Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Aboalgasm, Aber; Ward, Rupert
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: LB, LB1501
This paper describes the Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production (TCT-DP), including its design, concept and mode of assessment, and the practical consequences of its application in a specific context. The test was used to evaluate the performance of groups of students as part of a case study exploring the use of digital art tools for drawing in a junior school. The students used specific digital art software via both computers and tablets, and also drew manually using a variety of devices. TCP-DP evaluates drawing production by means of a set of 14 criteria. At the same time, this study used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theory to assess the ease of use and usefulness of the digital tools. The test was trialled with students aged 9-10 years in different ability groups. There were no significant differences in performance between male and female participants. Details of various related studies, together with data concerning the reliability and validity of the TCT-DP test, are also provided. The study finds that motivation is an important factor in improving young people’s artistic ability.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] J. Lanier, “You are not a Gadget: A Manifesto”. Journal of Communication, New York, ISSN0021-9916, 2010.
    • [2] M. I. Pinsky, “The gospel according to Disney: Faith, trust, and pixie dust”, Westminster John Knox Pr., 2004.
    • C. Cordes and E. Miller, “Fool's gold: a critical look at computers in childhood”. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. Children and computers in pre-school157, British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2005.
    • [4] J. Matthews and P. Seow, “Electronic paint: Understanding children's representation through their interactions with digital paint”. International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 26, 2007, pp. 251-263.
    • J. Matthews and J. Jessel, “Very young children use electronic paint: A study of the beginnings of drawing with traditional media and computer paintbox”. Visual Arts Research, 19(1), 1993, pp. 47-62.
    • E. S. Tzafestas, “Integrating drawing tools with behavioral modeling in digital painting”. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM workshops on Multimedia, ACM. 2000, pp 39-42.
    • [7] D. Arrowood and T. Overall, “Using technology to motivate children to write: Changing attitudes in children and preservice teachers”. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2004, pp. 4985-4987.
    • D. Katsiaficas, “Digital drawing exploring the possibilities of digital technology as an essential tool and component in contemporary drawing”. Department of Art, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. Fine Art in Egypt 20, 2008, pp. 1-8.
    • [9] S. W. Haugland, “What Role Should Technology Play in Young Children's Learning? Part 1”, Young Children, vol. 54, 1999, pp. 26-31.
    • [10] L. J. Couse and D. W. Chen “A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 43, no. 1, 2010, p. 75.
    • [11] Ö. Hans, “The scope of digital image media in art education”. Computers and Education Journal, ISSN: 0360- 1315 vol. 59, Issue 2, 2012, p. 793.
    • [12] T. A. Kaynar “Teaching visual arts in primary school teaching departments with postmodern art education approach”. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, ISSN:1877-0428, Vol. 51, DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012, pp. 1044-1049.
    • [13] A. Clark, S. McQuail, P. Moss and T. Coram, “Exploring the field of listening to and consulting with young children”. Research Report (London, DfES), 2003, p. 445.
    • [14] A. Greig and J. Taylor, “Doing Research with Children: A practical guide”. Sage, 2012.
    • [15] M. Wighting, J. Baker and L. Grooms, “Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings”. The Internet and Higher Education 12.1. 2009, pp. 7-13.
    • [16] A. S. Aboalgasm and R. Ward, “Evaluating the Use of Digital Art Tools for Drawing to Enhance Artistic Ability and Improve Digital Skill among Junior School Students”. International Journal of Social Education, Economics and Management Engineering, Vol.8, No.10, 2014, pp. 3287- 3288.
    • [17] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”. MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, 1989, p. 319.
    • [18] A. S. S. Aboalgasm and R. Ward, “Applying a Modified Technology Acceptance Model to the Use and Assessment of Digital Art Tools”. The International Journal of the Image, Volume 4, Issue 4, August 2014, pp.71-83.
    • [19] K. K. Urban, “Assessing Creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP)”. International Education Journal, vol. 6, 2005, pp. 272-280.
    • [20] B. Jeffrey and A. Craft “Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships”. The Open University, UK, published online: 07 Oct 2010, p. 77-87.
    • [21] G.A. Davis, “Review: Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production”. Gifted and Talented International, 10 (2), 1995, pp. 90-91.
    • [22] A. Cropley, “Review of Test zum Schoepferischen Denken - Zeichnerisch (TSD-Z) [Test of Creative Thinking - Drawing Production (TCT-DP)]”. High Ability Studies, 7, 1996, pp. 224-22.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article