40 Table 12 Number and (Percent) Of CGPa Category by School and Grade Level. School Grade Level RAIS AIMS EIS 10 11 12 CGPA n=59 (%) n=46 (%) n=206 (%) n=123 (%) n=173 (%) n=15 (%) 2.00 or less 1 (1.7) 4(1.9) 3(2.4) 1(0.6) 1(6.7) 2.1 – 2.5 5 (8.5) 2(4.3) 18(8.7) 13(10.6) 11(6.4) 1(6.7) 2.6 – 3.0 13 (22.0) 7(15.2) 42(20.4) 26(21.1) 35(20.2) 1(6.7) 3.1 – 3.5 25 (42.4) 22(47.8) 78(37.9) 41(33.3) 73(42.2) 11(73.3) 3.6 – 4.0 15 (25.4) 15(32.6) 64(31.1) 40(32.5) 53(30.6) 1(6.7) Creativity dimensions and academic achievement Question 3: What creative factors singly or collectively predict academic achievement among senior high school students in selected Adventist international schools in Thailand? Bivariate correlation between creativity dimensions and cumulative grade point average are found in Table 13. Relationship between creativity dimensions and academic achievement are essentially zero, except for self-regulation whose correlation with CGPA is -.149 (p<.01). As expected, correlation among the creativity dimensions are generally moderate around .5 (p<.001). Multiple regression analysis results for the total sample is reported in Table 14. The set of creativity dimensions explains only 3.5% of the variance in cumulative grade point average. And at α=.05, this is not statistically significant (F(5,305)=2.193, p=.055). However, the result may suggest that self-regulation (β= -.214) could potentially be an important predictor of grade point average.
41 Table 13 Inter-correlation between CGPA and creativity dimensions (n=311) Correlation Variables 2 3 4 5 6 1. CGPA .001 -.149** .002 .003 .046 2. Relevant skills/processes .392 -.584 -.530 -.406 3. Self-regulation -.468 -.502 -.209 4. Self-efficacy .594 .426 5. Motivation .323 6. Perception of creativity Note: bolded coefficients are p<.01 Table 14 Regression Analysis Results for Predicting CGPA with Creativity Dimensions (N=311) 95.0% Confidence Interval for b Model b SE β t Sig. Lower Upper (Constant) 4.824 .856 5.634 .000 3.139 6.508 Perception of creativity .086 .083 .066 1.035 .301 -.077 .248 Self-efficacy -.109 .134 -.064 -.808 .419 -.373 .156 Motivation -.112 .127 -.067 -.881 .379 -.361 .138 Relevant skills and processes .075 .142 .039 .524 .601 -.206 .355 Self-regulation -.289 .091 -.214 -3.180 .002 -.468 -.110 Note. R 2=.035, Adj. R2=.019, F(5,305)=2.193, p=.055 Multiple regression results by schools are reported in Table 15. At α=.05, the set of creativity dimensions do not significantly explain academic achievement (as measured by GPA) for RAIS and AIMS, but does for EIS, perhaps because the model is based on a larger sample size. For EIS, the set of creativity dimensions explain about 8% of variance in cumulative grade point average (R2=.08,
42 F(5,200)=3.39, p<.001). Self-regulation appears to be the most important predictor of cumulative grade point average (β= -.29, p<.001 Table 15 Regression analysis results for predicting CGPA with creativity dimensions by school. RAIS (n=59) AIMS (n=46) EIS (n=206) Model b(SE) β b(SE) β b(SE) β (Constant) 3.05(2.12) 3.94(2.52) 5.07(1.03) Perception of creativity -.01(.17) - .01 -.12(.23) - .10 .12(.11) .09 Self-efficacy -.76(.40) - .47 .22(.35) .14 -.04(.16) -.02 Motivation .61(.37) .36 -.19(.44) - .11 -.14(.15) -.09 Relevant skills/processes .31(.35) .15 .12(.38) .06 .04(.17) .02 Self-regulation .04(.23) .03 -.04(.25) - .04 -.41(.11) - .29** R2 .14 .02 .08 df1 5.00 5.00 5.00 df2 53.00 40.00 200.00 F 1.72 .16 3.38 p .15 .97 <.001 Note. **p<.001 Table 16 shows multiple regression results by grade levels. The results indicate that creativity dimensions do not significant explain academic achievement when examined by grade levels. The standardized coefficients (β) the largest in each regression model, it does appear to suggest that self-regulation may be an important creativity construct that could explain academic achievement. Summary of research findings Relevant skills and process as a creativity dimension is moderate (M=3.44, SD=0.51). The mean of the remaining four creativity dimensions have means below
43 Table 16 Regression analysis results for predicting CGPA with creativity dimensions by grade level. RAIS (n=59) AIMS (n=46) EIS (n=206) Model b(SE) β b(SE) β b(SE) β (Constant) 3.71(1.58) 5.48(1.07) 4.70(6.27) Perception of creativity .15(.15) .11 .02(.10) .02 .22(.54) .15 Self-efficacy -.12(.26) -.07 -.10(.16) -.06 .06(.84) .02 Motivation -.07(.26) -.04 -.10(.15) -.06 -.38(1.12) -.13 Relevant skills/processes .22(.26) .11 -.05(.18) -.03 .37(.93) .14 Self-regulation -.18(.17) -.13 -.34(.11) -.25* -.72(.56) -.48 R2 .02 .05 .21 df1 5 5 5 df2 117 167 9 F 0.55 1.83 .48 p .74 .11 .78 Note. *p<.01 three. Overall, it appears students in the three international schools have low levels of creativity. Approximately 70% of the students reported cumulative grade point average of 3.1-4.0. This suggests that most students have average grades or B or better. The correlation between the set of creativity dimensions and cumulative grade point average is 0.186 indicating that 3.5% of the variance in grade point average may be accounted for by the set of creativity dimensions. However, with p=.055, this regression model only approach statistical significance at α=.05. Self-regulation (β=- .24) appears to be an important creativity dimension for explaining academic achievement.
44 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate self-perceived levels of creativity and their relationship to academic achievement. Specifically, the following research questions were 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? To answer these questions, a correlation study using survey research method was used. A survey questionnaire was administered to conveniently selected students enrolled in three Adventist international high schools (RAIS, AIMS, and EIS) in Thailand. Three hundred and eleven forms the sample for this study. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution), bivariate correlation and multiple regression analysis were used to analyze the data to answer the research questions. The following major research findings were found:
45 1. Relevant skills and process as a creativity dimension is moderate (M=3.44, SD=0.51). The mean of the remaining four creativity dimensions have means below 3. Overall, it appears students in the three international schools have low levels of creativity. 2. Approximately 70% of the students reported cumulative grade point average of 3.1-4.0. This suggests that most students have average grades or B or better. 3. The correlation between the set of creativity dimensions and cumulative grade point average is 0.186 indicating that 3.5% of the variance in grade point average may be accounted for by the set of creativity dimensions. However, with p=.055, this regression model only approach statistical significance at α=.05. Self-regulation (β=-.24) appears to be an important creativity dimension for explaining academic achievement. Discussion The purpose of this study was to describe the correlation between students’ perceived creativity and academic achievements and determine the degree to which they are related. In this chapter the findings are discussed. Although the study shows students high perception of their creativity overall, there is moderate level of values in the creativity components. It is possible that students were aware of their creativity. Perception of certain actions has value in encouraging individual conduct. How students perceived their creativity may have affected their actions in school. Golden (2011) indicates that your perception influences your attitudes and behavior. Among the four components of creativity, self-regulation had a significant impact on academic achievement. This implies that the less self-regulated the students
46 were, the lower their academic achievement. On the converse, the more self-regulated the students were, the greater their academic achievement. Studies have shown that students who are self-regulated are motivated and can achieve academically (Guay, Ratelle & Chanal, 2008). This finding also aligns with Shell, Hazley, Soh, Ingraham & Ramsay (2013) study that showed self-regulation as a critical element in the success of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. It is not surprising that self-regulation is significant in this study. Selfregulation is the basis for academic achievement even in school environments where students are passive learners. Two salient factors that influence self-regulation are self-efficacy and motivation. Schunk & Zimmerman (2008) includes motivation as a critical component of self-regulation. These creativity components must work together for students to academically succeed. Self-regulation theory propounded by Bandura (1991) includes sub-functions which he indicates are procedures students use for managing skills, monitoring their learning and rewarding themselves for achieving their goals. In essence, selfregulation promotes student effort in ensuring academic success. Some of the components of creativity (relevant skills and relevant processes, self-efficacy and motivation) yielded insignificant relationship with academic achievement. This finding corroborates Olatoye, Akintunde, and Ogunsanya (2010) findings and also confirms findings from Balgiu and Adir (2013) from their study of 86 first-year master students at Politechnica in Romania that showed insignificant relationship between academic achievement and creativity. Although some relationships are insignificant, these independent variables may indirectly influence academic achievement by their alignment to variables that significantly influence academic achievement. Pintrich & De Groot (1990) show that intrinsic motivation did
47 not directly influence academic performance but was closely aligned to selfregulation. In addition, results from the study conducted by Doménech-Betoret, Abellán-Roselló & Gómez-Artiga (2017) showed that self-efficacy was indirectly associated with academic achievement. The analysis indicates that 71% of the students had high CGPAs (40.5% Bs and 30.5% As) even though relevant skills, relevant processes, motivation, and selfefficacy were insignificant in influencing academic achievement. This problem could have stemmed from the Thai education system. Students may not need relevant skills or relevant processes for acquiring and using resources to achieve better learning outcomes. Given the Thai classroom learning environment, teacher-centered approach and passive learning styles of (Nguyen, 2015; Vallin & Akesson, 2012), students need only to be self-regulated in order for them to simply find mechanisms for learning the material, evaluate their progress and get intrinsic rewards. Hence, they would pass the grade by simply following teachers’ instructions, memorizing the learning materials and regurgitating the information during examinations. These self-regulation strategies result in high academic achievement (Bruner, 1960; Liu & Long, 2014; Pruksakit, & Kainzbauer 2016). Therefore, success for students in the Thai classroom does not depend on student’s use of the other creativity components, as long as they have the ability to study, to avoid self-indulgence and intemperate atmospheres, to plan what to study and how to study even if it is only using memorization as a studying technique. Limitations A possible explanation for the results may be due to the instrument used to assess students’ perception of their creativity and its relationship to academic achievement. In addition, students’ creativity has many variables that influence it. It
48 would have been prudent to triangulate methods for collecting data, in order to discover the relationship between the main variables. Conclusion The conclusion from the findings shows empirical support for students’ perception of their creativity. However, only self-regulation influences academic achievement. Other creative components have no significant relationship with creativity. It is possible that the interconnectedness between self-regulation and the other components have reduced their effect. Further studies should be conducted in other schools to determine the level of influence creativity has on academic achievement Recommendations Of note in this study, is the importance of self-regulation and its influence on cognitive abilities. Self-regulation strategies should be part of a curriculum to help low performing students improve their grades. The role of self-regulation in academic achievement should be studied further to discover how self-regulation as a creative component is taught and implemented in schools. The present study was confined to three Adventist international schools. Other studies should be conducted in Thai government schools to compare the role of creativity in academic achievement between the parochial schools and government schools. Self-regulation is promoted among Adventist and it is interesting to note that intemperance leads to low academic achievement. Adventist curriculum
49 developers should therefore incorporate Ellen White teaching concerning God’s requirements for healthy minds and bodies. A follow-up study should be conducted using mixed methods to understand students’ views about their creativity.
50 REFERENCE LIST Abolmaali, K. & Mahmudi, R. (2013). The prediction of academic achievement based on resilience and perception of the classroom environment. Open Science Journal of Education, 1(1), 7-12. Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes. United Kingdom Bologna Seminar July 2004, Edinburgh Conference Centre. Scotland. Alia Al-Oweidi (2013). Creative characteristics and its relation to achievement and school type among Jordanian students. Scientific Research: Creative Education, 4(1), 29-34. Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 221-233. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357- 376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393- 399. Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity-working paper 12-096. To appear in Encyclopedia of Management Theory (Eric H. Kessler, Ed.), Sage Publications, 2013. HARVARD|BUSINESS|SCHOOL.
51 Anderson, H. H. (1961). Creativity and education. Educational Horizons. 40(2), 123- 129. Anderson-Meger, J. (2014). Examining knowledge beliefs to motivate student learning. Faculty Focus: Higher Ed Teaching & Learning. Balgiu, B. A. & Adir, V. (2014). Creativity tasks and academic achievement. A study on Romanian Politehnica undergraduate students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 924 – 928. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 37 (2), 122–147. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 240-287. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy and health behaviour. In A. Baum, S. Newman, J. Wienman, R. West, & C. McManus (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine (pp. 160-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52 Barron, F. & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Journal of Annual Review Psychology. 32: 439-76. Annual Review Inc. Bentley, J. C. (1966). Creativity and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research.59(6), 269-272. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Bhumiratana, S., & Commins, T. (2012). Challenges and Opportunities for Higher Education in Asia in the Era of Globalization. Asian Journal on Education and Learning 3 (2): 22-28. Bolandifar, S. & Noordin, N. (2013Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences). 65(2). https://jurnalteknologi.utm.my/index.php/jurnalteknologi/article/view/2355 Bowman, P. J., & Howard Cleopatra (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation, and academic achievement: A study of black youths in Three-Generation families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(2), 134- 141. Brittany (2017). The importance of creativity and how to foster it. Love play learn. Retrieved on 4, March 2018: from: http://loveplayandlearn.com/importancecreativity-foster/ Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press: London, England. Byrne, B. M. (1986). Self-concept/academic achievement relations: An investigation of dimensionality, stability, and causality. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 18. 173-186.
53 Centra, J. A. & Gaubatz, N.B. (2005). Student Perceptions of Learning and Instructional Effectiveness in College Courses. ETS: SIR II. Listening. Learning. Leading. 1-49, https://www.ets.org/Media/Products/perceptions.pdf Chauhan, S., & Sharma, A. (2017). A study of relationship between creativity and academic achievement among public and private school students in both the gender. International Journal of Science Technology and Management. Vol. No.6, Issue No. 01, January 2017. Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Report prepared for the qualifications and curriculum authority. Retrieved from http://www.creativetallis.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/2287089/ creativity_in_education_report.pdf Craft A., Jeffrey, B. & Leibling, M. (2001). Creativity in Education. Continuum. London: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Çubukçu, E. & Dundar, S. G. (2007). Can creativity be taught? An empirical study on benefits of visual analogy in basic design education. ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 4(2), 67-80. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the selfregulation of learning. Learning and Individual Deiffefrences, 8(3,) 165-183. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3&4), 325-346. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6277/de5e8d8d8f39474eb754ef9bb8c9c9b1c3 15.pdf
54 Delgado-Gaitan C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 495-513. De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811-831. Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: The mediator role of students’ expectancy-value beliefs. Psychology, 8, 1-12. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513915/ Donahue, J. M. (1994). Student perceptions of their teachers, their school, and themselves as learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University. Doyle, Alison. (2018). Creative thinking definition, skills, and examples. The balance Careers. Retrieved on 12 March, 2018 from: https://www.thebalance.com/creative-thinking-definition-with-examples2063744 Duckworth, A. L., & Carlson, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and school success. In B.W. Sokol, F.M.E. Grouzet, & U. Müller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and developmental dimensions of human conduct, (pp. 208- 230). New York: Cambridge University Press. Facione, P.A. (2013) Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts. Millbrae CA: Measured Reasons and the California Academic Press.
55 Ferrett, S. F. (2012). Peak performance. Success in college and beyond. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Foster, R. N. (2015). What Is Creativity? Yale School of Management. Retrieved from 2018 from: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Friedland, S. (1992). Building student self-esteem for school improvement. NASSP Bulletin. 76. 96-102. Gajda, A. (2016). The relationship between school achievement and creativity at different educational stages. Thinking Skills and Creativity 19: 246-259. Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and Academic Achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133 Ghasemi, F., Rastegar, A., Jahromi, R. G., & Roozegar, R. (2011). The relationship between creativity and achievement motivation with high school students’ entrepreneurship. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from from:www.sciencedirect.com Golden, B. (2011). Perception can influence you in many ways. The Press Publications: Retrieved from: www.presspublications.com/opinionscolumns/146-dare-to-live-withoutlimits/7930-perception-can-influence-you-in-many-ways
56 Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology Association, 4(3), 233-240. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454. Hedjazi, S. Y., Shakiba, H. & Monavvarifard, F. (2012). Effect of problem-solving styles on academic achievement of agricultural students in the University of Tehran. Scholars Research Library. Annals of Biological Research, 2012, 3(8): 4154-4158. Isaksen, S. G. (n. d.). Educational implications of creativity research: An updated rationale for creative learning. Retrieved from http://www.cpsb.com/research/ articles/creativity-research/Educational-Implications-Creativity-Research.pdf Regier, J. (2011). Why is Academic Success Important? Saskatchewan School Boards Association. Retrieved from https://saskschoolboards.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/2011SIAST.pdf Judkins, R. (2013) Change your mind. London:UK: Hardie Grant Books. Kaboodi, M., & Jiar, Y. K. (2012). Cognitive and trait creativity in relation with academic achievement. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(5), 391-395. Karia, E. (2015). Fostering Creativity: The full day kindergarten classroom in Ontario: Learning through inquiry and play and its implications for child development. Bloomington, IN, iUniverse,
57 Khan, S. A., & Rizwanuddin, S. (2015). A study of creativity in relation to achievement motivation of Ix standard students of CBSE schools. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 2(2). 74-83. Kumar, V. K., Kemmler, D., & Holman, E. R. (1997). The Creativity Styles Questionnaire Revised. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 51-58. Kuncel N. R., Hezlett, S. A. & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148-61. Kuo M. J. (2007). How does an online game-based learning environment promote students’ intrinsic motivation for learning natural science and how does it affect their learning outcomes? Presented at the 2007 First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL ’07) in Jhongli City, Taiwan. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2000-2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285-294. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 6, 73-85. Latham, G. P., Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 50, 212-247.
58 Legaspi, C., Perez, R., Remigio, A., & Sengsourya, J. (n. d.). Factors affecting GPA. Retrieved from: http://public.csusm.edu/fangfang/Teaching/ BUS304/ TeamPresentation-Spr08/Report_Group3.pdf Liu, C., & Long, F. (2014). The discussion of traditional teaching and multimedia teaching approach in college English teaching. Atlantis Press: International Conference on Management, Education and Social Science (ICMESS). https://doi.org/10.2991/icmess-14.2014.9 Loughran, J. (2011). What expert teacher do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd. MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L. & Busch, S. (2009) The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84. Mapuranga, B., Musingafi, M. C.C. & Zebron, S. (2015). Student’s perceptions on factors that affect their academic performance: The case of great Zimbabwe university (GZU). Journal of Education and Practice. 6(8), 1-5. McCombs B.L. (1989) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: A Phenomenological View In B. J. Zimmerman Schunk D.H. (Eds) SelfRegulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York NY: Springer Series in Cognitive Development. Springer. McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(3), 285-294.
59 Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review Psychology. 57, 487-503. Mitchell, R. N. (2016). Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius, 1869 & 1892. Retrieved from http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=rebecca-n-mitchell-francisgaltons-hereditary-genius-1869-1892 Mumaw, S. (2012). Born this way: Is creativity innate or learned? PEARSON: Peachpit. Retrieved on 28 March 2018 from http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2005380 Naderi, H., Abdullah, R., Aizan, H. T., Sharir, J & Kumar V. (2010). Relationship between creativity and academic achievement: A study of gender differences. Journal of American Science 2010; 6(1): 181-190. Naiman, L. (2014). Creativity at work: What is creativity? Creativity at work. Retrieved from http://www.creativityatwork.com/2014/02/17/what-iscreativity/ Nami, Y., Marsooli, H. & Ashouri, M. (2013). The relationship between creativity and academic achievement. ELSEVIER: Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 114, 36-39. Nguyen, T. H. (2015) Thailand: Cultural background for ESL/EFL teachers. Northeast ABLE Resource Center (Ohio). http://www.hmongstudies.org/ThaiCulture.pdf Olatoye, R. A., Akintunde, S. O., & Ogunsanya, E. A. (2010). Relationship between creativity and academic achievement in business administration students in
60 South Western Polytechnics, Nigeria. African Research Review, 4(3a), 134- 149. Pattapong, K. (2010). Willingness to communicate in a second language: A qualitative study of issues affecting Thai EFL learners from students’ and teachers’ points of view. (Unpublished doctoral thesis) The University of Sydney: Faculty of Education and Social Work. Pattapong, K. (2011). Cultural impact on learners’ willingness to communicate in English in Thai cultural context. Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology. 10 (2), 141-160. Pattapong, K. (2015). Complex Interactions of Factors Underlying Thai EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate in English. PASAA, 49, 105-136. Peterson, L. S. & Hughes, J. N. (2011). The differences between retained and promoted children in educational services received. Psychology in the Schools. 48 (2), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20534 Pollick, M. F. & Kumar, V. K. (1997). Creativity styles of supervising managers. Journal of Creative Behavior. 34(4), 260-270. Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. Pretz, J. E. & McCollum, V. A. (2014). Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 8(2), 227-236.
61 Pruksakit, P., & Kainzbauer, A. (2016). The perspective of Chinese teachers toward Thai students in learning environment. Presented at the 5th Burapha University International Conference July 28-29, 2016, Pataya Thailand. Ramdass, D & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011) Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194-218. Reinholt, M. (2006). No more polarization, please! Towards a more nuanced perspective on motivation in organizations. SMG WP 9/2006. ISBN: 87- 91815-26-6. Denmark: Center for Strategic Management and Globalization. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=982108 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.982108 Robina Shaheen (2010). Creativity and Education. Scientific Research. 1(3), 166-169. DOI: 10.4236/ce.2010.13026. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Oxford, United Kingdom: Capstone Publishing Ltd. Rouis, S., Limayem, M., & Salehi-Sangari, E. (2011). Impact of Facebook usage on students’ academic achievement: Role of self-regulation and trust. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 9(3), 961-994. Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press: A division of Harcourt Brace & Company. Scheirer, M. A. & Kraut, R. E. (1979). Increasing educational achievement via selfconcept change. Review of Educational Research. 42, 131-149.
62 Schommer, M. (1989). Students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge: What are they and how do they affect comprehension? (a technical report). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulation learning: Theory, research and application. New York, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sharp, C., & Metais, J. L. (2000). The arts, creativity and cultural education: An international perspective. International Review of Curriculum and Assessment. London, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Shell, D. F., Hazley, M. P., Soh, L. K., Ingraham, E. & Ramsay, S. (2013). Associations of students’ creativity, motivation, and self-regulation with learning and achievement in college computer science courses. Associations of Students' Creativity, Motivation, and Self-Regulation with Learning and Achievement in College Computer Science Courses" (2013). CSE Conference and Workshop Papers. 261. Steinmayr, R., Meißner, A., Weidinger, A. F. & Wirthwein, L. (2014). Academic Achievement. Oxford Bibliographies. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756810- 0108. Retrieved from: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0108.xml Stemberg, R. 2003. Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity Synthesized. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63 Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98. Surapuramath, A. K. (2014). A study of relationship between creativity and academic achievement of secondary school pupils. International Journal of Social Science 3, 305-309. Tatlah, I. A., Aslam, T. M., Ali, Z., & Iqbal, M. (2012). Role of intelligence and creativity in the academic achievement of students. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences. Vol. 2, (7). 1-10. Torrance, E. P. (1963). Essay review: Creativity and intelligence. [Review of the book Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students]. Chicago:Ill: The School Review1963. The University of Chicago Press. Torrance, E. P. (1965). Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Vol. 94, No.3, Creativity and Learning (Summer, 1965), pp. 663-681. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2003). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137-1148. Trivedi, K. & Bhargava, R. (2010). Relation of creativity and educational achievement in adolescence. J Psychology, 1 (2): 85-89. Tsui, Amy B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies in ESL teaching. Cambridge University Press.
64 Tunwattanapong, M., & Dimmitt, N. (2010). The affect of Thai cultural factors on teaching and learning in the Higher Education System of Thailand. 2 nd International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. EDULEARN 10 Proceedings, 5660-5663. Vallin, M., & Akesson, S. (2013). Learning environment in Thailand: A case study regarding teaching methods and motivation in a Thai school. (Unpublished thesis). Linnaeus University. Sweden. Zimmerman, B., Schunk, D. (2001). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. New York: Routledge.
65 APPENDIX Appendix 1: Survey Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised (Dr. V. K. Kumar & Dr. E. R. Holman West Chester University) The purpose of this questionnaire is to see how people go about accomplishing the creative act. The term “creative” is used in the sense of doing everyday things in new ways: solving the problems of daily living and the world of work, engaging in scientific or other research, writing, painting, developing music etc. We want to know about your own style for creative work. This questionnaire is divided into two sections: Demographic and Creative Style Questions. Read each statement, decide how well the statement applies to you and respond by using the following 5-point scale: Strongly Agree [5], Agree [4], Unsure [3], Disagree [2], and Strongly Disagree [1]. Please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers, we just want to know the way you typically go about doing creative work. It is best that you do not think about any question for too long. Rather, try to work quickly. Please respond to all statements. This questionnaire may take 30 minutes to complete, and feel free not to participant. Your will not write your name on this paper and your answers will be treated confidentially, and will be used for research purposes only. Thank you for your cooperation.
66 Demographic Age: __________ Gender: □Male □ Female Grade: □ Grade 10 □ Grade 11 □Grade 12 What is your current CGPA? □ 1.0-2.0 □ 2.1-2.5 □ 2.6-3.0 □ 3.1-3.5 □ 3.6-4.0 Nationality: □ Thai □ American □ Chinese □Korean □ Singaporean □ Australian □ Malaysian □ Japanese □ Other Countries____________________ Creative Style Questions Please tick [√] your answer that most accurately reflects your opinion. Strongly Agree [5]; Agree [4]; Unsure [3]; Disagree [2]; Strongly Disagree [1] 5 4 3 2 1 1 I consider myself to be a creative person. 2 I am engaged in creative type work on a regular basis. 3 I keep a pen/notepad/tape recorder handy to record new ideas as they occur. 4 I often let my mind wander to come up with new ideas. 5 I typically create new ideas by systematically modifying (by substituting, rearranging, elaborating, etc) an existing idea. 6 I typically create new ideas by combining existing ideas. 7 When I examine existing products, I usually critically evaluate them to see how I can improve them. 8 I have often gone back to ideas that I have rejected before. 9 I am always thinking (fantasizing) about how to do everyday things differently. 10 I typically modify an existing idea only slightly, one step at a time. 11 I deliberately reject or ignore conventional or already accepted ideas to come up with new ideas. 12 I often look for new ideas outside of my own field, and try to apply them to my own. 13 I tend to work on many ideas simultaneously. 14 I often use the technique of brainstorming to come up with new ideas. 15 I have maintained a notebook/diary of new ideas that I would like to pursue some day. 16 When I am generating new ideas, I do not tend to evaluate them until I have generated many ideas. 17 I do a lot of experimentation (trial and error) to come up with a new workable idea. 18 When I get stuck, I tend to leave the idea for a while, do something else, before returning to work on it.
67 19 I take walks to come up with new ideas. 20 I read widely to come up with new ideas. 21 When I have a new idea, I tend to discuss it with someone to determine its potential for success. 22 When I get stuck, I consult or talk with other people about how to proceed. 23 I am at my creative best when I work alone. 24 I am at my creative best when I work with one other person. 25 I am at my creative best when I work in a group. 26 I am secretive about my new ideas. 27 I typically show my creative products to other people. 28 I physically isolate myself from other people when I am working on creative ideas. 29 I physically isolate myself from other people to come up with new ideas. 30 I have often pursued bad or unworkable ideas for a long time. 31 I usually have a lot of both workable and unworkable ideas. 32 I work most creatively when I have deadlines. 33 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. 34 I enjoy the process of creating new ideas whether they lead to a final product or not. 35 When I have completed a creative product, I am unable to start on a new project for a long time. 36 I think a final product that is not readily observable through the senses can emerge in a creative act. 37 I have set aside a particular place (or places) for creative work. 38 I have set aside a particular time (or times) for creative work. 39 I have a particular place (or places) where I do most of my creative thinking. 40 I have a particular time (or times) during the day when I do my creative thinking. 41 I tend to smoke (cigarette, pipe, cigar) before beginning creative work. 42 I tend to drink tea/coffee/other drinks with caffeine before beginning creative work. 43 I tend to smoke frequently when engaged in creative work. 44 I tend to drink a lot of tea/coffee/other drinks with caffeine when engaged in creative work. 45 I ordinarily smoke after I have worked on my creative idea(s) for a designated period of time. 46 I ordinarily drink tea/coffee/other drinks with caffeine after I have worked on my creative ideas for a designated period of time. 47 I reward myself in some way after I have worked on my creative idea(s) for a designated period of time. 48 I tend to do my creative work in a quiet place. 49 I typically have background music when I am engaged in creative work.
68 50 I use alcohol to get into a mood for creative work. 51 I use mind altering substances (other than alcohol) to get into a creative mood. 52 I typically start my creative work with a prayer. 53 I typically meditate before I begin my creative work. 54 I tend to snack when I am engaged in creative work. Appendix 2: Scoring Key Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised Dr. V. K. Kumar & Dr. E. R. Holman West Chester University The purpose of this questionnaire is to see how people go about accomplishing the creative act. The term “creative” is used in the sense of doing everyday things in new ways: solving the problems of daily living and the world of work, engaging in scientific or other research, writing, painting, developing music etc. We want to know about your own style for creative work. A number of statements are listed below which reflect different ways one goes about being creative in everyday life. Read each statement, decide how well the statement applies to you and respond by using the following 5-point scale: (1) Strongly Agree (2) Agree (3) Unsure (4) Disagree (5) Strongly Disagree If you are answering on a computer response sheet, please fill in the circle (number) corresponding to your level of agreement using a #2 pencil. If you are answering on the questionnaire itself, please respond by filling in the circle below the appropriate response using a #2 pencil. Please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers, we just want to know the way you typically go about doing creative work. It is best that you do not think about any question for too long. Rather, try to work quickly. Your answers will be treated confidentially, and will be used for research purposes only. Please respond to all statements. Thank you for your cooperation. Creative Questionnaire-Revised
69 Dr. V. K. Kumar & Dr. E. R. Holman Department of Psychology, West Chester University, PA 19383 Scoring Key The creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised consists of 5 scales. Since the questionnaire uses a 5-point scale with (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Unsure, (4) Disagree, (5) Strongly Disagree, many of the items on the questionnaire are to be reversed for scoring [i.e., (5) Strongly Agree, (4) Agree, (3) Unsure, (2) Disagree, and (1) Strongly Disagree.] 1. Kumar and Holman’s Global Measure of Creativity Capacity. The scale consists of two items, and measures the extent to which a person perceives herself/himself to be creative. Higher scores on the scale are reflective of higher perceived creativity. A person’s score is derived by adding the ratings on the following two items: 1 (-), 2(-) Alpha reliability for this scale was found to be .76. 2. Use of Techniques: Items in this scale measure the extent to which a person uses specific strategies or techniques to facilitate his/her creative work. Higher scores reflect greater use of different techniques. A person’s score is derived by adding the ratings on the following 18 items and dividing by 18: 3 (-) through 20 (-) [all to be reversed]. Alpha reliability for this scale was found to be .81. 3. Use of Other People. The items on the scale reflect the extent to which a person consults other people, work with other people, or share ideas or creative products with other people. Higher scores indicate higher use of other people. A person’s score is derived by adding the ratings on the following 9 items and dividing by 9: 21(-), 22(-), 23, 24(-), 25(-), 26, 27(-), 28, 29. Alpha reliability for this scale was found to be .74 4. Final Product Orientation. The items on 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. A person’s score derived by adding the ratings on the following 7 items and dividing by 7: 30, 31, 32(-), 33(-), 34, 35(-), 36. Alpha reliability for this scale was found to be .45 5. 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/her creative work. Higher scores indicate a person. Higher scores indicate person setting up more number of discriminative stimuli to facilitate her/his creative work. A person’s score is derived by adding the ratings on the following 18 items and dividing by 18: Items 37(-) though 54(-) [all to be reversed]. Alpha reliability for this scale was found to be .83.