CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CREATIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN THAILAND

Asia-Pacific International University CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CREATIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN THAILAND A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION by Kitasha Jingru Li May 2018

i CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CREATIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN THAILAND A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION By KITASHA JINGRU LI APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE Josephine Esther Katenga, PhD Okatavian Mantiri, PhD Research Advisor Dean, Faculty of Education Jimmy Kijai, PhD Damrong Satayavaksakul, PhD Panelist Panelist Dr. Surapee Sorajjakool, PhD External Examiner

iii ABSTRACT Master of Education Administration Asia-Pacific International University Faculty of Education TITLE: CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CREATIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN THAILAND Researcher: Kitasha Jingru Li Research advisor: Josephine Esther Katenga Date completed: May 2018 Studies show that creativity affects academic achievement. This study aims to investigate the possibility between student’s perceived creativity and academic achievement. This quantitative study surveyed a total of 311 students from three international parochial high schools in Thailand. The sample consisted of 152 male students and 159 female students aged between 15-19 years old. Students’ perception of their creativity was measured using Dr. Kumar & Dr. Holman’s questionnaire. The cumulative grade point average (GPA) was the standard used to evaluate their academic achievement. The findings show that the perceived creativity of students studying in the international schools reported a moderate level of values in Relevant skills/relevant process. Relationship between creativity dimensions and academic

iv achievement are essentially zero, except for self-regulation and the correlation among the creativity dimensions are generally moderate.

v DECLARATION This thesis is a presentation of my original research work. Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions. The work was done under the guidance of Dr. Josephine Katenga, at the Asia-Pacific International University. I certify that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge. Kitasha Jingru Li 09/04/2018

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................iii DECLARATION ...........................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 Background ...................................................................................................2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................5 Purpose of Study ...........................................................................................6 Research Questions.......................................................................................6 Hypothesis.....................................................................................................6 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................6 Limitations ....................................................................................................7 Delimitation ..................................................................................................8 Significance of Research...............................................................................8 Organization of Chapters ..............................................................................8 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................10 Introduction.................................................................................................10 History of Creativity and Academic Achievement .....................................10 Definition of Creativity...............................................................................11 Impact of Creativity in Education...............................................................12 Creativity Can Be Taught..................................................................12 Perception of Creativity ..............................................................................13 Academic Achievement ..............................................................................14 Definition of Academic Achievement...............................................15 GPA as a Measure of Academic Achievement .................................16 Literature Review on Creativity and Academic Achievement ...................17 Conceptual framework................................................................................18

vii Componential Theory of Creativity...................................................19 Self-regulation ...................................................................................21 Self-efficacy ......................................................................................22 Conclusion ..................................................................................................24 3. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................25 Introduction.................................................................................................25 Research Questions and Hypothesis ...........................................................25 Setting .....................................................................................................26 Method .....................................................................................................26 Sampling Method........................................................................................26 Data Gathering Procedure ...........................................................................26 Instrument ...................................................................................................27 Reliability and Validity...............................................................................30 Data Analysis..............................................................................................31 Ethical Concerns .........................................................................................31 4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................32 Introduction.................................................................................................32 The Participants...........................................................................................32 Results .....................................................................................................32 Levels of creativity......................................................................................33 Academic achievement......................................................................39 Creativity dimensions and academic achievement............................40 Summary of research findings ....................................................................42 5. SUMMARY.....................................................................................................44 Summary .....................................................................................................44 Discussion ...................................................................................................45 Limitations ..................................................................................................47 Conclusion ..................................................................................................48 Recommendations.......................................................................................48 REFERENCE LIST .....................................................................................................50 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................65

viii LIST OF TABLES 1. Internal consistency reliability of the creativity dimensions .................... 31 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (n = 133)............................ 33 3. Creativity dimensions mean, standard deviation and skewness (311)...... 34 4. Creativity dimensions by school............................................................... 35 5. T-test results for comparing Thai and non-Thai on creativity dimensions ............................................................................................ 35 6. Item mean and standard deviation – Relevant skills and process (n=311)............................................................................... 36 7. Item mean and standard deviation – self-regulation (n=311)................... 37 8. Item mean and standard deviation – Motivation (n=311)......................... 38 9. Item means and standard deviations – Self-efficacy (n=311)................... 38 10. Item mean and standard deviation – perception of creativity (n=311) .................................................................................. 39 11. Distribution of cumulative grade point averages (n=311)........................ 39 12. Number and (percent) of CGPA category by school and grade level. ...................................................................................... 40 13. Inter-correlation between CGPA and creativity dimensions (n=311) ............................................................................... 41 14. Regression analysis results for predicting CGPA with creativity dimensions (n=311) ....................................................... 41 15. Regression analysis results for predicting CGPA with creativity dimensions by school..................................................... 42 16. Regression analysis results for predicting CGPA with creativity dimensions by grade level. ............................................ 43

ix LIST OF FIGURES 1. Conceptual Framework for the study........................................................ 24

x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis took over a year to finish writing. I have faced numerous obstacles, difficulties and struggles during the writing process. Through it all, there were always some special individuals who guided, encouraged, and supported me. They pushed, pulled, and prayed for me. Eventually their support brought back the passion for learning and a harvest to my student’s life. Because of these lovely people, I would like to thank them for their help by mentioning their names. I would like to express the utmost gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Josephine Katenga, for her dedication, support, patience, and guidance as I completed this thesis project. Even though I had worked with others, she was willing to take on an almost completed, defective project to the finish. It has been a privilege to work with such a knowledgeable and respectful scholar. Her careful review and feedback at various stages helped my thinking and writing. I would also like to give big thanks to Dr. Damrong Satayavaksakul for his patience, even though he was very busy, he found time to help find an instrument for this study and for the time he spent on the data. Thanks for his support from the very beginning until the end I finish the project. I would also like to give thanks to Dr. Oktavian Mantiri for the organization of the thesis group meeting and conferences which offered the opportunity to share my work and gain experience. Dr. Jimmy Kijai deserves my sincere appreciation for helping me at the last minute and teaching me research methods, data analysis and interpretation. A very big thanks to Dr. Bienvisa Nebres for her guidance, commitment, and always motivating me to continue this learning process. Thank you for being willing to proofread my work, and support me all the time. Thank you to Mrs. Joan Yousry for helping with the statistical analysis

xi and to Dr. Paluku Kazimoto for teaching me how to explain the analysis. To my parents, I express my sincerest gratitude for their financial support, spiritual help and understanding. Their love, hugs, and humorous utterances strengthened me. Without them things would have turned out differently. Finally, I thank the Heavenly Father, the Almighty God for His wisdom, guidance, comfort, love and mercy that this thesis came together as a product. May this thesis be useful in His vineyard and serve to glorify His Name.

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Success in high school determines how successful youth would be after their formal schooling (Craft, Jeffrey & Leibling, 2001). Educators are hard-pressed to provide effective pedagogues that result in better learning outcomes. In addition, differences in students’ academic achievement have driven researchers to examine a variety of factors that affect their learning outcomes (Kuo, 2007; Adam 2004; Tsui 2003; Loughran, 2011). These factors include cognitive and non-cognitive factors such as: family, cultural and social-economic backgrounds, parents’ academic socialization (Lareau, 1987; Delgado-Gaitan, 1992), teachers’ expertise in teaching (Tsui, 2003; Loughran, 2011), students’ beliefs of their ability to learn (AndersonMeger, 2014; Schommer, 1989), motivation (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Bowman & Howard, 1985 ), self-regulation (Duckworth & Carlson, 2013; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) and creativity (Craft, Jeffrey & Leibling, 2001; Kaboodi & Jiar, 2012; Chauhan & Sharma, 2017). Literature indicates that the most common aspect discussed concerning creativity, is the correlation between creativity and academic achievement or one or both of these variables (Ghasemi, Rastegar, Jahromi, & Roozegar (2011); Bolandifar & Noordin (2013); Olatoye, Akintunde, & Ogunsanya (2010); Trivedi & Bhargava (2010); Naderi, Abdullah, Aizan, Sharir, & Kumar (2010); and Nami, Marsooli, & Ashouri (2013). These same variables were also studied as predictors in the studies of Naderi, Abdullah, Tengku, Jamaluddin & Kumar (2010); Abolmaali & Mahmudi (2013); and Kuncel, Hezlett, Ones (2004), Kaboodi, and Jiar (2012). Furthermore,

2 many of the studies indicate that creative people are flexible and can adapt to a variety of situations, can self-regulate, have the skills for problem solving, have a sense of self-efficacy, and are able to utilize resources available to them. Creative people are motivated to achieve their goals and can create new ideas (Torrance, 1963, 1965; Alia al-Oweidi, 2013; Barron & Harrington, 1981). According to Amabile (1983), motivation, as one component of creativity, includes attitudes towards a task, how the people perceive their own motivation for undertaking a task. As for students, their creativity is essential for better academic achievement, however their social cultural backgrounds and classroom environments can affect their creativity, consequently their ability or inability to perform certain educational tasks can spell success or failure. Background Thailand is a unique Asian country because it was never colonized, and therefore its education system was not heavily influenced by American or European models. Early education in Thailand was provided by Buddhist temples and missionaries (Bhumiratana & Commins, 2012). The Thai education system however, has two unique challenges: a) students are promoted to the next grade level despite poor academic achievement (Peterson & Hughes, 2011); and b) students are affected by the local Buddhist cultural values (Tunwattanapong & Dimmitt, 2010). Student critical thinking is affected by Thai cultural values. The culture adheres to social norm regarding interactions between “superiors,” such as heads of an organizations and “inferiors,” subordinates (Pattapong, 2015, p. 5) As such; students view teachers as their superiors because according to Thai culture they have power in the classroom. Second, Thai culture places value on “face-saving”, “criticism avoidance”, and “kreng-jai” (obligation and respect). (Pattapong, 2015, p. 5). These values are

3 transferred into the classroom and these cultural contexts influence students’ behavior and have overall detrimental effects on their education (Tunwattanapong & Dimmitt, 2010). In many Thai classrooms, the teacher-centered approach is the most preferred teaching strategy. Vallin & Akesson (2012) observed the teacher-centered classrooms and portrayed them this way, “The teachers were typically in the front of the classroom instructing the whole classes. Note taking was the most common student activity in these classes” (p. 9). The role of the learner is to listen and it is offensive for students to question teachers. (Pruksakit & Kainzbauer, 2016). In addition, Thai students learn through rote memorization (Nguyen, 2015). Students spend more time memorizing grammar rules and vocabulary than in oral practice. These cultural factors explain why English Foreign Languages learners in Thailand are passive and unresponsive in the classroom. (Bruner, 1960; Pattapong, 2010; & Liu & Long, 2014) International schools in Thailand enroll diverse students from different countries with diverse cultures. Some of the students’ cultures are similar to the Thai culture and students tend to respond to teachers in a similar pattern to the Thais. Despite this problem, there are students who excel in the Thai school environment because of their own creativity. In fact, we found groups of students in classes who used critical thinking skills to create new ideas. We also found students who excelled in math who had challenges in languages. However, it has been found that some students have excelled in these environments because of their own creativity. At Asia International Mission School (AIMS), I found that a group of students in my class were academic achievers and used critical thinking skills. These students were also skilled in creating new ideas. Nevertheless, I also discovered that not all students who excelled in Math were good

4 in languages. The question was: Why were some students better skilled in solving problems than others? What was the relationship between their creativity and their academic success? Studies have shown that students can succeed in the classroom if they have some components of creativity, when they have perception of their creativity, take initiative, use technology, seek help from other people, use their senses to learn, have self-efficacy, have self-esteem, are motivated and are able to self-regulate (Amabile, 1983; Gajda, 2016; Gajda, Karwoski & Beghetto, 2017; Karia, 2015; Nami, Marsooli & Ashouri, 2014). Brittany (2017) stated that creativity in children is important because it promotes emotional development, social development, physical development, cognitive development and supports language and literacy development. Successful creative people focus on the meaning of what they do and ensure that their work is significant. Their concern is to produce something that will be valuable in their life (Judkins, 2013). However, the correlation between creativity and academic achievement differs according to educational systems, students’ educational levels and cultural backgrounds (Gajda, 2016). Creativity is multi-faceted concept and has a variety of definitions. Some authors define it as mental capacity (Runco & Pritzker, 1999), others focus on ability and skills (Doyle, 2018; Foster, 2015) yet others include the aspect of the environmental influence (Amabile, 1983; Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 2006; Surapuramath, 2014). Joy Paul Guilford, a psychologist, is credited for identifying and defining creativity in terms of processes, personality traits and environmental contexts (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001-2002), Sternberg (2006) on the other hand, believes that creativity is the combination of “intellectual abilities” (analytical, synthetic and practical intelligence), “knowledge,” “styles of thinking,” “personality”

5 (self-efficacious), “motivation” (both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and “environment” (Sternberg, 2006 p. 87). In addition, Surapuramath (2014) claimed that creativity consists of cognitive capacities, cognitive methods and motivation, and that creativity is influenced by a person’s cultural background. Amabile (1985) however focuses her definition on creativity components (domain-relevant skills, creativityrelevant processes, task motivation and social environment). Creativity can be improved or impeded by how students perceive themselves. Poor perception can come from their learning environment which includes: the cultural background, the teacher, the teacher’s instructional performance, and other experiences the student may encounter in the environment. Studies do show that student’s perception about themselves within the school environment is a key factor in their academic achievement (Byrne 1986; Mapuranga, Musingafi & Zebron, 2015; Scheirer & Kraut, 1979). Perceptions can affect students’ self-efficacy and selfregulation (Bandura, 1997; Mapuranga, Musingafi & Zebron, 2015; Tierney & Farmer, 2003) and thus affect their own creativity resulting in either poor or excellent academic achievement. It is clear from many of the previous studies that apart from other factors that enhance or impede students’ learning outcomes, how students perceive their creativity is related to their academic outcomes. Problem Statement Studies show that students can succeed in the classroom if they have some components of creativity, when they have perception of their creativity, take initiative, use technology, seek help from other people, use their senses to learn, have selfefficacy, are motivated and are able to self-regulate. In the Thai educational systems addition, students’ learning outcomes vary. There are two categories of students in the international parochial high schools in Thailand: those who are creative and do well in

6 class, and those who do not seem to be creative and have low academic achievement. In these environments, what is the impact of perceived creativity on academic achievement? Purpose of Study The present study investigates self-perceived levels of creativity and their relationship to academic achievement. This study also examined differences between Thai and international students on levels of creativity. Research Questions The following questions were used in order to investigate how high students’ perceived creativity impacts academic achievement. Research question 1: How do students at three Adventist international schools in Thailand rate their creativity dimensions in the following areas: creativity capacity, use of techniques, use of other people, final product orientation, and self-regulation? Research question 2: What is the level of students’ academic achievement in selected Adventist international schools in Thailand? Research question 3: What creative factors singly or collectively predict academic achievement among senior high school students in selected Adventist international schools in Thailand? Hypothesis Null Hypothesis: There is no significant creative dimension that predicts academic achievement. Definition of Terms In this study, three main terms will be used:

7 Creativity - this term refers to a person’s ability of learning. According to this paper, creativity will be used in terms of how they use techniques, how they use their senses, and how they make use of other people. Perception - this term refers to how students understand and interpret their environment and use the interpretation to guide their actions. Academic Achievement - refers to students’ success according to the cumulative grade point average (GPA), on a grading scale assignment of A, B, C, D. Motivation - this term refers to internal and external factors that lead people to maintain interest and commit to a particular job, project, subject, or to make an effort to attain a certain goal. Self-regulation - this term refers to people who have the ability to control their process or activity, to keep disruptive emotions, and to think before acting. Self-efficacy - refers to an individual’s belief that they are capable of achieving their goals. Limitations This study is limited to the Thailand international parochial high schools. Therefore, the findings may neither be applicable to other high school students in Thailand or to students of other regions around the world. In addition, the study was conducted among students of grades 10 to 12 and the result is only applicable to these grades. The instrument used in this study only measures students’ perception of their creativity styles and is adequate for measuring students’ understanding of their own creativity and the results are compared to their academic achievement.

8 Delimitation To ensure comprehensive data collection, I delimited the study to homogenous schools, hence the choice of Seventh-day Adventist schools. Although other methods for data collection could have been used, I decided on a survey which was easier for students in these schools. This study was only measuring students’ understanding of their own creativity. Significance of Research Although there are studies that have examined the role of creativity in influencing academic achievement (Surapuramath, 2014; Khan & Rizwanuddin, 2015; Tatlah, Aslam, Ali & Iqbal, 2012; Kaboodi & Jiar, 2012; Chauhan & Sharma, 2017), only a few have discussed creativity in international parochial high schools in Thailand. The findings of this study will contribute to existing literature on creativity and its influence on academic achievement. In addition, educators will use the findings to improve their teaching strategies and class activities. It is hoped that schools will have teacher development sessions on how to encourage student creativity, thus increasing academic achievement. Studies have indicated that creativity gives students curiosity, therefore teachers will create environments in which students grow academically as they are motivated to use their creativity to find better ways of learning. Organization of Chapters The rest of the thesis chapters are organized as follows: Chapter 2 provides a conceptual framework and discusses existing literature on creativity. Chapter 3 is a detailed account of the methodology which includes, population, data collection and

9 analysis methods. Chapter 4 contains the data analysis, and the outcome of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the findings and concludes with recommendations.

10 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This study aimed to describe the correlation between students’ perceived creativity and academic achievements and to determine the degree to which they are related. In this chapter, I am going to: a) describe the history of creativity, b) define creativity and provide a literature review that shows some areas that have been studied and the gaps that still exist, and c) discuss the conceptual framework that defines concepts used in this study and establishes the relationship between the concepts. History of Creativity and Academic Achievement A number of names are linked to studies that sparked further interest on the different aspects of creativity. In her “Analysis of Research and Literature on Creativity in Education, Craft (2001) traces the history of the systematic study of creativity and mentions the end of the nineteenth century as the start. Galton (1869, 1892) is credited for “the first systematic study of creativity.” Galton’s Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequence was a discourse on intelligence and creativity that was “claimed to be the first statistical study of genius” (Mitchell, n. d.). Guilford, an American psychologist, generated interest in creativity from his works on intelligence tests, divergent thinking, and creativity. In his 1950 presidential speech at the American Psychological Association, Guilford decried the lack of creativity studies. He conducted intelligence tests on children and designed a number of tests to measure creative thinking (J. P. Guilford, 1950; Isaksen, n. d.).

11 E. Paul Torrance is credited for contributing to literature and tests for creativity and creative thinking. Besides his studies on human intelligence and creativity, (Guilford, 2014), one of his major contribution is the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The questionnaire he developed for his study has been widely used to measure creativity. Definition of Creativity Creativity is multi-faceted and thus requires many definitions. It is “the ability to make or bring to existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method of device or a new artistic object or form” (Penick, 1992, as cited by Olatoye, Akintunde, & Ogunsanya, 2010, p. 135); “a break with habitual patterns of thought” (Robinson, 2001, p. 135); “the ability to produce work that is novel, high in quality and appropriate” (Stemberg, 2003. p. 98); “the kind of thinking that leads to new insights, novel approaches, fresh perspectives, whole new ways of understanding and conceiving things” (Facione, 2013. p. 14). These definitions bring out the ideas of production and originality or coming up with something in ways that were not thought of before. Naiman (2014) sees creativity as two processes: thinking, then producing, evident in her description of creativity as “the ability to perceive the world in new ways, to find hidden patterns, to make connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, and to generate solutions” (p. 1). This brings out the idea of using creativity as a problem-solving tool. The father of the creativity field, Torrance (1965) defined creativity as the “process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies; testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating the results”. (p. 663, 664). This definition

12 explains a natural human process. All the different perspectives given in these definitions are included in the concept of creativity as used in this study. Moreover, these definitions say what can be done or accomplished with creativity, which, in some way, reveals the importance of creativity. Olatoye et al. (2010) add that without creativity man would remain in his old ways of thinking and doing things. Impact of Creativity in Education Studies on creatvity have been conducted in many developing countries regarding the importance of art and creativity (Sharp & Metais, 2000). In addition, many countries have included creativity in their education policies. In recent years, there has been an increase in understanding creativity and education in European, the United States, Australia and East Asia (Shaheen, 2010). Therefore, creativity is a concept that educators at every level of education want to understand because creativity begins from early childhood and continues into adulthood. Creativity Can Be Taught Do we inherit creativity? Can creativity be learned in the classroom or at home? There are people who believe that creativity is not inherited and that a person can learn how to be creative in different situations. Mumaw (2012) believes creativity deals with problem solving and has nothing to do with magical powers. Creativity is not just about art, for example when an artist draws or paints a beautiful picture using branches of trees instead of using brush, if he replaces the paint with other materials, he is being creative. When the individual uses other methods to solve a problem, “It is the problem that defines creativity, not the art” (Mumaw, 2012, p.1). Çubukçu & Dundar (2007) show that creativity can be learned. In their study aimed to exam whether the use of visual images helped raise creativity in the first year of design

13 education, they found that visual analogy has a positive effect on creativity. When visual cues appeared, students’ creativity scored higher than when they were not present. This study indicated that students would be able to produce more creative products by studying former visual examples. Anderson (1961) described the process of producing creative persons through the Open System. The open system “accepts uniqueness in perception and in thinking” (p. 123). The best chance to learn this system is during infancy and during the preschool years. It was in this period when there is no planned curriculum and stress that the greatest and fastest learning takes place and creativity is developed. Perception of Creativity Perception is how an individual understands and interprets the world around him. How an individual perceives affects his personality and behavior. In the classroom, his perception of his creativity, the classroom environment, his interactions with others, teachers’ instruction, and even learning affect his academic performance. There is a significant and positive relationship between a student’s concept of himself and his performance in school. (Centra & Gaubatz, 2005; Friedland, 1992). When students have a better self-concept about themselves and trust their abilities, they tend to be successful (Mapuranga, Musingafi & Zebron, 2015). Perceptions are derived from a person’s cultural values and beliefs, motivation and personal experiences. Pretz & McCollum (2014) questioned whether self-perceptions of creativity reflect actual creative performance. In their study of ninety fourth-year undergraduates, they found that self-perceptions of creativity on certain tasks did predict creativity. However, this prediction depended on students’ personality. The implication is that not all students’ perceptions can be correct.

14 Academic Achievement Like creativity, academic achievement affects people’s lives as well as the wealth and prosperity of a nation. It can determine whether one can go higher in education, and what vocational career to pursue. This importance leads governments to evaluate their education systems and to compare them with others, or focus on strategies that improve academic achievement including research on the role of creativity (Hedjazi, Shakiba, & Monavvarifard, 2012; Steinmayr, Meißner, Weidinger & Wirthwein, 2014). Studies have established correlation between creativity and academic achievement. Students who are creative in finding solutions to their problems or are able to use resources available to them are have better retention (Shell, Hazley, Soh, Ingraham & Ramsay, 2013). Academic achievement can be affected by different factors. Gathered from previous studies, Abolmaali and Mahmudi (2013) categorized these into nine kinds: i) cognitive and meta-cognitive factors, ii) motivational factors and the role of achievement goals, iii) institutional factors such as the psychosocial climate of classrooms, iv) emotional factors such as sense of school belongingness, v) factors related to the school climate and the students’ perception of it, vi) family factors such as the role of family impact of parenting styles, vii) the impact of non-cognitive factors such as personality traits, viii) a combination of behavioral, emotional and cognitive factors such as academic engagement, and ix) skills for coping with stress. Involving 374 randomly chosen participants in a district in Tehran, and using two questionnaires, they focused on resilience and the perception of classroom environment. They examined data through multiple regression tests and concluded that resilience and challenge could predict academic achievement to a high degree,

15 and that resilience had a close relationship with academic achievement. Of note is that creativity was not listed among the list of factors in studies by other researchers nor was it looked into by Abolmaali and Mahmudi. It only shows that there are other factors that affect academic achievement, and this present study is investigating another factor and in a different locality. Definition of Academic Achievement Academic achievement covers a wide range of meanings. Its definition depends on the indicators by which it is measured. It can refer to the level of scholastic attainment that a person has reached, which can be measured by degrees and certificates, or one’s score SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test), or by a student’s CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average). In all cases, the criteria “represent intellectual endeavors and thus, more or less, mirror the intellectual capacity of a person” (Steinmayr, Meißner, Weidinger, &Wirthwein, 2014). However, in most schools in the USA and in the international parochial schools being studied, academic achievement is measured using the cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA). Ferrett (2012) lists characteristics of high academic achievers as follows: Take responsibility for their actions, behaviors, and decisions Know their learning styles and preferences and how to maximize their learning Identify and acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses Take risks and move beyond secure comfort zones Use critical thinking to solve problems creatively Make sound judgments and decisions Are effective at time management and self-management Seek out and utilize available resources

16 Build supportive relationships Continually acquire new skills and competences Remain confident and resilient when faced with doubt and fear Are motivated to overcome barriers Take small, consistent steps that lead to long term goals (pp. 2, 3). GPA as a Measure of Academic Achievement Success for students is measured by their academic performance. Steinmayr, Meißner, Weidinger, & Wirthwein (2014) state that academic achievement “represents performance outcomes that indicate the extent to which a person has accomplished specific goals that were the focus of activities in instructional environments, specifically in school, college, and university” The majority of schools use grade point average (GPA) to measure student’s academic performance. Janelle Regier (2011) indicated that academic achievement helps adolescents have higher self-efficacy, reduce depression and anxiety; and they are less likely to abuse alcohol. Grade point average as a measure of academic achievement can be affected by a variety of factors. Legaspi, Perez, Remigio, &Sengsourya (n.d) surveyed 100 college students in order to establish factors that affected their achievement. These factors included their motivation to get a 3. 0 GPA or better, how long they studied, and their learning environment including accommodation. Their findings revealed that students who were motivated to study, whether living alone or with parents, had good GPAs. A variety of studies continue to indicate that appropriate learning environment are correlated with better learning outcomes hence better GPA. (MacNeil, Prater & Busch, 2009; Nami, Marsooli, & Ashouri, 2013).

17 Literature Review on Creativity and Academic Achievement The fields of creativity and academic achievement have attracted a number of researchers. From the studies, the most common variables investigated were the correlation between these two variables (creativity and academic achievement), or one of these two with another variable, as shown in the studies of Ghasemi, Rastegar, Jahromi, & Roozegar (2011); Bolandifar & Noordin (2013); Olatoye, Akintunde, & Ogunsanya (2010); Trivedi & Ghargava (2010); Naderi, Abdullah, Aizan, Sharir, & Kumar (2010); and Nami, Marsooli, & Ashouri (2013). These two variables were also studied as predictors in the studies of Naderi, Abdullah, Aizan, Sharir & Kumar (2010); Abolmaali & Mahmudi (2013); and Kuncel, Hezlett, Ones, Kaboodi, and Jiar (2004). The study of Ghasemi et al. (2011) was done among high school students as an attempt to solve future unemployment. With the use of three instruments, they found a positive relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurship among the high school student. Confining their study to Malaysian undergraduates, Bolandifar and Noordin (2013) also found a significant relationship between creativity and GPA, which meant that the creative students also got high GPAs. They found, however, a significant difference between genders and their creativity. One other study that showed a positive significance between components of creativity and academic achievement was that of Nami, Marsooli, & Ashouri (2013), who recommended further investigation of the relationship with the use of other measures of creativity. A sample of 240 adolescent students from senior secondary schools in Jodhpur City, India participated in the study done by Trivedi and Bhargava (2010). The study compared results by gender and found high achievers more alike in the four

18 aspects of creativity that were measured through the Passi Tests of Creativity. They concluded, among others, that high achievement accompanied high creativity. Bentley (1966) sought to clarify relationships between creativity and academic achievement, hypothesizing that “certain creative thinking abilities might contribute to certain kinds of achievement,” and found that “creative test scores correlated significantly with divergent thinking and evaluative abilities; no correlation was found between creativity and cognitive and memory scores” (Bentley, 1966). He further noted that differences of opinion persist today on whether creativity and intelligence go together. Notwithstanding these studies, some findings show that there is no correlation between creativity and academic achievement. The study in Nigeria, Africa by Olatoye, Akintunde, and Ogunsanya (2010) done with Business Administration students found a “negative insignificant relationship” between the two variables. Creativity had nothing to do with academic achievement and thus could not predict it. Naderi et al. (2009) found that creativity, along with age and gender, were low predictors of academic achievement. Balgiu and Adir (2014) concluded that there was no correlation between creativity and academic achievement in their study of 86 firstyear master students at Politechnica in Romania. Previous studies focused on homogenous populations. No studies were found that used a mixed population, such as students of different nationalities. In addition, there were no studies conducted in Seventh-day Adventist schools. Although carried out in one country, this present study will involve Adventist high school students of different nationalities as the participants are from Adventist International Schools. Conceptual framework From the discussion above, it is clear that creativity is a multidimensional concept. Therefore, this conceptual framework is a synthesis of interrelated important

19 elements--variables of creativity that define this study. Consequently, the following conceptual model is an adaptation of significant constructs taken from Teresa Amabile’s (1983) Componential Theory of Creativity (Domain-relevant skills, Creativity-relevant processes, Task motivation, and Social environment), Bandura’s (1994) self-efficacy, and self-regulation. These constructs are discussed in their entirety below. Componential Theory of Creativity The componential theory of creativity is used to explain the factors that influence a person’s level of creativity. The componential theory of creativity according to Amabile (2012) integrates “conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and the social environment with the cognitive and personality constructs” (p.14). Amabile describes concepts needed for the production of new ideas in order to accomplish management goals. However, this theory can be applied to learning and student achievement. This describes how creativity is formulated. There are four components to this Componential Theory of Creativity developed by Teresa Amabile. The first three components deal with the individual’s innate characteristics, skills, his thinking processes and motivation for acting on tasks. The four components focus on the environment that influences creativity. 1. Domain-relevant skills is a “set of cognitive pathways for solving given problem or doing a given task” (Amabile, 1983, p. 363). This domain includes having the intelligence and knowledge for understanding issues, and talents and skills for producing creative work. The individual must be perceptive about his own capability for undertaking the tasks. This domain requires self-regulation in order for an

20 individual to solve problems, that is, he has to plan, use a variety of resources available to him and find the time to act on his goals. 2. Creativity-relevant processes enable the individual to use a wide range of skills, attitudes, resilience and flexibility to independently solve problems, take risks to explore new strategies, and make plans for accomplishing tasks. Training can enhance the person’s cognitive ability to achieve creativity. This domain also requires self-regulation. 3. Task motivation. There are two different types of motivation: a) Intrinsic motivation which arises from within because of what a person values; and b). Extrinsic motivation on the other hand, comes from external stimulus controlled and influenced by outside sources earning the individual rewards. Task motivation focuses on intrinsic motivation that drives the individual to accomplish a task or goals. Task motivation requires the individual to have perceptions of how to achieve the goal, and assess one’s own reasons for undertaking the task. An individual has better success and satisfaction when the task is interesting and positively challenging. This intrinsic motivation is connected to creativity because “it is perceived as the type of motivation leading to highly valued output such as creativity, (Reinholt, 2006, p. 2). Reinholt (2006) regards the “behavior is a means to an end and not involved in for its own sake” (p. 2). The development of creativity will be successful or unsuccessful depending on the person’s type of motivation. 4. The social environment. The importance of social environment can hinder or enhance creativity. The development of creativity is greatly influenced by outside factors such as the school environment, the home environment or the relationship one has with peers. Unfortunately, if the learning environment surrounding the individual is negative, creativity may be stymied. Both home and school environment may not

21 be conducive for learning, studying or doing assignments. In addition, the school environment—teachers and peers, may not provide the feedback the student needs. When the individual is able to collaborate with his peers or others on projects and the teachers are able to provide feedback and their families provide encouragement, the individual is inspired use their creativity. The four components are interrelated. All components must be present and work together in order for creativity to take place. What is interesting is that all these components are also related to the individual having a sense of his own self-efficacy and the ability to self-regulate. Self-regulation Self-regulation “is a proactive process whereby individuals consistently organize and manage their thoughts, emotions, behaviors and environment in order to attain an academic goal” (Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011, p. 198). According to Albert Bandura (1991) self-regulation operates through three sub-functions namely, self-monitoring, judgmental sub-function, and self-reflection sub-function which includes reinforcement. The individual has to monitor his own performance, and his behaviors and situational circumstances. Judgmental sub-function is a mechanism students use to manage his class work or his assignments. That is the student must set standards by which he judges how he is performing. Self–reinforcement provides the student with motivation to continue working towards his goals. This reinforcement may be intrinsic or extrinsic rewards for accomplishing the task. Albert Bandura (1991), Shell, Hazley, Soh, Ingraham & Ramsay (2013) found that self-regulation is critical to succeeding in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects because students can plan, monitor and evaluate their learning. These habits of self-

22 regulation have a role in creativity. Without self-regulation, students are often unable to complete their creative actions. De Stobbeleir, Ashford & Buyen’s (2011) findings highlight that selfregulation is integral to the creative process. The individual who is able to selfregulate can plan, seek support and feedback, use resources available and use strategies for reaching goals. In addition, literature does indicate that self-regulation is very important for learning outcomes because the students take responsibility and use their initiative to achieve their goals (Deci, Vllerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991; Latham & Locke, 1991). Furthermore, self-regulation leads to cognitive ability, better learning capabilities and outcomes including academic achievement, and satisfaction (Amabile, 1979; Deci, Ryan & Williams, 1996; McCombs, 1989; McGraw & McCullers, 1979; Rouis, Limayem, & Salehi-Sangari, 2011). Intrinsic motivation is the basis for self-regulation and leads to creative actions (Guay, Ratelle & Chanal, 2008; Pelletier & Ryan, 1991). Students who self-regulate make better choices and are able make plans; use a variety of strategies to ensure that they achieve their learning outcome. They are able to monitor and evaluate their own achievement against the goals they set for themselves. Without self-regulation, individuals cannot successfully be creative. Self-efficacy Individuals who have a sense of self-efficacy believe that they have the ability to act on their goals (Bandura, 1994). According to Bandura (1993) many variables contribute to cognitive development and this includes motivation and self-efficacy. There are several ways an individual becomes self-efficacious: a) by an individual’s past experiences; b) by “vicarious experiences” (the individual observes other people’s actions and gains experience from the observation, that is, other people’s

23 actions strengthen our understanding of ourselves and we begin to believe that we can perform particular or similar actions; and c) by “social persuasion” (the individual is persuaded and influenced by other people’s actions). However, self-efficacy is hindered by our own emotions. Stress, timidity, fatigue sickness and other external environments such as people’s reaction towards us. Students with self-efficacy are able to seek help and to use the resources that are available for their learning. Bandura defines perceived self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). He indicates that self-efficacy contributes to skill utilization and also leads to creativity which influences an individual to pursue certain actions. Self-efficacy can positively or negatively affect motivation. Students who have low self-efficacy are unable to act on their achievement goals. However, those with a high sense of self-efficacy are able to act creatively, and develop new ways of acting or solving problems. It is also indicted in Tierney & Faremer’s (2011) study that employees with self-efficacy produced better ideas for solving problems. The conceptual framework below is an amalgamation of the constructs discussed above. Thus, Domain-relevant skills and Creativity-relevant processes become Relevant skills & processes; Task Motivation becomes Motivation; Amabile’s Social Environment and the concept of Self-regulation keep the same terms under the category of Social Environment/Self-regulation. In the model, these constructs result in creativity. When creativity is utilized, the student has better academic outcomes. There are five scales in this conceptual framework: perception of creativity, relevant skills and processes, self-efficacy, motivation, and self-regulation. For this

24 study, the definition of creativity is consistent with Dr. Kumar’s definition of creativity discussed in Chapter 3. Figure 1: Conception Framework Conclusion This chapter covers the history and definition of creativity and academic achievement. In addition, GPA has been defined as the measure for academic achievement. Furthermore, a definition of conceptual framework includes constructs adapted from significant theories and constructs including Amabile’s Componential Theory of Creativity, and Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. The next Chapter 3 discusses the methods used for data collection and analysis. Academic Achievement (CGPA) Creativity Perception of Creativity Relevant skills & processes Motivation Self-efficacy Self-regulation

25 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study is to describe the relationship between creativity and academic achievement among students in International parochial high schools in Thailand. This chapter discusses data collection and analysis methods which includes, research questions, sample population, data collection and analysis procedures. Research Questions and Hypothesis The study has four research questions as follows: Research question 1: How did the respondent rate their creativity dimensions in the following areas: creativity capacity, use of techniques, use of other people, final product orientation, and self-regulation? Research question 2: What is the level of students’ academic achievement in selected Adventist international schools in Thailand? Research question 3: What creative factors singly or collectively predict academic achievement among senior high school students in selected Adventist international schools in Thailand? The following are the hypotheses: Null Hypothesis: There is no significant creative dimension that predicts academic achievement.

26 Setting Three Seventh-day Adventist High Schools in Thailand were selected as the target population for this study: Ramkhamhaeng Adventist International School and Ekammai International School located in Bangkok; and Adventist International Mission School in Muaklek, Saraburi Province. The schools share the same features: they have students from many different nationalities; they serve students from kindergarten to high school (grade 12); and the medium for instruction is English. The data collection was conducted during the second semester of the academic year of 2016-2017. Method As a quantitative study, correlation research of two variables was conducted using a survey method. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) says that correlation research serves its major purpose “to clarify our understanding of important phenomena by identifying relationships among variables” (p. 336). Sampling Method In order to have breadth of understanding of creativity and its influence on academic achievement, convenience sampling was used. First the researcher selected the Adventist schools, then at these schools the survey was given to students who were available in their classrooms (grades 10 to 12) that day. Data Gathering Procedure Upon approval of topic, permission was sought from the schools to conduct the study. A letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Education and Psychology was sent to the school administrators informing them of the study and requesting their help by allowing the questionnaire to be administered. Arrangements for each school were

27 made by email and phone calls. The researcher herself went to two schools; Ramkhamhaeng Adventist International School (RAIS), Ekamai International School (EIS) where she delivered and collected data. In these two school, she had the help of teachers in distributing the survey and supervising the students after she had given them instruction on what to do. Since the researcher had taught at Adventist International Mission School (AIMS) and was familiar with the teachers and administrators, she decided to engage the services of a research assistant to help in gathering data at AIMS. The research assistant was aware of the study and was given directions on how to administer and collect the data which included instructions on how students were to fill the questionnaire. A total of 415 questionnaires were collected from the three schools. One hundred papers were delivered at RAIS where 94 students participated and 59 papers were useful. Fifty-two questionnaires went to AIMS where 47 students participated and 46 papers were used. Two hundred sixty-three questionnaires were given to EIS; 227 students filled out the forms of which 206 papers were usable. In summary, 311 students participated comprising of 19% from RAIS, 14.8% from AIMS and 66.2 % from EIS. The gender breakdown was 159 female students and 152 male students. Their ages ranged from 15 to 18 years old, however most of the surveys came from students aged 16 and 17. Table 4.1 describes the demographic information of the participants in this study. Instrument For this study, the Creativity Style Questionnaire-Revised (CSQR) prepared by V. K. Kumar and E. R Holman was adopted. This instrument was used to gather data on the respondents’ perception of their creativity. The purpose of this instrument is “to see how people go about accomplishing the creative act” (Kumar, Kemmler &

28 Holman, 1997), and students were required to respond to the Likert scale which would reveal their perspectives. The instrument has been used before in two other studies with consistent results: a study on transportation managers, and another on students (Pollick & Kumar, 1997). The Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised consists of 8 scales, which are: 1. Kumar and Holman’s Global measure of Creativity Capacity. 2. Belief in Unconscious Processes. 3. Use of Techniques. 4. Use of Other People. 5. Final Product Orientation. 6. Environmental Control/Behavioral Self-Regulation. 7. Superstition. 8. Use of the Senses. This instrument was chosen because the questionnaire seeks to find participants (students) perspective of their creativity, including how they think about their creativity, and whether their perception of creativity is related with their academic achievement. In addition, the categories in the instrument are complementary to the conceptual framework for this study. However not all the scales were used in this study as the study was not focusing on the issues dealing with unconscious processes (scale 11), superstitions (Scale V11), or use of senses (Scale V111). Therefore, only five scales were chosen out of the eight. Scale 1: Kumar and Holman’s Global measure of Creativity Capacity scale “measures the extent to which a person perceives herself/himself to be creative. Higher scores on the scale are reflective of higher perceived creativity.” This scale measures students’ perceptions of creativity.

29 Scale 3: Use of Techniques “measures the extent to which a person uses specific strategies or techniques to facilitate his or her creative work. Higher scores reflect greater use of different techniques." This scale corresponds to the category of Relevant Skills and Processes on the conceptual framework of this study. Scale 4: Use of Other People. “The items on the scale reflect the extent to which a person consults other people, works with other people or shares ideas or creative products with other people. Higher scores indicate higher use of other people. This scale measures whether a person asks advice from others, collaborates with others, and shares creative perspectives or creative products with others. The higher the score, the higher the use of others.” Working with or collaborating with others requires a sense of self-efficacy. Therefore, this scale corresponds to the self-efficacy as discussed on the conceptual framework. Scale 5: Final Product Orientation. “The items of the scale reflect the extent to which people are motivated to engage in creative work by the development of a final product. Higher scores reflect a higher product orientation.” As stated in the description of this scale, motivation is the focus which is described in the conceptual framework. Scale 6: Environmental Control/Behavioral Self-Regulation. The items on the scale measure the extent to which a person sets up discriminative stimuli to selfregulate or facilitate his or her creative work. Higher scores indicate a person setting up more numbers of discriminative stimuli to facilitate his/her creative work.” As discussed in the conceptual framework, social environment can hinder or facilitate creativity. It requires a person to self-regulate in order to control his environment.

30 The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale with Strongly Agree (1), Agree (2), Unsure (3), Disagree (4), and Strongly Disagree (5). Certain items are to be reversed for scoring [i.e., Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Unsure (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly Disagree (1).] (Kumar & Holman, 1997). The questionnaire also requires demographics. Students tick appropriate boxes for their age, gender, nationality, and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). The student respondents were asked to indicate their CGPA. Since courses that students took were graded along a one hundred (or 4) point scale, with 100 (or 4) being the highest or best grade, the cumulative GPA was used as a measure for academic achievement. Reliability and Validity In 1997 Kumar and Holman prepared a questionnaire on creativity styles. In 2010, they published a study describing the development of the instrument which includes how it was tested. They wrote: This questionnaire measures beliefs about and strategies for going about being creative. Participants were 273 freshmen students in a psychology course. Cronbach alphas for the 8 subscales of the CSQ-R ranged between .45 and .81, with a median reliability of .74. Students were divided into high-and low-creativity groups based on three self-reports measures creativity capacity. Those in the high-creativity group were more inclined than the other students to report (a) having a stronger belief in unconscious processes, (b) using more techniques to be creative, and (c) being less concerned about developing a final product. (Kumar, Kemmler, & Holman, 2010). Table 1 summarizes internal consistency reliability estimates obtained in this study and those reported by Kumar, Kemmler & Holman, (1997). Reliability coefficients for this study range from a low of .66 for self-efficacy and motivation to a

31 high of .88 for self-regulation. The estimates obtained in this study are lower than Kumar, et. al. (1997) for self-efficacy and motivation, but higher for self-regulation. Table 1 Internal Consistency Reliability of the Creativity Dimensions. Dimensions #of items Kumar/Holman This study Perception of creativity 2 .76 .78 Relevant skills/processes 18 .81 .81 Self-efficacy 9 .81 .65 Motivation 7 .81 .65 Self-regulation 18 .81 .88 Data Analysis Data analysis was done using the Statistical Analysis Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Data were analyzed using the descriptive statistic, such as: percentage, frequency, and mean, for the objectives 1 and 2. Inferential statistics, such as: multiple regressions, for coefficient were used to determine the influence on the effect of creativity on academic achievement. Ethical Concerns Care was taken that the students were in a safe place and had supervision; the questionnaire was answered in the classrooms. The first page also stated that the students were free not to participate. Those who participated were required not to write their names. Moreover, they were informed that their answers would be treated confidentially and that they would be used for research purposes only.

32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The present study investigated self-perceived levels of creativity and their relationship to academic achievement. This study also examined differences between Thai and international students on levels of creativity. Demographic characteristics of the participants and answers to the research questions are presented in this chapter. The Participants The scope of this study was done among the students in three international schools. About 415 copies of the survey were distributed among the conveniently selected students. After data cleaning, 311 participants are included in this study. Table 2 summarizes participants’ characteristics. Approximately half are female (51.1%) and mostly from EIS (66.2%). Participants were mostly Thai (73.6%). Others are citizens of at least six other countries: Australia (n=1, 0.6%), United States (n=2, 0.6%), China (n=8, 2.6%), Japan n=7, 2.3%), Korea (n=25, 8.0%), and Malaysia (n=2, 0.6%). The age of the participants ranges from 14 to 20 (M=16.6, SD=0.9). Results Results of the analysis of the data for the three research questions stated in this study are presented in the following sections. Analysis strategies include means and standard deviations, bivariate correlation and multiple regression analysis.

33 Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N=311) Variables n % Gender Male 152 48.9 Female 159 51.1 Grade levels 10 123 39.5 11 173 55.6 12 15 4.8 School AIMS 46 19.0 EIS 206 66.2 RAIS 59 19.0 Nationality American 2 0.6 Australian 1 0.3 Chinese 8 2.6 Japanese 7 2.3 Korean 25.0 Malaysian 2 0.6 Thai 229 73.6 Others 37 11.9 Levels of creativity Research question 1: How do students at three Adventist international schools in Thailand rate their creativity dimensions in the following areas: creativity capacity, use of techniques, use of other people, final product orientation, and self-regulation? Means and standard deviations of the five dimensions of creativity are reported in Table 3. The results of this study show that the perceived creativity of students studying in the international schools reported a moderate level of values in Relevant skills/Relevant process (M=3.44, SD=.51), but low in self-regulation (M=2.81, SD=.73), motivation (M=2.58, SD=.58), self-efficacy (M=2.57, SD=.58)

34 and perception of creativity (M=2.26, SD=.76). Overall, it appears that students in these international schools are somewhat low in creativity. Table 3 Creativity Dimensions Mean, Standard Deviation and Skewness (311) Dimensions M SD Skewness Statistic Std. Error Relevant skills and processes 3.44 0.51 -.118 .138 Self-regulation 2.81 0.73 .365 .138 Motivation 2.58 0.59 .061 .138 Self-efficacy 2.57 0.58 .123 .138 Perception of creativity 2.26 0.76 .387 .138 Levels of creativity among students in the three international schools which participated in this study are reported in Table 4. All three schools are moderate in relevant skills and process (M> 3.0), but rather low in the remaining creativity dimensions. And as summarized in Table 5, there are no significant differences between Thai and non-Thai students in levels of creativity. Item level statistics for each of the 5 creativity dimensions are reported in Tables 6 to 10. The creativity dimension of relevant skills and processes (Table 6) are mainly defined by such processes as creating new ideas by combining existing ideas (M=3.94, SD=.86), leaving an idea for a little while and then return to it later (M=3.84, SD=1.08) and letting the mind wander to come up with new ideas (M=3.78, SD=1.05). Table 4

35 Creativity Dimensions by School RAIS (n=59) AIMS (n=46) EIS (n=206) Dimensions M SD M SD M SD Relevant skills/processes 3.48 0.46 3.54 0.42 3.40 0.54 Self-regulation 2.98 0.69 2.81 0.75 2.77 0.73 Self-efficacy 2.59 0.59 2.48 0.51 2.59 0.59 Motivation 2.58 0.57 2.42 0.48 2.61 0.61 Perception of creativity 2.15 0.74 2.03 0.66 2.34 0.77 Table 5 T-Test Results for Comparing Thai and Non-Thai on Creativity Dimensions. Group N M SD t df p Perception of creativity Non-Thai 82 2.36 0.86 1.412 309 .156 Thai 229 2.22 0.71 Self-efficacy Non-Thai 82 2.58 0.57 0.269 309 .788 Thai 229 2.57 0.59 Motivation Non-Thai 82 2.58 0.57 0.144 309 .885 Thai 229 2.57 0.60 Relevant skills and processes Non-Thai 82 3.41 0.53 -0.637 309 .525 Thai 229 3.45 0.50 Self-regulation Non-Thai 82 2.73 0.68 -1.259 309 .209 Thai 229 2.84 0.74 The self-regulation dimension (Table 7) is mainly defined by doing creative work in quiet places (M=3.97, SD=1.06), having background music when engaged in creative work (M=3.85, SD=1.17) and rewarding oneself for working on creative ideas (M=3.61, SD=1.16). Behaviours not used in self-regulation involved smoking (M=1.91, SD=1.29) and use of alcohol (M=1.96, SD=1.93)

36 Table 6 Item Mean and Standard Deviation – Relevant Skills and Process (N=311) Statements M SD Q6R I typically create new ideas by combining existing ideas. 3.94 .86 Q18R When I get stuck, I tend to leave the idea for a while, do something else, before returning to work on it. 3.84 1.08 Q4R I often let my mind wander to come up with new ideas. 3.78 1.05 Q5R I typically create new ideas by systematically modifying (by substituting, rearranging, elaborating, etc.) an existing idea. 3.69 .98 Q7R When I examine existing products, I usually critically evaluate them to see how I can improve them. 3.68 .95 Q9R I am always thinking (fantasizing) about how to do everyday things differently. 3.64 .99 Q12R I often look for new ideas outside of my own field, and try to apply them to my own. 3.62 .96 Q13R I tend to work on many ideas simultaneously. 3.58 .94 Q8R I have often gone back to ideas that I have rejected before. 3.57 .99 Q14R I often use the technique of brainstorming to come up with new ideas. 3.42 1.15 Q17R I do a lot of experimentation (trial and error) to come up with a new workable idea. 3.38 1.06 Q16R When I am generating new ideas, I do not tend to evaluate them until I have generated many ideas. 3.36 1.02 Q20R I read widely to come up with new ideas. 3.35 1.15 Q11R I deliberately reject or ignore conventional or already accepted ideas to come up with new ideas. 3.27 .97 Q19R I take walks to come up with new ideas. 3.22 1.23 Q3R I keep a pen/notepad/tape recorder handy to record new ideas as they occur. 2.98 1.24 Q15R I have maintained a notebook/diary of new ideas that I would like to pursue someday. 2.97 1.24 Q10R I typically modify an existing idea only slightly, one step at a time. 2.55 .93

37 Table 7 Item Mean and Standard Deviation – Self-Regulation (N=311) Statements M SD Q48R I tend to do my creative work in a quiet place. 3.97 1.06 Q49R I typically have background music when I am engaged in creative work. 3.85 1.17 Q47R I reward myself in some way after I have worked on my creative idea(s) for a designated period of time. 3.61 1.16 Q54R I tend to snack when I am engaged in creative work. 3.46 1.25 Q37R I have set aside a particular place (or places) for creative work. 3.36 1.11 Q38R I have set aside a particular time (or times) for creative work. 3.29 1.14 Q39R I have a particular place (or places) where I do most of my creative thinking. 3.28 1.20 Q40R. I have a particular time (or times) during the day when I do my creative thinking. 3.18 1.28 Q46R I ordinarily drink tea/coffee/other drinks with caffeine after I have worked on my creative ideas for a designated period of time. 2.70 1.39 Q42R. I tend to drink tea/coffee/other drinks with caffeine before beginning creative work. 2.70 1.46 Q44R I tend to drink a lot of tea/coffee/other drinks with caffeine when engaged in creative work. 2.54 1.44 Q53R I typically meditate before I begin my creative work. 2.39 1.28 Q52R I typically start my creative work with a prayer. 2.39 1.35 Q51R I use mind altering substances (other than alcohol) to get into a creative mood. 2.24 1.39 Q50R I use alcohol to get into a mood for creative work. 1.96 1.30 Q45R I ordinarily smoke after I have worked on my creative idea(s) for a designated period of time. 1.93 1.33 Q43R I tend to smoke frequently when engaged in creative work. 1.91 1.29 Q41R I tend to smoke (cigarette, pipe, cigar) before beginning creative work. 1.88 1.28 Items statistics specific to motivation, self-efficacy and perception of creativity are reported in Tables 8, 9 and 10 respectively. Item means are below 3 (on a scale of 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) on all the items in all three creativity dimensions.

38 Table 8 Item Mean and Standard Deviation – Motivation (N=311) Statements M SD Q35 When I have completed a creative product, I am unable to start on a new project for a long time. 2.77 1.05 Q30. I have often pursued bad or unworkable ideas for a long time 2.71 0.98 Q33 If I do not have a concrete (visible) creative product to show (e.g., written composition, work of art or music, etc.), then I think I have failed. 2.68 1.03 Q32 I work most creatively when I have deadlines. 2.66 1.28 Q36 I think a final product that is not readily observable through the senses can emerge in a creative act. 2.58 0.91 Q31 I usually have a lot of both workable and unworkable ideas. 2.35 0.95 Q34 I enjoy the process of creating new ideas whether they lead to a final product or not. 2.28 1.01 Table 9 Item Means and Standard Deviations – Self-Efficacy (N=311) Statements M SD Q25 I am at my creative best when I work in a group. 2.80 1.212 Q27 I typically show my creative products to other people. 2.74 1.121 Q29 I physically isolate myself from other people to come up with new ideas. 2.67 1.129 Q28 I physically isolate myself from other people when I am working on creative ideas. 2.60 1.125 Q24 I am at my creative best when I work with one other person. 2.55 1.111 Q21 When I have a new idea, I tend to discuss it with someone to determine its potential for success. 2.52 1.161 Q26 I am secretive about my new ideas. 2.50 1.012 Q22 When I get stuck, I consult or talk with other people about how to proceed. 2.40 1.136 Q23 I am at my creative best when I work alone. 2.36 1.199

39 Table 10 Item Mean and Standard Deviation – Perception of Creativity (N=311) Statements M SD Q2. I am engaged in creative type work on a regular basis 2.34 .838 Q1 I consider myself to be a creative person. 2.18 .829 Academic achievement. Question 2: What is the level of students’ academic achievement in selected Adventist international schools in Thailand? The distribution of grade point averages is reported in Table 11. Most students (70.4%) have grade point averages between 3.1 and 4.0. Table 12 summarizes the grade point average distribution by school and grade level. Distribution of GPA of 3.1 to 4.0 are quite similar between RAIS (67.8%) and EIS (69.0%) but higher at AIMS (80.4%). About two-thirds (65.8%) of grade 10 reported GPAs of 3.1-4.0. Among grade 11 students, 72.8% have GPAs of 3.1-4.0. In Grade 12, 73.3% reported GPAs of 3.1-3.5. Table 11 Distribution of cumulative grade point averages (n=311) Grade Point Average n % 2.0 or less 5 1.6 2.1 – 2.5 25 8.0 2.6 – 3.0 62 19.9 3.1 – 3.5 125 40.2 3.6 – 4.0 94 30.2