Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Proposing a Tripartite Evaluation System of Musical Creativity in the Educational Context: Integrating Cognitive,Personality,and Environmental Dimensions
Musical creativity is an enigmatic and significant topic of enduring interest, but its evaluation remains a challenging and underexplored area. Grounded in the context of compulsory education in China and the requirements of the latest version of China’s National Standard for Arts Curriculum 2022, this study discusses how to evaluate musical creativity with reference to the three theories developed by Webster, Williams, and Burnard. The paper moves on to construct an Evaluation Index System of Musical Creativity (hereafter EISMC) with reference to the Delphi method, and fixes its weightings using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). After three rounds of consultation with professionals working in the field, it was determined that EISMC should have three primary indices: creative musical thinking, creative musical personality, and creative musical environment. Nine secondary indices were represented by divergent thinking, and 27 third-level indices were represented by flexibility. These indices reflect the multifaceted concerns of evaluators surrounding the daily evaluation of musical creativity. This bridges the gulf between theory and practice and provides a theoretical foundation, a replicable design paradigm, and practical suggestions for the effective evaluation of musical creativity both in China and abroad, which facilitates an enhancement of the evaluation of musical creativity.
AmabileT. M.ContiR.CoonH.LazenbyJ.HerronM. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
2.
AounJ.QuagliettaE.GoverdeR. M.ScheidtM.BlumenfeldM.JackA.RedfernB. (2021). A hybrid Delphi-AHP multi-criteria analysis of moving block and virtual coupling railway signaling. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 129, 103250.
3.
AzzaraC. D.SnellA. H. (2016). Assessment of improvisation in music. In ClarkeE. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of topics in music (Online ed.). Oxford Academic.
4.
BarbotB.HeuserB. (2017). Creativity and identity formation in adolescence: A developmental perspective. In KarwowskiM.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The creative self (pp. 87–98). Academic Press.
5.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844.
6.
BurnardP. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. OUP Oxford.
7.
BurnardP. (2016). Rethinking ‘musical creativity’ and the notion of multiple creativities in music. In OdenaO., (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 27–50). Routledge.
8.
BurnardP.RandlesC. (2023). Reconfiguring the future of music education through pluralism, openness, and authorship of new creativities. In RandlesC.BurnardP. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativities in music education (pp. 581–592). Routledge.
9.
BurnardP.SorensenN. (2023). Making silence matter: Rethinking performance creativity as a catalysing space for sounding oneself in music education. In RandlesC.BurnardP. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativities in music education (pp. 429–440). Routledge.
10.
CarrizoL.SauvageotC.BellaN. (2003). Education policies and strategies: Information tools for the preparation and monitoring of education plans. UNESCO.
11.
ChanP. (2020). Delphi and AHP techniques: A method to develop a priority-based index for urban sustainability assessment in Cambodia. Scholars’ Press.
12.
ChuangT. Y.HuangY. H. (2015). An analytic creativity assessment scale for digital game story design: Construct validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability. Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 322–327.
13.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer.
14.
DouJ. H. (2020). 论音乐创造力的实践金字塔结构 [On the practice pyramid structure of musical creativity]. 星海音乐学院学报 [Journal of Xinghai Conservatory of Music], 2, 116–127.
15.
DysonS. B.ChangY. L.ChenH. C.HsiungH. Y.TsengC. C.ChangJ. H. (2016). The effect of tabletop role-playing games on the creative potential and emotional creativity of Taiwanese college students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 88–96.
16.
FeistG. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.
17.
GeorghiouL.KeenanM. (2008). Evaluation and impact of foresight. In GeorghiouL.HarperJ. C.KeenanM.MilesI.PopperR. (Eds.), The handbook of technology foresight: Concepts and practice (pp. 376–399). Edward Elgar.
18.
HickeyM. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234–244.
19.
HickeyM. (2002). Creativity research in music, visual art, theater, and dance. In ColwellR.RichardsonC. (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the music educators national conference (pp. 398–415). Oxford University Press.
20.
HoW. C. (2022). Chinese students’ perceptions of creativity: The role of school education and music teachers, and students’ preferences for music genres and music activities. Journal of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 6(1), 69–89.
21.
HorngJ.LinL. (2009). The development of scale for evaluating creative culinary products. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 54–63.
22.
JiangH.CheongK. W.TanW. H. (2024). Development and validation of a measure assessing children’s creative practice ability in music. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101446.
23.
KalaianS. A.KasimR. M. (2012). Terminating sequential Delphi survey data collection. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(5), n5.
24.
KempA. E. (1996). The musical temperament: Psychology and personality of musicians. Oxford University Press.
25.
KhanM. R.AlamM. J.TabassumN.KhanN. A. (2022). A Systematic review of the Delphi–AHP method in analyzing challenges to public-sector project procurement and the supply chain: A developing country’s perspective. Sustainability, 14(21), 14215.
26.
KratusJ. (1994). Relationships among children’s music audiation and their compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 115–130.
27.
KratusJ. (1995). A developmental approach to teaching music improvisation. International Journal of Music Education, 26, 27–38.
28.
KuoH. C.BurnardP.McLellanR.ChengY. Y.WuJ. J. (2017). The development of indicators for creativity education and a questionnaire to evaluate its delivery and practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 186–198.
29.
KyriazakosE. (2019). Music and environment: From artistic creation to the environmental sensitization and action–A circular model. Open Journal for Studies in Arts, 2(2), 57–70.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2022b). 义务教育课程方案和课程标准(2022年版) [China’s national compulsory education curriculum program and standards 2022]. Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.
32.
OECD. (2019). OECD education policy outlook 2019: Working together to help students achieve their potential. OECD Publishing.
33.
OdenaO.WelchG. F. (2007). The influence of teachers’ backgrounds on their perceptions of musical creativity: An exploration of qualitative findings. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 172, 9–25.
34.
Ozenc-IraG. (2023). Mapping research on musical creativity: A bibliometric review of the literature from 1990 to 2022. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, 101273.
35.
PerkinsR. (2016). Review of Activating diverse musical creativities: Teaching and learning in higher music education. British Journal of Music Education, 33, 117–119.
36.
PluckerJ. A.BeghettoR. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.SingerJ. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). American Psychological Association.
37.
SaatyT. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11), 1073–1076.
38.
ScheerensJ.GlasC.ThomasS. (2003). Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring: A systemic approach. Taylor & Francis.
39.
SchultzD. P.SchultzS. E. (2020). Theories of personality. Wadsworth Publishing.
40.
ShiC.ZhangY.LiC.LiP.ZhuH. (2020). Using the Delphi method to identify risk factors contributing to adverse events in residential aged care facilities. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 13, 523–537.
41.
SongY. Q. (2020, December15). 中国义务教育四十年：成就、经验与挑战 [Forty years of compulsory education in china: achievements, experiences and challenges]. CIKD. https://www.cikd.org/detail?docId=1658
42.
SuH.QuH.LuoY. (2024). Building an evaluation index system of musical collaborative capacity for China’s compulsory music education: Using a combined Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process approach. International Journal of Music Education. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614241281924
43.
TorranceE. P. (1974). The torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Personal Press.
44.
UNESCO. (2022). Higher education global data report (Summary): A contribution to the World Higher Education Conference18–20May2022. UNESCO.
45.
WatsonS. (2011). Using technology to unlock musical creativity. OUP USA.
46.
WebsterP. R. (1987). Conceptual bases for creative thinking in music. In PeeryJ. C.PeeryI. W.DraperT. W. (Eds.), Music and child development (pp. 158–174). Springer New York.
47.
WebsterP. R. (1989). Creative thinking in music: The assessment question. In RichmondJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the suncoast music education forum on creativity (pp. 40–74). University of South Florida.
48.
WebsterP. R. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 22–28.
49.
WebsterP. R. (2002). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In SullivanT.WillinghamL. (Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp. 16–34). Canadian Music Educators Association.
50.
WilliamsF. E. (1979). Assessing creativity across Williams “cube” model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23(4), 748–756.
