Research Report into Creativity in Eduction in Thailand by NeilJ.Delaney

RESEARCH REPORT Masters of Arts in Art and Design Education Limerick School of Art & Design

‘Education & Creativity in Thailand’ by Neil Joseph Delaney 2014

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION p3 2. RATIONALE p4-9 2.0 Research Question 2.1 Context 2.2 Qualitative Research & Methodology 2.3 Quantitative Research & Methodology 2.4 Ethics 2.5 Literature 3. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DATA p9-12 4. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH DATA p13-25 4.0 Workshop Projects in Brief 4.1 Thematic Analysis â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Emergent data and investigation 4.2 Evidence of Instrinsic Motivation 4.2.1 Self-Determination 4.2.2 Perceived Salience 4.3 Induced Extrinsic Motivation 4.4 Tolerance for ambiguity. 5. CONCLUSION p26,27 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY p28-32 7. REFERENCE LIST p33-36 8. APPENDICES p37-44 8.0 Artwork Samples 8.1 Questionnaire (English) 8.2 Questionnaire (Thai) 8.3 Permission Form (English) 8.4 Permission Form (Thai)

INTRODUCTION

This Research Report was conducted over a period of eight months, from February to September 2014, and took place in the Kingdom of Thailand, more specifically in the town of Chiang Khan which sits by the Mekong River on the border to Laos.

In engaging in research into the field of creativity, it is necessary that I state from the beginning what my perception of creativity is, particular to the context within which the word is used here. I am interested in creativity as an act of ‘doing’ as opposed to a state of ‘being’ and agree with Amabile (1989) when she dismisses the notion that one ‘is’ or ‘is not’ creative. Instead she states that creativity is anything that a person “does” as long as it is “substantially different” from what they have “done before”, and that it works to achieve something meaningful to the person doing it (1989, p.2125). Vygotsky asks that one “consider creativity as the rule rather than the exception” (2004, p5) and states that “the creative processes are already fully manifest in earliest childhood” (2004, p.11). The issue would appear to be that education (Lubart & Georgsdottir, 2010, p.42) and culture (Runco, 2004, p.15) play a significant role in whether or not those creative processes survive into adulthood.

The research sought to investigate the effect of culture and education on creativity in Thailand, while an out-of-school creative arts program recorded emergent student behavior relative to creative engagement.

RATIONALE

2.0 Research Question. The general research question guiding this report is â&#x20AC;&#x153;To what extent can an out-ofschool contemporary arts program foster creativity in young children in Thailand?â&#x20AC;? By introducing a contemporary arts program for young children in the North Eastern town of Chiang Khan, I sought to achieve two things. Firstly, it was my intention to observe and record emerging data relating to student creative behavior; activated through their engagement in art based projects. Secondly, I sought to contextualize this data through an investigation of the art education currently being delivered to these children through the Thai public education system.

2.1 Context. I am a Fine Arts graduate who has worked for several years in the field of Graphic and Editorial Design before working as a Multimedia and Art Teacher. I am also a songwriter, musician, video producer and exhibiting digital artist. In early 2010 I decided to move from my home country of Ireland to live and work in Thailand, where I have been based now for almost five years. During that time I have worked as a Teacher in both public government schools and private international programs. What I had come to notice during that time is not just a lack of support for student creativity but what I perceived to be an active suppression of it. It seemed to me that this suppression was systematic and widespread among schools in Thailand. I became interested to know why this was happening and what could be achieved among students if instead their creativity was encouraged.

To that end, I set up “Sang San (Creative) Chiang Khan”, a free out-of-school arts program in the town of Chiang Khan. The aim of the arts program was to deliver contemporary art workshops that could foster creativity and support creative engagement. The focus of the program centred on local children attending public schools delivering the national curriculum. In considering the limited time-frame, it was desirable to work with a group of students already known to each-other and with an interest in creative practices. To this end, the music teacher of a local street music performance group was approached to see if there would be an interest among his students in participating. Subsequently there was, and six workshops were held on Saturdays and Sundays during the month of March 2014.

2.2 Qualitative Research and Methodology. The program would also act as an opportunity for research. I was interested to see how art workshops with a focus on student-centred creativity would effect the students engaged in them. Bogdan & Bilken (2003, p.4) state that “action can be understood when it is observed in the setting in which it occurs”. Observational data was collected through field notes, a research diary, photography, video, and audio recordings. Taking example from Candy &Bilda’s “Understanding and Evaluating Creativity”, (2009, p.10) I too sought to derive information by: “Collecting observable data about human behaviour where creative products are involved or the process itself is identified as creative… The data collection methods include first hand, direct observation of events, generating reports of behaviour, making informed judgments, referring to histories of events and participants, comparing the current situations and outcomes with historical records as well as the current trends, movements. The aim is to arrive at a rich set of ‘observable’ data”.

Using Bryman’s (2008) ‘Social Research Methods’ definition of a social researcher diary, activities undertaken and my general observations were recorded at the end of each class/session. It was my intention to observe and record data for later analysis with a particular emphasis on emergent phenomena relative to creativity in a learn5

ing environment. In pooling together data from student observation and researcher reflection, it was envisaged that themes would emerge which could be further investigated. A thematic analysis was undertaken on completion of the arts program, the results of which are presented within this report.

In terms of the workshops provided, some art projects were chosen following research into creativity centred art lesson plans or activites. Others were devised, with a focus on engaging students to be expressive thinkers in an immersive activity. Workshops were delivered by me with assistance from Thai national, Trairat Pakkete, a Bachelors Degree Graduate of the Applied Fine Arts Print program at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, and a practicing freelance Graphic Designer. One workshop was designed and delivered by Boonlert Pumma, a contemporary resident artist living in Chiang Khan. Workshop projects required little to no artistic skill to begin with, and instead focused on fostering creative engagement through process over product.

2.3 Quantitative Research and Methodology. Living in the small town of Chiang Khan, where there are just three primary schools and one secondary school offered the possibility, through research, to gain an informed understanding of where creativity was situated within the delivery of the national curriculum there. The rationale behind this was to investigate whether there was validity in my perception that creativity was actively suppressed in Thai public schools. To that end, and in line with Babbieâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2010) definition of quantitative methods of data collection, questionnaires were given to art teachers in each of the four schools in Chiang Khan Town. Data relating to the significance of art and creativity within these schools was collected. I was also interested in the environmental factors in which their learning was taking place. I wanted to know what facilities were available to teachers and students of art, how many students were given the opportunity to study art, how many art students there were per class, and whether or not their art teacher was primarily qualified to teach art. Literature engaged in at 6

this time was suggesting the possibility that these factors could be related to whether creativity is fostered or inhibited in schools.

2.4 Ethics. Thomas (2013, p.43) asserts that within a research project â&#x20AC;&#x153;a reflection on ethics should be integralâ&#x20AC;?. Working with children outside of a school environment, interviewing art teachers across a linguistic barrier, and cultural considerations are significant areas for ethics consideration. Efforts were made to ensure effective translation of documents for parents and questionnaires for interviewees were achieved at all times. Written parental consent for the involvement of children, both as participants within the creative arts program, and as participants in observational research, was a requirement for student involvement. All parental consent forms were signed and returned prior to student participation. A qualified Thai assistant was present at all workshops and also acted as translator when required. Informed socio-cultural norms, such as hierarchical reverence when conducting interviews with seniors, were adhered to at all times. Thai and English language versions of consent forms and questionnaires used can be found in the appendices section of this research report. Also, pseudonyms are used throughout the report to protect student anonymity.

2.5 Literature. An ongoing literature review into aspects of creativity, education, and culture was conducted and expanded upon throughout all stages of the research. I wanted to know more about how creativity was being defined and the different theories into what supported it, especially within eduction. I also wanted to know what kind of role culture played in the development of creative capacities, especially within Thailand. This would further the personal goal of understanding why creativity seemed to be suppressed in public schools. It would also help inform me in how best to structure the arts program so that it was as conducive to creativity as possible. Key findings within the literature, relevant to the creative capacities of the students I 7

would be working with, could be broken down as follows:

• How one comes to know creativity relates to how it is defined by those around him/her, particularly relevant in a child’s upbringing (Lubart,Georgsdottir,2010). How creativity is framed also acts to inform when and how it is appropriate to express it (Runco, 2004). As such, culture and education and so parents and teachers, play a large role in framing how creativity is understood by their children and students (Lubart &Georgsdottir, 2010).

• “Enculturalization” (Runco, 2004, p.15), among other things, teaches a common value system that aims to promote and dissuade particular behaviors, for the betterment of social harmony. Culturally significant behaviors promoted across Thai society include ‘bun khun’, ‘kreang chai’ and ‘cool heart’.

1. ‘Bhun Kun’: Hallinger & Kantamara (2001, p.408) describe this as “indebted goodness”. Within education, ‘bhun kun’ presents itself through a sense of obligation and gratitude on the part of the student who is the beneficiary of the expertise of the teacher. Also, in terms of morality, Ng & Hor refer to the teacher as “a moral exemplar to students. In return, students show reverence for their teacher by behaving with meekness and obedience” (2005, p.209) .

2. ‘Kreang Chai’: Tiranasar refers to this as ‘an extreme reluctance to impose on anyone or disturb his personal equilibrium by direct criticism, challenge or confrontation’ (2004, p.9). As Rojanapanich & Pimpa (2011) highlight, a consequence of this is deference to those in authority and a perception that authority figures are expert, and as such they are followed without question.

3. ‘Cool Heart’: Having a ‘cool heart’ Tiranasar reports, involves approaching and dealing with problems in a calm and emotionally moderate manner. Suppressing any obvious signs of strong emotion such as anger, dismay, or even enthusiasm is seen as an “intelligent social response” and a sign to others of a “stable personality” (2004, p.9) .

The significance to creativity in these promoted behaviours is that they all lead to conformity, which Runco believes “precludes the originality that is necessary for creativity” (2004, p.15). Instead, he states, that creative individuals “are more typically contrarians than conformists” (2004, p.17). Ng & Smith highlight how creativity effects conformity when they assert that within Asia, “the more creative a class of students becomes, the more undesirable their behavior appears to the teacher” (2010, p.101). Thus, my perception of a suppression of creativity in public schools could be a consequence of the dissuasion of behaviours related to it. This could offer hope in that creativity itself may not necessarily be the intended target.

• Even within Art, opportunities for creative engagement within public schools in Thailand appear limited. UNESCO have referred to the Education system in Thailand as a “teacher-centered rote learning model” and note that “under highly centralized systems of educational administration, there are few incentives to innovate and to be creative” (1999, p.134). Further to this Art is placed within the Primary School Curriculum under the limited scope of ‘Character Development’ which aims to “enable learners to develop value, attitude, behaviour and personality” (2003, p.19). Within the Secondary School Curriculum, students are exposed to just one hour a week of Art, while the aims here include the conservation of Thai cultural heritage, and the ability to “apply art in development of mentality, personality and good taste” (UNESCO, 2003, p.20)

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DATA In seeking to gain a greater understanding of the presence of creativity in the Thai public school system, an investigation of the schools in the immediate locality to which the program would operate in was desirable. This would seek to focus such conversation on the subject in a way that was applicable to the very students I was working with, rather than solely examining Thai public schools in a broad and generalized way, which may or may not apply to my students. It also contextualized their exposure to art in group environments to date, and to what defined art and art practice for them thus far. Lubart and Georgsdottir assert, â&#x20AC;&#x153;children learn about creativity through examples provided by their social environmentâ&#x20AC;? and state that as such teachers as well as parents will define these differently from culture to culture (2010, p.41) It was important for me to gain an understanding of that definition of creativity as perceived by the students as social members of Chiang Khan.

There are three primary schools and one secondary school in town of Chiang Khan,

Figure 1. Student Population in Chiang Khan Schools and number of art classes taught per week in Teacher hours.

herein referred to as P1, P2, P3, and S1. All of these are public government schools and as such follow the national curriculum. The total student population from these schools is 3,246 and is divided as follows: P1 =331, P2=251, P3=964, and S1=1,700. Of these students the average amount currently studying art is approximately 1,508 with a total of 7 Art Educators. From these 4 are employed as full-time art Educators, the remaining 3 hold primary responsibility for the teaching of another subject.

Visits to each school occurred and questionnaires were provided to each art teacher. All but one art teacher from S1 participated. Only one designated art-room was visited, also at S1, and student work was observed with permission. A significantly large amount of work here related to theory and culturally specific imagery with little evidence of works related to personal expression. Tiranasar notes this “emphasis upon cultural heritage” within art education delivered through the Basic Education Curriculum to public schools across Thailand (2010, p.12). She also observes that primary and secondary art activities “are mostly close-ended... how to do activities” and have little in the way of linkage to the “student’s real life”. In terms of creativity, a focus on representing culture presents what Tiranasar refers to as a “habit of

Figure 2. Student artworks with a traditional and cultural focus from a Chiang Khan School.

imitation”, in that this imagery is already defined and so all such engagements with art in this context will follow “severe observance of technique and ideas” (2010, p.11). Under such an assumption, this work would be at odds with Elton’s observation that creative work “cannot be produced under controlled conditions” and that it “must show originality and it must in some way be significant but – in the case of student work – only at the student’s level” (2007, p.3-4).

In terms of the three educators given the task of teaching art, while holding primary responsibility for the teaching of another subject, it is worth noting the effect this may have on their students’ concept of creativity. In citing research by Angeloska-Galevska (1996) and Sternberg &Lubart (1991) Craft (2001) observes how the teacher perceives creativity in their professional practice, along with the nature of their own development academically will have a resulting impact on whether or not student creativity is fostered. This has a particular relevance for the group of children who attended the Sang San Art program, for of the four Art Educators teaching at primary level only one was a full-time designated Art Educator.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH DATA

Figure 3: Sang San Creative Arts Program – Breakdown of Student Participation)

Figure 4: Sang San Creative Arts Program – Breakdown of Student Participation)

Seventeen students in total attended the Sang San Creative Arts Program. Six workshops were held on Saturdays and Sundays for the month of March 2014. The initial plan was to host 8 workshops but two had to be cancelled, one because of a student birthday party and another because of the opening ceremony of new home close by. Students ranged in age from six year old Noei, to 13 years old Aom, who was the only student attending secondary school in the program. Jai and Kit were the only boys in a predominantly female group.

4.0 Workshop Projects in Brief.

Workshop 1 - “Ink Blowing Impulse Project”: Combining free form abstract processes with interpretation and re-engagement to produce meaning. Black ink is blown across an A2 sheet with a straw without engaging in representation. Later, coloured paper is cut into shapes and placed on the ink work to develop the artist’s interpretation.

Workshop 2 – “Stone faces/Crazy monsters”: A workshop which combines preparatory work, production of a finished work, and public exhibition in one project. Students conceptualize character faces in preparatory sketches and transfer a chosen approach to a large smooth round stone. Following this, finished works are publicly exhibited in the Town’s walking street.

Workshop 3 – “Acrylic Print Project”: A process using watercolour blending techniques to create colourful abstract prints. A small amount of water is dropped onto a piece of glass. Different colour paints are chosen and dipped into the pool of water where they mix and blend. A5 watercolour paper sheets are then placed on top of the mix and the print is created.

Workshop 4 – “Visiting Artist Project – Natural Mark Making”: Students work with 14

resident contemporary artist Pumma Boonlert on a one-off project of his design. Natural tools such as banana leaves, cut stems, moss and twigs are used to create a mixed media print.

Workshop 5– “Abstract Identity Print Project”: Building on the process using acrylic paint blending techniques to create colourful abstract prints, card silhouettes of the students in profile frame these prints to encapsulate a theme of identity.

Workshop 6– “Street Art Project”: Redefining street furniture as objects of art. Students design characters for street pavement chalk drawings and convert an abandoned bicycle into a vibrant public art piece.

4.1 Thematic Analysis – Emergent data and investigation. In analyzing program data collected through observation, workshop photographs and video, audio recordings, workshop notes, and program research diary, emerging themes were found and investigated. The main overarching themes discovered and expanded upon are as follows:

•

Intrinsic Motivation as evident in Self Determination.

•

Induced Extrinsic Motivation.

•

Tolerance for Ambiguity.

4.2 Evidence of Instrinsic Motivation. Amabile (1989, p50) defines intrinsic motivation as “the desire to do something for its own sake, because it is interesting, satisfying, or personally challenging”. Watts , R. H.,et al. (2004) categorizes intrinsic motivation into four observable psychological constructs, they are:

1. Self-determination – engaging through choice as opposed to obligation/coercion. 15

2. Self-perceived competence – a feeling that their effort or participation is effective. 3. Relatedness – positive relating and involvement with others. 4. Perceived salience – is the activity important to do? / A sense of importance in the activity.

4.2.1 Self-determination: Efforts were made from the outset to ensure that no obligation was placed on student participation in the program. Students were informed from the outset that they could attend on a workshop to workshop basis as and when suited, or not at all if so desired. Participation at all times was free of charge and all materials required were made available without any cost to the student’s parents. The most frequently present students were also those who showed the highest intrinsic motivation throughout, which would suggest a lack of parental coercion to attend. Researchers find that choice appears to rank highly in supporting self-determination in a learning environment (Watts , R. H.,et al. 2004) while Craft & Jeffrey (2004, p.8) state that for students, “having control is an opportunity to be innovative and expressive”. In each of the workshops the students are given projects that are defined and so in a sense framed in a context. However within that there is a significant degree of choice within each workshop that allows for and promotes student-centred invention and delivery. The “what we will be doing?” of each workshop’s activity and the “with what shall we do it?” of the materials at hand were the externally defined structures of the program, but the emerging and unpredictable nature of “how will you do it?” was specific to student choice.

In workshop one, Ladda, Moo, and Jai all chose to incorporate an accidental ink spillage into their work rather than begin again with the new sheets of paper that were offered. This could of course be interpreted as a desire to not fall behind the others in terms of pace of work, or a laziness to go back to the start when they had already 16

moved beyond that point. Significantly though, this occurred very early on as opposed to at a stage when commitment to a particular approach was high and immersion deep. In this sense it could also be argued that the emphasis in the workshop demonstration on free-form and giving over control to the medium was being acted upon in a spontaneous way.

In the same workshop, Ben, Fern, and Moo were observed in choosing to use the straw as a drawing tool as well as for blowing ink across the page. While this was outside the spirit of free-form and where instead control was being exerted on the activity, it also showed collective group deviation from the “rules” as occurring by choice, and a new approach being investigated. Also, the project’s later stage of interpreting the ink blots gave opportunities to the students to conceive a new way for the abstract element to become something more identifiable though their manipulation of it. Jai’s translation and subsequent representation and delivery of his ink blot as a barking dog, for example, was self-directed at all stages and showed his unique

Figure 5: Jai’s Barking Dog – Workshop 1

vision being realized without any external influence beyond the materials he had to use at his discretion to achieve that.

Workshop three (like workshop one) allowed for an element of chance in what resulted product wise from the students acrylic prints. The demonstration at the beginning of the session would have given a blueprint of sorts on how the effect could be created, and so mimicry of this could be expected. While similar approaches were attempted by students to begin with, deviation from this showed an ownership of the process being realised and a self-initiated desire to experiment. Jai and Aom’s paint dot approach as well as their autonomous decision to collaborate are good examples of this. Noei’s decision to move away from the abstract altogether and create a bear with this largely free-from technique was another unique approach independently conceived and arrived at.

4.2.2 Perceived Salience. Perceived salience, as mentioned by Watts , R. H.,et al. (2004), presented itself in workshop six and the public exhibition which followed it. While producing the street art chalk drawings outside a local cafe (where the program exhibition would later be hosted), a member of the public initially perceived the students to be acting in a manner negative to the cafe owner’s property. The students politely defended themselves without any need for my intervention and upon entering the cafe to speak to the owner, this same person came out to view the children’s work before leaving. At no point did the students hesitate or doubt the validity of their actions in producing sanctioned street art. In the exhibition that followed too, students presented themselves to visiting members of the public to explain their work and the processes behind it, again without any intervention or instruction required on my part.

4.3 Induced Extrinsic Motivation. 18

Extrinsic motivation, says Amabile (1998, p.79) “comes from outside a person- whether the motivation is a carrot or a stick.” In subsequent post-program engagement with literature, it has become clear that my perception of extrinsic motivation was somewhat prejudiced by my observations on what was negatively affecting creativity in Thai schools. In terms of the educator wishing to foster creativity the stick approach as a negative to creativity is perhaps clearer than the effect of the carrot approach. For in wanting to advance a student’s creative autonomy, rewarding evidence of this occurring, even in terms of praise or support, may in fact lead or direct students to follow a particular course – one envisaged by the teacher who is himself or herself striving towards an objective.

On analyzing themes which emerged from the program, personal interventions on my part were observed, which may have in fact promoted extrinsic motivation, and as such inhibited student creativity. One such example presented itself while video recording students at work in workshop two. The intent was to observe students while immersed in creative activity, to attempt to capture what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) refers to as flow. When looking at the recorded video, three students are seen painting their characters on to smooth round rocks, unaware of the camera and deeply engaged. As I adjust slightly to a better vantage point Ngam looks up and becomes aware she is being recorded. As she looks to reengage with her work she pauses momentarily holding her chin. She then brings her brush down to the paint but quickly removes it again, pausing for a second time. At this point another student, Mae, still unaware she is being recorded, brings her brush to the shared palette. Ngam joins her but while Mae’s actions appear deliberate and guided by a clear intent, Ngam is tentative in collecting her colour and it appears her actions are driven by a need to act; simply because she is being observed. This stands in complete contrast to the ease of her actions when she was unaware of being video recorded. While immersed in her work, there was no sense of difficulty in making choices or decisions. 19

In “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity”, Amabile and Pillemer (2011, p.10) refer to this as “surveillance” noting a “negative effect on creativity” that is triggered by a sense of “being watched while working”. This feeling on the part of the observed also leads to an assumption that they are being evaluated, and as such the nature of their work changes. Csikszentmihalyi (1992, p.231) refers to this kind of situation as an “inauthentic project”, where extrinsic motivation then works to appease external forces.

If we look deeper into this example of teacher intervention we begin to see another interesting example of induced extrinsic motivation emerging. In identifying obstacles to creativity within the Thai education system, my desire was to provide a program that would stand in contrast to that. In could be said, that in order for the program to be successful, there had to be an obvious and recorded increase in creativity among the students participating in it. While recording data throughout the program, it is reasonable to suggest that a self-validation process of sorts was initiated by me, whether consciously or not. In other words, my observations were framed by a desire to see evidence of increased creativity taking place. Having the program conclude with an exhibition also required that the works produced “showed” creativity. Here, it could be said that it was I who was deciding what and how works showed creativity. Through my own personally invested aspirations, my guiding of the students in their work may have constituted an external interference with the intrinsic motivation of the student.

Evidence of this intervention was most apparent in project five, just as the exhibition date drew closer. In fact this presented itself even in how the project was devised. While observing the works produced by students in project three, a way of developing the unique and expressive quality to the prints to represent the individual responsible for them was explored. The students would create more prints and this 20

time frame them with a stencil created from digital photographs of the students standing in profile. The significance here is that all aspects of the activity were now controlled and directed by the teacher. There was little room for the student to move away from the defined process in which they were about to engage. While this project concept might lead to aesthetically appealing works, the creative autonomy of the student was being diminished. Further to this product consideration was now leading the process, something which was the complete opposite of the intentions which drove the program into existence. It’s important to note that at no time during this period was I aware I might be negatively impacting on the students’ intrinsic motivation or on their creative independence. In fact I was convinced the opposite was taking place.

Of the six students present during project five, only two of those had previously attended project three. This meant that the color prints produced were very much individual to the new students engaging in the process for the first time, and as such were aesthetically different than what was previously produced. Had the same students been present it may have been safe to assume that similar works would have emerged again this time, works that would have lent themselves to my predetermined vision of the project outcome. As such my control over the process was being ceded to their autonomous explorations. In analysing my interventions at this point it is clear that following the first batch of prints, I tried directing the students to produce outcomes more similar to those of project three. Notes in my research diary also show a frustration on my part in that I felt I wasn’t being listened to during these attempts. On reflection, I am now glad that their persistence maintained.

It’s quite remarkable to discover, that while holding a very sincere desire to foster student creativity, I could be very actively obstructing students in their desire to be creative, and furthermore to not have an awareness of this despite my investigations into inhibitors of creativity. What I believe this shows is that educators are under very 21

similar structures of control that students are subject to. This has significance on the educators ability to provide the kind of environment needed for successfully fostering student creativity. For while much is written of the need to promote risk taking and a tolerance of ambiguity in terms of the student, the educator too must face these in the letting go of control and ownership of the very programs and classes they deliver. While this may indeed be investigated elsewhere, my own research into literature on creativity and education did not highlight this. Also, of all of the authors I have encountered that discuss the fostering of creativity in schools, none but Amabile in 1989, provide sample activities or lesson plans they deem appropriate in successfully achieving this. I believe this absence to be a significant loss.

4.4 Tolerance for ambiguity. Of the eight personality characteristics which Amabile (1989) contends lend themselves to an increased likelihood of creative thinking skills, a tolerance for ambiguity is arguably the most challenging for the Thai student to develop. Hallinger and Kantamara’s study on Thailand’s education system (2001, p.391) contends that “Thailand ranks high on uncertainty avoidance”. Using Hofstede’s (1980) Framework for Analyzing Cultures, their research shows a “high level of discomfort with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity” among the Thai population. Tiranasar’s (2010) observations here are particularly interesting in this regard. “The lack of passion of the Asian student for what he studies is mirrored by his unwillingness to take charge of the learning process. Instead, the students expect their teachers to give them explicit instructions on what tasks and assignments they should read and when to read them, what tasks and assignments they should complete and how to do them. They feel uneasy about unstructured situations in which they have to decide what to do ... They hesitate to ask questions and do not participate actively in class” - AmpaiTiranasar, Ph.D. Cultural Identity and Art Education in Thailand.(2010, p.12).

This has a significant impact on the potential for successful creative engagement, for among the many frameworks that are said to foster creativity or the personal characteristics deemed conducive to creativity, a tolerance of ambiguity is a common and salient feature (Amabile,1989. Sternberg, 2010).

In searching for recurrent themes within the program, it became apparent that there was a significant degree of student uneasiness with ambiguity at intervals in the program, particularly within the first few workshops. This was observed as an initial reluctance to engage in activities that were less structured or required students to make decisions and take ownership. In terms of when this occurred, it presented itself most regularly at the beginning stages of a new project and at significant stages in a project where the nature of the activity changed. In the switch over from free-form to representational activity in session one, Kit, Ladda, Moo, and Noei were noticeably uncomfortable in having to interpret something from their work, instead remaining silent for long periods.

Richmond (2007), in reference to research comparing Western and Eastern students attitude towards their work, observes that the promotion of the Westerns studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s positive contributions are the focus of their educators attention, while the Eastern student is observed in terms of their negative contributions which must be dispelled. The significance of this is that it pertains to a self-reflection process within the Eastern student that emphasizes not doing the wrong thing. In this sense we are essentially seeing a promotion of non-action over action. Such inner restraint may explain a reluctance to tolerate ambiguity in an activity, for while there is the potential for discovery there is also an increased likelihood of mistakes being made in the process. Eisner too makes a similar observation, though one that is much more widespread among the educational experiences of children of a similar age worldwide. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Almost all of the basic skills taught in the primary grades teach children that there is only one correct answer to any 23

question and only one correct solution to any problem.” - Eisner (1992 p.594)

In session two, when students brought their work to the streets of Chiang Khan to exhibit, research diary notes from the day pointed to “an initial awkwardness about placing the work in public”. The students were hesitant to engage and instead looked to me for instruction. This hesitancy was eventually broken by Ngam, who placed her painted stone character inside the head of a plastic rose plant beside an ATM machine where she stood, and called for my attention. The moment this received an enthusiastic response, the remaining students had no hesitation in engaging in similar approaches.

Ambiguity may also have played a role in the continued absence of Kit following his only involvement in workshop one. Two weeks prior to the beginning of the program, Kit had been introduced to me by his music teacher on the morning of the introductory drawing activity. “He really likes Art and is looking forward to your program” exclaimed the teacher as Kit proudly showed a sketchbook full of colour theory studies and technical drawings. His subsequent hesitation at the beginning of the free form ink blowing and then interpretative stage of workshop one, may have been a result of being in an unfamiliar environment where the context of Art had changed for him. As one of the older students in the program (with the cultural significance of that whilst working with younger students), and considering the context of how art had been framed for him up to that point in school, the ambiguity of free-from exploration and having to provide his own observations may have been seen as a shifting of the ‘correct answer’ and may have led to a discomfort in participating.

In contrast to this, Noei who also showed reluctance in workshop one but was present for all but workshop two, became more engaged as the month went on. The youngest student in the program at six years old, Noei was given assistance by 24

Trairat Pakette (Program Assistant) in workshop three and by Puma Boonlert (Visiting Artist) in workshop four. However, in workshop five and six Noei worked independently, most notably in workshop six where her approach was among the most original of the street chalk drawings. This is made all the more interesting in that Noei was late to the workshop and arrived when most of the other drawings were complete and visible to her. In that sense it could be argued that Noeiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work was not an attempt to provide a correct answer to the project but rather generative of her creative autonomy. It could be interpreted that her youth allowed her a particular flexibility, or a greater accessibility to her creativity, that more experienced students were losing through their time spent in conformist environments.

CONCLUSION The variety of research engaged, while in many ways informative has offered up new questions. What I have come to understand is that while creativity is inherent, the possibilities for engagement are subject to the particular socialization processes of a country or culture. When focusing on fostering creativity in young children, it is also highly important to consider the socialized framework that navigates the educator in their efforts to foster this creativity. To truly focus on creative engagement as a process means to not over emphasize a need for evidence of it in the product. This would suggest that a substantial process of ‘letting go’ is involved for both parties, in order to be in a maximized environment of intrinsically motivated creativity. Also, while the strength of the bonds to enculturalization are real, there is enough evidence in the outcomes of the arts program to suggest that both student and teacher can indeed move beyond that. Ambiguities which caused hesitation among some students were overcome at particular periods in the programs workshops, and at times a creative autonomy and confidence revealed itself. It must be remembered that this occurred within a very limited time-frame, it would indeed be interesting to see what could emerge within an ongoing out-of-school creative arts program. On a personal level, my analysis of my own teacher interventions has brought about an awareness that fostering creativity is not possible on best intentions alone, and that a change in focus is required within my practice. This will be an ongoing learning process.

In terms of Thailand itself, while observing how Buddhism’s moral code can be perceived to negatively effect creativity, the more philosophical elements to Buddhism may compliment elements within creative engagement. Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” 26

(1990), Vygotsky’s concepts relating to imagination (2004), and Watt’s observations on the Sumiye artists of Japan’s Zen Buddhist period (1958), all relate in some way to an appreciation of processes in the ‘now.’ I believe there may be possibilities for further research here that can relate to Thailand, where creativity and Buddhist philosophy could work together through immediacy and spontaneity within creative engagement processes.

Beyond this, Academics like Tiranasar (2010) and Rojanapanich&Pimpa (2011), observe that the youth of a rapidly changing Thailand are looking to the role of Art to expand beyond perceptions of its place in a static and history centric culture. Tiranasar offers some insight behind this in her assertion that: “General knowledge has widened the field of imagination and the result is the young Thai artists “want” to create something new corresponding to their own conceptions and plastic realizations. In doing so, they work against the current of public artistic appreciation, but it is indispensable for them to follow their natural instinct because it sincerely reflects their own historical surroundings, which are now the surroundings of everyone in Thailand.” (2010, p.17)

This natural instinct is something that could be greatly assisted at an educational level through the fostering of creativity. Yet for this to happen, it is clear that hurdles need to be overcome, not least those involving how educators achieve this.

Following this report, it is my intention to engage with artists and art educators to collect and produce art project and activity concepts that may be deemed supportive of creative engagement. I feel that the potential for a valuable resource exists within this that would benefit both my practice and those of others seeking to foster creativity. I am interested in the international perspectives that may arise within that; perspectives which may challenge my own enculturalization, and the processes that have led to how I too have come to define creativity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY A.C.T Democ(k)racy project. (2012). http://act-democracy.eu/what-is/

Amabile, T.M, (1989), ‘Growing Up Creative: Nurturing a Lifetime of Creativity’, New York, Crown Publishers.

Amabile, T.M, (1998), ‘How to Kill Creativity: Keep Doing What You’re Doing. Or, If You Want to Spark Innovation, Rethink How You Motivate, Reward,and Assign Work to People, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998.

Amabile, T M, Pillemer, J. “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity.” Journal of Creative Behavior 46, no. 1 (March 2012): 3–15.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010.

Bartel, M, (2014), ‘Eleven Questions and Reflections on Learning to Draw as Preschoolers’, Retrived from http://bartelart.com/arted/LearningDrawing.htm.

Bogdan, R. C & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to Theories and. Methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education group.

Byrman A (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.

Candy, L. Z.Bilda, Z (2009) ‘Understanding and Evaluating Creativity’, A Creativity and 28

Cognition Conference Tutorial.

Craft, A, (2001) ‘An analysis of research and literature on Creativity in Education’, Report prepared for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Csikszentmihalyi, M, (1990) ‘Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience’, Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

Dewey, J, (1934), ‘Art as Experience’, pp. 1, 35-37, 47-48, 82-85, 106-109, 194-200, 272275. New York, Putnam, 1934.

Eisner, E, (1992), ‘The Misunderstood Role of the Arts in Human Development ‘, Phi Delta Kappan, 7(8) – 1992, pg 592

Elton, L, (2007), ‘Assessing Creativity in an Unhelpful Climate’, Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education, A conference organised by the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy, Cardiff January 8-10 2007.

Gino, F, Ariely, D. (2011) ‘The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can be More Dishonest’, Creativity and Dishonesty, Harvard Business School.

Hallinger P, Kantamara P (2001), Exploring the Cultural Context of School Impovement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2001, Vol 12, No 4. Swets & Zeitlinger.

Jeffrey, B and Craft, A (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), pp. 77–87. Taylor Francis.

Lubart, T.I, Georgsdottir, A, (2004), ‘Creativity: Developmental and Cross-Cultural Issues’, Creativity: When East meets West, Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Ng, A.K, Hor, K.K.H, (2005), ‘Teaching Attitudes, Emotional Intelligence and Creativity of School Teachers in Singapore’.

Ng, A.K, Smith, I, (2004), ’Why is there a Paradox in Promoting Creativity in the Asian Classroom?’, Creativity: When East meets West. Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Nguyen, T.H, (2005), ‘Thailand: Cultural Background for ESl/EFL Teachers’. Cuyahoga Community College. Retrived online at http://hmongstudies.org/ThaiCulture.pdf.

Puccio, G.J, Gonzalea, D.W, (2004), ‘Nurturing Creative Thinking: Western Approaches and Eastern Issues’, Creativity: When East meets West. Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Richmond, J.E.D, (2007), ‘Bringing Critical Thinking to the Education of Developing Country Professions’, International Education Journal, 2007.

Robinson, K, (1999) ‘All of Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education’, National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, Report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Robinson, K, (2006), ‘How Schools Kill Creativity’, TED Talk, http://www.ted.com/talks/ ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity/transcript?language=en.

Rojanapanich, P, Pimpa, N, (2011), ‘Creative Education, Globalization and Social Imaginary’.

Runco, M.A, (2004), ‘Personal Creativity and Culture’, Creativity: When East meets West. Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Runco, M.A, (2010), ‘Education based on a Parsimonious Theory of Creativity’, Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Edited by Beghetto, R.A, Kaufman, J.C, Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J, (2010), ‘Teaching for Creativity’, Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Edited by Beghetto, R.A, Kaufman, J.C, Cambridge University Press.

Spendlove, D. (2005). ‘Creativity in Education: A Review’, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10, 2.

Thomas G (2013). How to do your Research Project: A Guide for Students in Education and Applied Social Sciences. Sage Publications 2013.

Tiranasar A (2004), Cultural Identity and Art Education in Thailand. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Presented at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Art Education Conference, Hong Kong Dec. 28-30, 2004.

Treffinger, D.J, Young, G.C, Selby, E.C, Shepardson, C, (2002), ‘Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators’ Center for Creative Learning, RM02170.

UNESCO. Fry, G.W, (1999) ‘Management of Education in Thailand: A Review and Recommendations for an Implementation Strategy for Decentralization’, Prepared 31

for UNESCO-Bangkok as part of the Asian Development Bank Social Sector Program Loan in the framework of the Education Management and Finance Study Project TA2996-THA. UNESCO. Iwai, K (2003), ‘Overview: Arts Education in Asia’, Prepared for the UNESCO Regional Conference on Arts Education in Asia, May 2003 in Thailand.

Vygotsky, L.V, (2004) ‘Imagination and Creativity in Childhood’, English Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1,January–February 2004, pp. 7–97. 2004. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Watts, R. H., Jr., Cashwell, C. S., & Schweiger, W. K, (2004), ‘Fostering Intrinsic Motivation in Children: A Humanistic counseling process. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 43, 16-24.

Weisz, J, Chaiyasit, W, Weiss, B, Eastman, K.L, Jackson, E.W, (1995), ‘A Multimethod Study of Problem behavior among Thai and American Children in School: Teacher Reports versus Direct Observations’.

REFERENCE LIST Amabile, T.M, (1989), ‘Growing Up Creative: Nurturing a Lifetime of Creativity’, New York, Crown Publishers.

Runco, M.A, (2004), ‘Personal Creativity and Culture’, Creativity: When East meets West. Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Bogdan, R. C & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to Theories and. Methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education group.

Candy, L. Z.Bilda, Z (2009) ‘Understanding and Evaluating Creativity’, A Creativity and Cognition Conference Tutorial.

Thomas G (2013). How to do your Research Project: A Guide for Students in Education and Applied Social Sciences. Sage Publications 2013.

Runco, M.A, (2004), ‘Personal Creativity and Culture’, Creativity: When East meets West. Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Hallinger P, Kantamara P (2001), Exploring the Cultural Context of School Impovement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2001, Vol 12, No 4. Swets & Zeitlinger.

Ng, A.K, Hor, K.K.H, ‘(2005), Teaching Attitudes, Emotional Intelligence and Creativity of School Teachers in Singapore’.

Runco, M.A, (2004), ‘Personal Creativity and Culture’, Creativity: When East meets West. Editors Sing Lau, Anna N N Hui and Gracy Y C Ng, 2004, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

UNESCO. Fry, G.W, (1999) ‘Management of Education in Thailand: A Review and Recommendations for an Implementation Strategy for Decentralization’, Prepared for UNESCO-Bangkok as part of the Asian Development Bank Social Sector Program Loan in the framework of the Education Management and Finance Study Project TA2996-THA

UNESCO. Iwai, K (2003), ‘Overview: Arts Education in Asia’, Prepared for the UNESCO Regional Conference on Arts Education in Asia, May 2003 in Thailand.

Craft, A, (2001) ‘An analysis of research and literature on Creativity in Education’, Report prepared for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Amabile, T.M, (1989), ‘Growing Up Creative: Nurturing a Lifetime of Creativity’, New York, Crown Publishers.

Jeffrey, B and Craft, A (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), pp. 77–87. Taylor Francis.

Amabile, T M, Pillemer, J. “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity.” Journal of Creative Behavior 46, no. 1 (March 2012): 3–15.

Csikszentmihalyi, M, (1990) ‘Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience’, Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

Hallinger P, Kantamara P (2001), Exploring the Cultural Context of School Impovement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2001, Vol 12, No 4. Swets & Zeitlinger.

Eisner, E, (1992), ‘The Misunderstood Role of the Arts in Human Development ‘, Phi Delta Kappan, 7(8) – 1992, pg 592

APPENDICES 8.0 Artwork Samples

8.1 Questionaire (English).

This questionnaire is for the purpose of research into Art in the Thai education system. Your name will not be appear in any of the research and instead a pseudonym will be used. This questionnaire is purely voluntary and you can decide to withdraw your participation at any time.

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Job title: __________________________________________________________________________ School: ___________________________________________________________________________ Qualification: ______________________________________________________________________

Your School. How many students in your school? How many art teachers are in your school? Does your school have an art room with art materials? How do you rate the art facilities at your school? Not good – ok – standard – good – excellent.

Your Classes. How many art classes do you teach every week? How long are your art classes? What grades do you teach, and how many hours do you teach each grade? On average, how many students are in your class? Do you follow the official Thai curriculum? Do you create your own lesson plans?

Your Syllabus. How often do you teach the following: 38

Never – Sometimes - Regularly - Often – Every week.

•

Art History (Thai).

•

Art History (International).

•

Contemporary Art Practice(Thai).

•

Contemporary Art Practice (International).

•

Life Drawing.

•

Still Life.

•

Painting.

•

Sculpture.

•

Ceramics.

•

Craft.

•

Visit Art Galleries.

•

Visiting Artist studios or artists visit the class.

•

Photography.

•

Multimedia (computer software, photoshop etc.)

•

Animation.

•

Film.

•

View traditional Thai Art.

•

View contemporary Thai Artists works.

•

View contemporary International Artist works.

Which of the following do you feel is more important?

•

Imagination and creativity.

•

Skills and technique.

8.2 Questionaire (Thai).

8.3 Permission Form (English).

Dear Parent,

My name is Neil Delaney. I am a 35 year old teacher from Ireland who has been living in Thailand for four years. I have previously worked as a multimedia teacher in PTK Nong Khai, and at Chiang Khan School. I have a Bachelors Degree in Fine Art Painting from the Limerick School of Art and Design, Ireland. I am currently in my final year of the Masters of Arts in Art and Design Education.

I will be hosting a creative art program in Chiang Khan called â&#x20AC;&#x153;Saang San Chiang Khanâ&#x20AC;? for a total of six weeks, starting in March and ending in mid-April. The program will provide contemporary art classes that are free of charge to all students. I will be working alongside Chiang Khan based Music teacher,(name removed for anonymity), and an assistant Trairat Pakkete who is a Fine Arts Print graduate from Chualalongkorn University. We will also have some visiting Thai artists who will work with students on some projects.

As part of the program I will be conducting research on how the students engage in their creative art practices. I am interested in their experience within the program compared to their experience within a school environment. I will look to document this using photography, video, and audio recordings of the students at work and of their finished artworks. I will also be taking notes reviewing what happened in each class, and may also interview students about their work.

At the end of the program we will have a public exhibition of the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work that will be free for all to attend. The exhibition will take place in Chiang Khan. I am writing to ask your consent, as parent and guardian, for your child to take part

in these art classes. I am also asking for your consent in allowing me to record your childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of the art program as part of my Masters Degree research. Your childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name will not feature in the research and a pseudonym will instead be used. Thank you and best wishes. Neil J. Delaney.

I give consent for my child to participate in the Saang San Chiang Khan creative arts program.

Signature: ______________________________________________________________________

Name: __________________________________________________________________________

I give consent for photographs, video, and audio recordings to be taken of my childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the program, and also of the work that they create. I also give permission for my child to be interviewed.

Signature: ______________________________________________________________________

Name: __________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________________________________________________________________________

8.4 Permission Form (Thai).

เรียน ผู้ปกครอง

ผมชื่อ นีล เดเลนีย์ อายุ 35 ปี มาจากประเทศไอร์แลนด์ มีอาชีพเป็น ครูอาศัยอยู่ที่ประเทศไทย 4 ปีแล้ว เคยสอนวิชาคอมพิวเตอร์ที่ โรงเรียนประทุมเทพ จ.หนองคาย และสอนภาษาอัลกฤษที่โรงเรียนเชียงคาน จบการศึกษาปริญญาตรีสาขาศิลปกรรมศาสตร์ เอกจิตรกรรม จาก Limerick School of Art and Design ประเทศไอร์แลนด์ ปัจจุบันกำ�ลังศึกษาปริญญาโทสาขาศิลปกรรมศาสตร์ ผมมีความประสงค์จะจัดโครงการศิลปะสร้างสรรค์ ชื่อ “สร้างสรรค์เชียงคาน” มีระยะเวลาทั้งสิ้น 6 สัปดาห์ เริ่มตั้งแต่ต้นเดือนมีนาคม ถึงกลางเดือนเมษายน จะจัดการเรียนการสอนศิลปะสมัยใหม่ โดยไม่เสียค่าใช้จ่าย ผมทำ�งานร่วมกับครูสอนบ้านดนตรี ออดี้ และผู้ช่วย ชื่อ ไตรรัตน์ ปักเคเต จบปริญญาตรีสาขสศิลปกรรมศาสตร์จากจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย และในบางโอกาสจะมีครูศิลปะหรือศิลปินในสา ขาอื่นๆ มาช่วยสอน โปรแกรมที่ผมจะดำ�เนินการเป็นการวิจัยเกี่ยวกับวิธีการที่นักเรียนมีส่วนร่วมในการสร้างสรรค์งานศิลปะและประสบการณ์ของนักเรียนภายใน โครงการที่ผมจัดขึ้นเมื่อเทียบกับประสบการณ์ของพวกเขาในสภาพแวดล้อมของโรงเรียนผมจะใช้การถ่ายภาพถ่ายวิดีโอและบันทึกเสียงของ นักเรียนในการทำ�งานและผลงานที่เสร็จสมบูรณ์แล้ววิเคราะห์สิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในแต่ละชั้นเรียนและอาจสัมภาษณ์นักเรียนเกี่ยวกับการทำ�งานของ พวกเขา ในตอนท้ายของโครงการเราจะมีการจัดแสดงนิทรรศการศิลปะของนักเรียนขึ้นในเชียงคานสำ�หรับบุคคลทั่วไปสามารถเข้าชมได้ฟรี ผมเขียนไปถามความยินยอมของผู้ปกครองเพื่อให้บุตรของท่านมีส่วนร่วมในชั้นเรียนศิลปะ นอกจากนี้ผมยังขอความยินยอมในการอนุญาต ให้ผมบันทึกประสบการณ์ของบุตรของท่านเพื่อเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของโครงการศิลปะการวิจัยปริญญาโทของผมชื่อบุตรของคท่านไม่มีบทบาท สำ�คัญในการวิจัยและจะใช้เป็นนามแฝงแทน ขอขอบคุณ นีลเดเลนีย์ ผม/ฉันยินยอมให้บุตรเข้าร่วมในโครงการศิลปะ “สร้างสรรค์เชียงคาน” ลายเซ็น: _________________________ ชื่อ:

_________________________

ผม/ฉันยินยอมให้มีการถ่ายภาพถ่ายวิดีโอบันทึกเสียงและสัมภาษณ์ ลายเซ็น: _________________________ ชื่อ:

_________________________

วันที่ ___/___/___