pattern of creative traits. (J.P. Guilford, 1950)
It’s current status:
-social psychology is the least developed area in creativity research
-there is correlational evidence that social environments do have an impact on creativity
-no particular social factors have been isolated in carefully controlled settings
Correlational patterns:
-birth order contributes to adult creativity in fairly predictable ways
-exposure to cultural diversity has a reliable positive influence
-educational environments that encourage autonomy and self-directed learning are equally important in adult work environments
**exposure to a creative model in a particular domain can increase the likelihood that a young person will do outstanding creative work in that domain.
Theoretical model (See Amabile, pp 107-127, Model, Revised Model)
-because of the nature of the factors examined, the methods employed, and the data obtained there is no common theoretical framework to motivate inquiries
-the hypothesis most thoroughly tested experimentally is the intrinsic motivation hypothesis of creativity, stating that the intrinsically (self) motivated state will be conducive to creativity, but the extrinsically motivated state (reward) will be detrimental. This hypothesis applies only to heuristic tasks, where the problem does not have a clear and straightforward path to solution. (Wallach & Kogan, 1965)
More about intrinsically motivated creativity:
-people who have worked under the imposition of salient extrinsic constraints generally produce work that is lower in creativity than that produced by people who have worked in the absence of such constraints
-These constraints include external evaluation of work or the expectation of such evaluation, offer of reward contingent upon task performance, surveillance of work, and restricted choice in task engagement
-people placed in conditions designed to enhance intrinsic motivation, such as free choice in aspects of task engagement, generally produce work that is higher in creativity than produced by people not working under such conditions.
-there are significant correlations between subjects’ expressed intrinsic interest in their work and the related creativity of that work
**THEREFORE social factors that enhance an individual’s motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake will also enhance creative performance on the activity; factors that undermine that motivation, or factors that make more salient the motivation to engage in the activity for some external goal, will undermine creativity.
Independent Variables: Cognitive mechanisms, social-environmental factors
Dependent Variables: Creative outcome of the nonlinear task
Future research:
-longer temporal span
-greater control of factors
-more experimental research
-more study of global social environments, such as families, classrooms, workplaces, societies and cultures
LINKS:
Psychological study of creativity: the focus is on the person and their behavior, not upon what they do or make. It is the study of the creative personality, or the study of a person with a unique pattern of creative traits. (J.P. Guilford, 1950)
It’s current status:
-social psychology is the least developed area in creativity research
-there is correlational evidence that social environments do have an impact on creativity
-no particular social factors have been isolated in carefully controlled settings
Correlational patterns:
-birth order contributes to adult creativity in fairly predictable ways
-exposure to cultural diversity has a reliable positive influence
-educational environments that encourage autonomy and self-directed learning are equally important in adult work environments
**exposure to a creative model in a particular domain can increase the likelihood that a young person will do outstanding creative work in that domain.
Theoretical model (See Amabile, pp 107-127, Model, Revised Model)
-because of the nature of the factors examined, the methods employed, and the data obtained there is no common theoretical framework to motivate inquiries
-the hypothesis most thoroughly tested experimentally is the intrinsic motivation hypothesis of creativity, stating that the intrinsically (self) motivated state will be conducive to creativity, but the extrinsically motivated state (reward) will be detrimental. This hypothesis applies only to heuristic tasks, where the problem does not have a clear and straightforward path to solution. (Wallach & Kogan, 1965)
More about intrinsically motivated creativity:
-people who have worked under the imposition of salient extrinsic constraints generally produce work that is lower in creativity than that produced by people who have worked in the absence of such constraints
-These constraints include external evaluation of work or the expectation of such evaluation, offer of reward contingent upon task performance, surveillance of work, and restricted choice in task engagement
-people placed in conditions designed to enhance intrinsic motivation, such as free choice in aspects of task engagement, generally produce work that is higher in creativity than produced by people not working under such conditions.
-there are significant correlations between subjects’ expressed intrinsic interest in their work and the related creativity of that work
**THEREFORE social factors that enhance an individual’s motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake will also enhance creative performance on the activity; factors that undermine that motivation, or factors that make more salient the motivation to engage in the activity for some external goal, will undermine creativity.
Independent Variables: Cognitive mechanisms, social-environmental factors
Dependent Variables: Creative outcome of the nonlinear task
Future research:
-longer temporal span
-greater control of factors
-more experimental research
-more study of global social environments, such as families, classrooms, workplaces, societies and cultures
LINKS:
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Steve Meeting 7.1.09
I met with Steve yesterday to catch up on our summer so far. At a point that felt comfortable, I steered the conversation toward our research. Through talking with Steve about the problems I've been having with a-evaluating a student's creative work and b-imposing structure on the creative process I believe I may have come upon a new way to approach this research.
It seems to me the two main struggles I have as an "art teacher" are 1). how to fairly evaluate my students' "art projects" and 2). figuring out exactly how much "structure" to impose upon their creative process as they bring their project to life.
The literature I've been reading reminds me that the word "value" exists inside the word evaluate, so if a student's values differ from my own then my evaluation of their work isn't really justified. What to do about this? Be sure that the student understands and buys into the values of the course and creates their project knowing their work will be judged based upon the core common values upon which the course is built.
As for imposing structure, there is plenty of literature to support the notion that the creative process can survive, even thrive if thoughtful constraints are placed upon that process. The constraints must exhibit the values discussed above and must be relevant to the desired outcome of the final project. They cannot be constraints associated only with the natural power struggle that exists between student and teacher.
For our study we need to decide what kind of outcome we want before we can design the assessment tools and exercises. We cannot get protocol approval until we determine what kind of data we will collect and how we will collect it. Therefore: theory+exercises+assessment tools= outcome. We must define and develop each variable in this equation, working backwards from outcome.
Outcome: I wish to shift our emphasis away from the creative project itself to the process by which students make their project. The desired outcome could be simply this: "The student's film was the result of disciplined and creative planning, research and direction." The outcome to be evaluated is the process, rather than the product.
Assessment tools: I wish to shift our emphasis away from our own evaluation to evaluations made by the students themselves. These tools could be online surveys, a blog, a journal, etc. but the students themselves will make these assessments. Each assessment must be tied into a particular stage of the process. A final cumulative assessment will be made by the student on whether their overall process evoked the core values of the course. I would suggest the completion of the assessment tools be considered for the student's course grade but that the actual "scores" on the assessment tools NOT be a part of the grade. (I have a concern that the IRB only understands survey research and would not approve of us collecting data from something more personal, like a journal or blog).
Exercises: This was the most fun part of my discussion with Steve yesterday, but I think the development of these exercises will be the biggest challenge. There are two big questions here: 1). Do we incorporate exercises to emphasize story structure and development in addition to existing coursework or do we weave them into what we're already doing? 2). Are these exercises conducted in class our outside of class? Steve and I agreed that whatever exercises are developed, they have to go beyond the elementary "let's all work with playdough for 5 minutes and see what we come up with." They should incorporate all aspects of arts and humanities, from literature to music to art to theatre. The point of the exercises is to a). enhance the values of the course (i.e. values of Aristotle, Egri, Jung) and to b). get students to think differently about art and the hope is that they will then approach their own work with a new perspective.
Some (brief) examples Steve and I discussed:
1). In-class discussion of an abstract painting, such as a Picasso. Through discussion, help students understand what Picasso was doing and how it could be relevant to making a film.
2). Playing a TV show like "Have Gun Will Travel" while also playing classical music. Help students discover that music carries its own emotional meaning that can easily bleed over into the image, so you have to be very careful about music selection in a film. It has to be a very deliberate choice.
Theory: While I'm still struggling with this one I'm getting closer. I've already made some notes in the blog about constructivist theory. I think we need to do more searching in the film theory world. Perhaps Chris Harris could be helpful. After all, he's the one who actually comes out of an art school.
In summary, a film is only the byproduct of the process (Steve). When we all attend the student screenings at the end of the year we tend to judge students by what we see on the screen. But, I feel there should be more to a film education than that. It's not ONLY about the film they make, because 99% of the students will NOT become film makers. If we put more thought and care into the process by which they make their film they will come out of the program with a more enriched experience and knowledge they can apply to whatever it is they wind up doing for a living... or to the quality of their lives in general.
It seems to me the two main struggles I have as an "art teacher" are 1). how to fairly evaluate my students' "art projects" and 2). figuring out exactly how much "structure" to impose upon their creative process as they bring their project to life.
The literature I've been reading reminds me that the word "value" exists inside the word evaluate, so if a student's values differ from my own then my evaluation of their work isn't really justified. What to do about this? Be sure that the student understands and buys into the values of the course and creates their project knowing their work will be judged based upon the core common values upon which the course is built.
As for imposing structure, there is plenty of literature to support the notion that the creative process can survive, even thrive if thoughtful constraints are placed upon that process. The constraints must exhibit the values discussed above and must be relevant to the desired outcome of the final project. They cannot be constraints associated only with the natural power struggle that exists between student and teacher.
For our study we need to decide what kind of outcome we want before we can design the assessment tools and exercises. We cannot get protocol approval until we determine what kind of data we will collect and how we will collect it. Therefore: theory+exercises+assessment tools= outcome. We must define and develop each variable in this equation, working backwards from outcome.
Outcome: I wish to shift our emphasis away from the creative project itself to the process by which students make their project. The desired outcome could be simply this: "The student's film was the result of disciplined and creative planning, research and direction." The outcome to be evaluated is the process, rather than the product.
Assessment tools: I wish to shift our emphasis away from our own evaluation to evaluations made by the students themselves. These tools could be online surveys, a blog, a journal, etc. but the students themselves will make these assessments. Each assessment must be tied into a particular stage of the process. A final cumulative assessment will be made by the student on whether their overall process evoked the core values of the course. I would suggest the completion of the assessment tools be considered for the student's course grade but that the actual "scores" on the assessment tools NOT be a part of the grade. (I have a concern that the IRB only understands survey research and would not approve of us collecting data from something more personal, like a journal or blog).
Exercises: This was the most fun part of my discussion with Steve yesterday, but I think the development of these exercises will be the biggest challenge. There are two big questions here: 1). Do we incorporate exercises to emphasize story structure and development in addition to existing coursework or do we weave them into what we're already doing? 2). Are these exercises conducted in class our outside of class? Steve and I agreed that whatever exercises are developed, they have to go beyond the elementary "let's all work with playdough for 5 minutes and see what we come up with." They should incorporate all aspects of arts and humanities, from literature to music to art to theatre. The point of the exercises is to a). enhance the values of the course (i.e. values of Aristotle, Egri, Jung) and to b). get students to think differently about art and the hope is that they will then approach their own work with a new perspective.
Some (brief) examples Steve and I discussed:
1). In-class discussion of an abstract painting, such as a Picasso. Through discussion, help students understand what Picasso was doing and how it could be relevant to making a film.
2). Playing a TV show like "Have Gun Will Travel" while also playing classical music. Help students discover that music carries its own emotional meaning that can easily bleed over into the image, so you have to be very careful about music selection in a film. It has to be a very deliberate choice.
Theory: While I'm still struggling with this one I'm getting closer. I've already made some notes in the blog about constructivist theory. I think we need to do more searching in the film theory world. Perhaps Chris Harris could be helpful. After all, he's the one who actually comes out of an art school.
In summary, a film is only the byproduct of the process (Steve). When we all attend the student screenings at the end of the year we tend to judge students by what we see on the screen. But, I feel there should be more to a film education than that. It's not ONLY about the film they make, because 99% of the students will NOT become film makers. If we put more thought and care into the process by which they make their film they will come out of the program with a more enriched experience and knowledge they can apply to whatever it is they wind up doing for a living... or to the quality of their lives in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)