ABSTRACT
Nature and nurture are believed to be on constant interaction in the formation of personality. This appears to be the same with the development of artistic talent and skills. The process of developing artistic abilities is a complex enterprise involving a complex creative thought process and pattern. This complex creative thought process is a conscious application and expenditure of creative thought energy. The levels at which artists process expend these dynamic creative energy vary, just as their micro and macro environment. The causes and impact of these variations need to be constantly explored. This study therefore explores the interaction between nature and nurture in artistic development and appreciation among art students. For this purpose, 502 art students of four universities that offer Fine and Applied Arts in South East, Nigeria were used for this study. A four point scaled questionnaire was designed and administered to these students to feel their pulse on their perception on how genetic and environmental variables affect their artistic development as well as the content of their work. The outcome were analysed using mean score, percentage score, chi square, Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient and t-test. Following the collection and analysis of data, some pertinent findings were registered. They include among other things the fact that (a) Nature was found to influence artistic growth and development (b) Nurture variables, were also found to influence the development of artistic behaviour (c) Artistic attainment of students was found to be positively and significantly linked to those of their kinship (d) The experience of growing up in the home was also found to be an influencing factor in artistic growth and development. (e) Again, the experience of belonging to a given social class was found to influence the individuals artistic growth and development (f) Finally, cultural variables were found to influence the content of art students work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE OF PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Purpose of the study
1.4 Significance of the study
1.5 Scope of the study
1.6 Research Questions
1.7 Hypothesis
CHAPTER 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The concept ad origin of Nature
2.2 The concept of Nurture
2.2.1 Physical Environment
2.2.2 Social Environment
2.2.3 Cultural Environment
2.3 Between Nature and Nurture
2.4 The concept of Artistic Development and Appreciation
2.5 Nature factor in Artistic Development and Appreciation
2.6 Nurture factor in Artistic Development and Appreciation
2.7 Nature, Nurture and Artistic Development and Appreciation
2.8 Studies on Nature and Nurture
2.9 Summary of Literature
CHAPTER 3
3.0 RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Design
3.2 Area of study
3.3 Population
3.4 Sample/Sampling Technique
3.5 Instrument for Data Collection
3.6 Validation of Instrument
3.7 Reliability of Instrument
3.8 Method of Data Collection
3.9 Method of Data Presentation and Analysis
CHAPTER 4
4.0 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Result of Pilot Study
4.2 Analysis of Research Questions
4.2.1 Research Question 1
4.2.2 Research Question 2
4.2.3 Research Question 3
4.2.4 Research Question 4
4.2.5 Research Question 5
4.2.6 Research Question 6
4.2.7 Research Question 7
4.2.8 Research Question 8
4.2.9 Research Question 9
4.3 Testing of Hypotheses
4.3.1 Hypothesis 1
4.3.2 Hypothesis 2
4.3.3 Hypothesis 3
4.3.4 Hypothesis 4
4.3.5 Hypothesis 5
4.3.6 Hypothesis 6
CHAPTER 5
5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS
AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of Findings
5.2 Discussion of Findings
5.3 Recommendations
5.4 Conclusion
5.5 Limitations
References
Appendices
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Nature and Nurture are believed to be on constant interaction in the formation of personality. This appears to be same with the development of artistic talent and skills. In the traditional societies, young artists were usually given out to art masters for tutelage and apprenticeship before they could become full artists themselves, even though talents were believed to be hereditary. This apparently is the traditional acknowledgement of nature and nurture components of artistic growth and development.
Within the world of psychology, genetics and environment present two major explanations as to the determinants of endowment. The issue has generated to an extent that intellectual difference between individuals, social classes and races can be attributed to genetic and environmental factors (nature and nurture). The nature and nurture controversy has generated a lot of interest in the way psychologists theorize. The implication of nature and nurture explanations to artistic growth and development must generate fresh interests in the way artists view themselves; what they do and how they theorize. How these variables interact to influence the artistic development and appreciation among art students should generate fresh interest in the nature and nurture controversy in artistic explanations, future methodologies and future art pedagogy.
Among the early proponents of the genetic factor is Jensen (1969) who argued that “just as given adequate nutrition, individual differences in height between children reflect genetic differences, so given a minimally adequate social and physical environment, individual difference in intelligent quotient (I.Q.) reflect genetic difference. The rationale for this proposition include, on one hand, a review which led Jensen to conclude that genetic factors are four times as important as environmental factors in accounting for I.Q. variance and on the other hand, an assertion that there is no evidence that environmental variations cause other than small difference in intelligence except in the cases of grossly deprived environments such as isolation.
However a more recent study by Tizard (1974) appear to offer strong presumptive evidence that the usual I.Q. variance found between racial groups are related to differences in child-rearing practices rather than to genetic factor. Earlier Lewontin (1970) and Furby (1973) had pointed out that whatever may be the contributions of genetics to I.Q. variance within groups, differences between groups could equally well be due entirely to genetic factors, entirely to environmental factors or to some combination of both. Even though Jensen (1969) had earlier asserted that the environment does not modify intellectual and creative development. Rather, it can only act as a threshold variance, that is, that above a certain threshold of environmental adequacy, environmental variation cause relatively small difference in endowment.
Accordingly, Rodnapp (1998) summarizes that the most distinct difference between developmentalism and behaviourism concerns the role of environment in accounting for behaviour. While classical developmentalists pay relatively little attention to the environment, even though they are quite aware of the way the environment can foster development. They generally take the environment for granted. In contrast, behaviourists are entranced by the environment and what it can do in the overall development of the individual. They consider it extremely powerful, serving to strengthen or weaken the development of the individual at every moment.....
================================================================
Item Type: Project Material | Size: 110 pages | Chapters: 1-5
Format: MS Word | Delivery: Within 30Mins.
================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.