creativity selected elements questionnaire

1

CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT

Thesigan Nadarajan

Assumption University, Bangkok

Creativity Selected Elements Questionnaire herewith shall be called (CSEQ) as a creative psychological assessment instrument was developed on the theoretical foundations of “Creative Product Semantic Scale” by Besemer & Quin (1987) and the “Propulsion Model” by Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz (2002). It covered the four innate creativity elements of: Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis and four external creativity elements of Replication, Redefinition, Reconstruction, and Reinitiation. CSEQ was applied to study 900 students from three colleges (Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology) of Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology herewith shall be called (NEUST) for: H1o: The significant relationships between the selected student demographic variables, namely: age, gender, study preference, year of study, GPA, student reasons for studying their program, and student’s linguistic ability with the eight creativity elements; H2o: The significant relationships between the selected family demographic variables, namely: parental family status, family income, and family educational background with the eight creativity elements. Highlights from the findings of the demographic, correlational, MANOVA and reliability statistical analyses were: 1) Age, gender, year of study, student reasons for studying their program, student’s linguistic ability had both positive and inverse significant relationships to/for creativity; 2) Mother’s educational background and family income had significant positive and inverse relationships to/for creativity. CSEQ could be: 1) Used for new student orientation for assessment of student creativity that would enable the development of creative leadership activities, projects and programs; 2) In the design, implementation and assessment of creative educational content, methods, strategies and presentations within NEUST environment; 3) In developing creative-centered experimental hubs for creative designs and trainings within NEUST environment for those identified with creative forte.

The topic of this current research, “Creativity Selected Elements Questionnaire (CSEQ): A Creative Assessment Instrument for Interactive And Creative Learning Environment,” was the result of the researcher’s interest in the study of creativity in the context of interactive and creative learning environment. Vernon (1978) notes that creativity was a buzzword in Educational Psychology as far back as 1978. It is not something new in the field of education. Besides the educational environment, it was only recently that creativity was explained in terms of innovation in the work place which is now becoming crucial for organizational adaptation and survival. Recognition of creativity in educational environment and

work place has combined to highlight the significance of creativity in economic value and social influence in varied areas of humanity’s endeavors and achievements that has evolved to become a need rather than a want justifying this current study involving CSEQ, an assessment instrument for interactive and creative learning environment (Palmon, 2011). CSEQ as a creative psychological assessment instrument was developed on the theoretical foundations of “Creative Product Semantic Scale” by Besemer & O’ Quin (1987) and the “Propulsion Model” by Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz (2002). It covered the four innate creativity elements of:

2

Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis and four external creativity elements of Replication, Redefinition, Reconstruction, and Reinitiation. CSEQ was applied to study 900 students from three colleges (Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology) of NEUST for testing: H1o: There are significant relationships between the selected student demographic variables, namely: age, gender, study preference, year of study, GPA, student reasons for studying their program, and student’s linguistic ability with the eight creativity elements; H2o: There are significant relationships between the selected family demographic variables, namely: parental family status, family income, and family educational background with the eight creativity elements.

Definition of Terms The definition of terms was provided for the purpose facilitating a clearer understanding. NEUST refers to Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology which is publicly funded and is located in Cabanatuan city, Philippines. CSEQ refers to the Creativity Selected Elements Questionnaire. Positive Psychology was envisioned by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) as a means to motivate a change in the fixation with repairing the “worst things in life to building positive qualities.” Strengths and Virtues refer to the six domains of core virtues, namely: Wisdom & Knowledge; Courage; Humanity and Love; Justice; Temperance and Transcendence. Selected Creativity Elements refers to the eight innate and external elements of creativity namely: Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis, Replication, Redefinition, Reconstruction, and Reinitiation. Propulsion model refers to the

external criterion as proposed by Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz (2002). Innate creativity refers to creativity elements of Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution and Synthesis. External creativity refers to creativity elements of Replication, Redefinition, Reconstruction, and Reinitiation. Originality was defined by Stokes (1999) as a kind of novelty that was useful, valuable and generative. Ingenuity, refers to smartness, originality and innovative in generating one-of-kind solutions for problems and needs (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). Resolution allows for the creation of something which is valuable, logical, useful, and understandable (Besemer & O’Quin, 1987). Synthesis refers to links that are constructed between two or more apparently separate ideas (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). Replication refers to the known which is transferred to a new setting” (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). Redefinition refers to the known which is extended in a new direction (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). Reconstruction refers to the new life that is breathed into an approach previously abandoned (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). Reinitiation refers to the thinking that begins at a radically different point from the current one and takes off in a new direction (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002).

Literature Review

In the literature review, the researcher examined the theoretical justifications for: 1) Contribution of positive psychology through the six strengths and virtues domains to the study of creativity (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); 2) The selection of eight creativity elements used for the development of CSEQ derived from the “Creative Product Semantic Scale” by Besemer & Quin (1987) and the “Propulsion Model” by Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz (2002); 3) The use of each of the eight elements of creativity (Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis, Replication,

3

Redefinition, Reconstruction, and Reinitiation) derived from (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002); 4) The study of the demographic variables of the two hypotheses (Piers, 1968; Kuhn & Holling, 2009).

Method Research Design The current study is a causal comparative research that incorporates descriptive and inferential analyses methodology to achieve its objectives. Participants A total of 900 participants from three colleges (Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology) of NEUST comprised the study sample. The breakdown of student demographics consisted of 65.3% (n=588) male students and 34.7% (N=312) females. Their ages ranged from 15 to 32 years, with a mean age of 19 years. The samples for study preferences included abstract, social sciences, religion, science, arts, technical and math. In terms of ethnicity, they were all Pilipino and this was why ethnicity was not included as a variable in the demographics as statically it would be meaningless. A purposive sampling technique was utilized for data collection as the research was targeted for the three colleges with seven study preferences. Participants gave informed consent prior to answering the questionnaires which were voluntary and involved no compensation. Strict confidentiality was observed to protect privacy Instrumentation CSEQ was divided into two sections: demographics and question items. The demographic sections were further divided into: 1) Student; 2) Family; 3) Family

Education Background; 4) Reasons for Choosing the Program and 5) Student’s Linguistic Ability categories. The questions items section consisted of a Likert scale of 40 items with a five point responses (1 – Not At All, 2- Seldom, 3 – Uncertain, 4 – Often, 5 – All the Time). The item coding consisted of five items for each of the eight scales of: Originality (items 2, 4, 18, 14, 23); Ingenuity (items 5, 17, 32, 28, 36); Resolution (7, 21, 25, 19, 34); Synthesis (8, 24, 12, 37, 27); Replication (items 9, 31, 38, 16, 33); Redefinition (items 10, 29, 35, 22,39); Reconstruction (items 6, 40, 13, 26, 30); and Reinitiation (items 11, 15, 20, 3, 1). Data Collection Procedures The data collection process was carried out in two stages: the pilot study and the actual data collection. The pilot study of 100 % (n=300) cases was conducted on forty items. A Cronbach alpha of .886 (.89) was obtained which confirmed the participant’s comprehension of the scale items. Actual Data Collection For the actual data collection, a total of 1,050 CSEQ questionnaires were distributed to the three colleges, each receiving 350 copies. Out of the 1,050 CSEQ questionnaires were distributed, only 920 were returned to the researcher. The rest (130 questionnaires) were either lost or unaccounted for at the time of the collection. When the 920 questionnaires were individually inspected for errors, 20 questionnaires were found to be non-usable due to respondents’ error in answering. Only 900 valid questionnaires were utilized for data analysis. Data Analysis

4

The valid 900 questionnaires (n= 900) were statistically analyzed for Frequency, Percentile, Reliability, Pearson Correlation, MANOVA gender differences output.

Results

Demographic Analysis The demographics profile of respondents consisted of two categories namely, student demographics backgrounds and family demographics backgrounds. In terms of student demographics backgrounds, the sample consisted of 900 students; 65.3% (n=588) male students and 34.7% (N=312) females. Their ages ranged from 15 to 32 years, with a mean age of 19 years. In terms of ethnicity, they were all Pilipino and this was why ethnicity was not included as a variable in the demographics as statically it would be meaningless. Their study preferences in an ascending order were as follows: 3.4% (N=31) abstract, 14.4% (N=130) social sciences, 6.7% (N=60) religion, 14.4% (N=130) science, 16.6% (N=149) arts, 25.7% (N=231) technical and 28.8% (N=259) math. In terms of year of study in ascending order, there were: 18.2% (N=164) 1st year, 22.4% (N=202) 2nd year, 27.8% (N=250) 3rd year, 21.4% (N=193) 4th year, 9.7% (N=87) 5th year and .4% (N=4) 6th year students. For GPA in ascending order: 6.3% (N=57) were 1.0, 8.0% (N=72) were 1.25, 8.2% (N=74) were 1.50, 8.8% (N=79) were 1.75, 16.1% (N=145) were 2.0, 16.4% (N=148) were 2.25, 19.0% (N=171) were 2.50, 16.4% (N=148) were 2.25, 19.0% (N=171) were 2.50, 12.7% (N=114) were 2.75, 4.1 (N=37) were 3.0 and .3% (N=3) were 5.0. Their reasons for their choice of programs were: 26.1% (N=235) considered them to be their field of interest, 15.8% (N=142) had related basic knowledge / experience, 19.1% (N=172) were graduates in those programs, 26.0% (N=234) saw them as

an opportunity to study and work abroad, 10.8% (N=97) saw them as opportunity to begin and manage their own businesses and 2.2% (N=20) chose because they felt they couldn’t find jobs for lesser qualifications. In terms of linguistics, for spoken languages: 2.3% (N=21) spoke 1, 65.0% (N=585) spoke 2, 9.1% (N=262) spoke 3, 1.3% (N=12) spoke 4 and 2.2% (N=20) spoke 5. In terms of linguistics, for written languages: 3.8% (N=34) wrote 1), 68.0% (N=612) wrote 2, 24.4% (N=220) wrote 3, 1.9% (N=17) wrote 4, 1.8% (N=16) wrote 5 and .1% (N=1) wrote 6. For family demographics backgrounds, the areas covered were parental family status in ascending order: 91.0% (N=819) were married, 6.9% (N=62) were separated, .2% (N=2) were divorced, 1.6% (N=14) were remarried and .3% (N=3) were orphaned. For family income in pesos in descending order: 11.4% (N=103) earned >25,000.00, 14.0% (N=126) earned 20,000 to 25,000.00, 17.0 (N=153) earned 15,000.00 to 20,000.00, 19.7% (N=177) earned 10,000.00 to 15,000.00, 22.1% (N=199) earned 5,000.00 to 10,000.00, 15.8% (N=142) earned < 5000.00 and .1% (N=1) earned 64.00. In terms of family educational backgrounds for fathers: 5.1% (N=46) were elementary levels, 3.9% (N=35) were elementary graduates, 8.0% (N=72) were high school levels, 20.9% (N=188) were high school graduates, 27.4% (N=247) were college levels and 34.7% (N=312) were college graduates. For family educational backgrounds for mothers: 4.3% (N=39) were elementary levels, 4.4% (N=40) were elementary graduates, 7.7% (N=69) were high school levels, 24.9% (N=224) were high school graduates, 20.2% (N=182) were college levels and 38.4% (N=346) were college graduates. Reliability Analyses Prior to computing the eight scales of CSEQ, Reliability analysis was conducted on

5

the items that represented these scales. The Cronbach alpha coefficients were: Originality (.48), Ingenuity (.50), Resolution (.50), Synthesis (.37) and four external creativity elements of Replication (.44), Redefinition (.49), Reconstruction (.35), and Reinitiation (.32). The computed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all eight scales were a low to high and ranged from .32 to .50. This was expected given the small number of items representing each scale. The computed Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the eight scales of CSEQ was .84. Items are considered internally consistent if their corrected item-total correlations (I-T) are ≥ .33 which represent approximately 10% of the variance of the total scale accounted for in the analysis. The corrected item - total correlations (I-T) were from a low (.47) to high (.64) which clearly proved internal consistency of the eight scales of CSEQ that justified its use. Hypothesis Testing The results of the two hypotheses testing were as follows: H1o: There are significant relationships between the selected student demographic variables, namely: age, gender, study preference, year of study, GPA, student reasons for studying their program, and student’s linguistic ability with the eight creativity elements. A Correlational analysis of the selected student demographic of: age, study preference, year of study, GPA, student reasons for studying their program, and student’s linguistic ability with the eight creativity elements found that: 1) Age had positive significant relationship with Replication (r=.088, p<.05); 2) Year of Study had an inverse significance relationship with originality (r=-.077, p<.05) and redefinition (r=-.076, p<.05); 3) Student reasons for studying their program had positive

significant relationship with Synthesis (r=.067, p<.05); 4) Student’s linguistic ability (spoken and written language) had positive significant relationship with Synthesis (r=.067, p<.05), (r=.075, p<.05) and Reinitiation (r=.087, p<.05); A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to test for gender difference among the eight creativity elements. The analysis yielded significant overall gender effect among the eight creativity elements, multivariate Pillai F Pillai F (8,890)=2.71, p<.05. However, follow-up tests of between-subject effects yielded significant male gender effects for the creative element of originality F(1,897)=4.91, p<.05; ingenuity (1,897)=4.70, p<.05; Replication F(1,897)=7.50, p<.05 and Reconstruction F(1,897)=11.11, p<.05. H2o: There are significant relationships between the selected family demographic variables, namely: parental family status, family income, and family educational background with the eight creativity elements. A Correlational analysis of the selected family demographic variables, namely: parental family status, family income, and family educational background with the eight creativity elements found that: 1) Family educational background (mother’s background) had a significant positive relationship with resolution (r=.084, p<.05) and Redefinition (r=.074, p<.05). 2) Family income had a significant inverse relationship with ingenuity (r=-.071, p<.05); resolution (r=-.077, p<.05); redefinition (r=-.073, p<.05).

Discussion

The researcher will divide the discussion of the findings into: 1) Findings from the

6

Demographic analysis; 2) Findings on gender difference; 3) Findings from Hypothesis one and 4) Findings from Hypothesis two of this research. Demographic Findings The notable highlight from the demographic findings is the students’ mean age. The students’ ages ranged from 15 to 32 years, with a mean age of 19 years. What does the mean age indicate? According Stang & Story (2005), the students are in the adolescent period that emphasizes on biological, psychosocial and cognitive changes. And how does the transitional stage affect adolescence creativity? Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow (2005) reports in their longitudinal study that spans from age 13 to 33, that adolescence are prone to qualitative accomplishments when creativity is paired with their preferences. Thus, the opportunity to inculcate the students Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology within NEUST for qualitative accomplishments by pairing creativity with their preferences is open by the status of the students’ mean age. Discussion of Findings Of Hypothesis 1 Age had positive significant relationship with Replication (r=.088, p<.05). What has age to do with creativity element of replication? Researches related to age and creativity has pointed out that creativity can decline or increase with age. (McCrae, Arenberg, & Costa, 1987). And the creativity element of replication in which the known is extended in a new direction, can also decline or increase with age. In the field of music, it was found that classical composers were able to extend their known knowledge in new directions in terms of “melodic originality, melodic variation, repertoire popularity, aesthetic significance, listener accessibility,

performance duration, and thematic size” as they aged (Simonton, 1991b). Thus, the students from the colleges of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology within NEUST have the potential to extend their creativity abilities and skills in new directions as they mature with age. Year of Study had an inverse significance relationship with originality (r=-.077, p<.05) and redefinition (r=-.076, p<.05). This specific finding indicates that an increase in students’ year of study have a decrease (inverse) in their creativity element of originality (novelty / generative) and redefinition (the known is extended in a new direction) creativity elements. Why? A possible explanation can be found in an article by Maisuria (2005) who noted the demise of creativity (originality / replication) in the national curriculum of England and Wales due to the demands of “standardization, centralization, and vocationalization of education” that focused on business-education orientation rather than a student-centered learning experience. Depending on the year of study, the students from the colleges of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology within NEUST whose exposure (lesser / greater) to the demands of standardization, centralization, and vocationalization of education may similarly focus on business-education-orientation and passing of examinations resulting in the decline of creativity (originality / redefinition). Thus, as an institution it is necessary to strategize towards a balance between creativity and bureaucratic demands. Student reasons for studying their program had positive significant relationship with Synthesis (r=.067, p<.05). Student reasons for the choice of their programs were positively associated with the

7

creativity element of synthesis. Why? Synthesis involves linking between two or more apparently separate ideas (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). When a student chose a program, he/she had to determine between multiple reasons in which each reason might have multiple advantages and disadvantages. In making a final decision, the student had to link (synthesize) the various reasons, advantages and disadvantages to derive to a specific reason to support their final choice. Thus, it is natural for the student to endorse the creativity element of synthesis. Student’s linguistic ability (spoken and written language) had positive significant relationship with Synthesis (r=.067, p<.05), (r=.075, p<.05) and Reinitiation (r=.087, p<.05). Why was there a positive relationship between student’s linguistic ability (spoken / written language) and creativity element of synthesis? The explanation may be found in the research done on spoken and written language. Olofin & Olusoji (2013) concluded that written and spoken languages are two different things and requires two different skills. The students endorsement of synthesis highlights the fact that different and separate ideas and skills had to be linked together to bring about comprehension in communication (written & spoken). Thus, it was natural for the students to find a relationship and thereby endorse their linguistic abilities (written & spoken) with creativity element of synthesis. Another important point is that spoken language in linguistics is always a blending within a social-cultural background that gives meanings to words that are used in shared communications (Samovar & Porter, 1987). When the students found a positive relationship between their spoken language and the creativity element of Reinitiation –

they were endorsing their willingness to explore shared ideas and meanings in a different social-cultural linguistic platform than the one they were in currently. In short, they are willing to explore new starting points and directions in their lives (Sternberg, 2006). Findings On Gender Difference There was overall gender effect among the eight creativity elements, multivariate Pillai F (8,890)=2.71, p<.05. The follow-up tests of between-subject effects also yielded significant male gender effects for the creative element of originality F(1,897)=4.91, p<.05; ingenuity (1,897)=4.70, p<.05; Replication F(1,897)=7.50, p<.05 and Reconstruction F(1,897)=11.11, p<.05. This finding raises the issue for the need to develop the female students of the three colleges who lag behind in the creativity elements. It is not unusual as females still live in a ‘Patriarchy world’ (male ruled) in which the female gender suffers from discriminations, exploitations and inequalities which is not helpful for creative psychological developments (Walby, 1990). Findings on Hypothesis 2 Family educational background (mother’s background) had a significant positive relationship with resolution (r=.084, p<.05) and Redefinition (r=.074, p<.05). It is interesting to note that the family educational background of the fathers had no significance relationship with the eight creativity elements. While the family educational background of the mothers had significant positive relationships with the eight creativity elements namely, resolution and Redefinition. Fasko (2000-2001) in his article entitled “Education and Creativity” had pointed out that creativity can be developed through education as creative activities are

8

instances of learning. This findings together with the proposal of Fasko establishes that females living in a Patriarchy world (male-ruled) can develop creativity through education. In short, learnings and education empowers females to be creative (Robinson, 2001). Family income had a significant inverse relationship with ingenuity (r=-.071, p<.05); resolution (r=-.077, p<.05); redefinition (r=-.073, p<.05. Kiernan & Mensah (2011) have clearly shown in their research that parenting styles and persistent poverty is detrimental to children’s’ development including creativity. It is interesting to note in the current research that an increase in family income (economics) has an inverse impact on the creativity of children. How can this be explained? Despite the abundance of economic resources, children may decline in ingenuity (smartness, originality and innovative in generating one-of-kind solutions for problems and needs) if they are exposed to poor parenting styles (Ermisch , Iacovou & Skew, 2011). In short, though persistent poverty affects creativity - economic abundance with poor parenting styles also may lead to a decline in creativity.

Conclusions

The findings of this current research have at least three immediate uses: 1) It can be used for new student orientation for assessment of student strengths that would enable the development of student leadership activities, projects and programs; 2) It can be used in the design, implementation and assessment of creative educational content, methods, strategies and presentations within university environments; 3) It can be used in developing a creative-centered experimental hubs for creative designs within a university environment for those identified with creative

strengths. Limitations of the Study The researcher would like to list five limitations of this study: 1) The single ethnicity of the sample (Pilipino) only could limit the objectivity of a wider possible responses; 2) The CSEQ questionnaire is a type of self-report measurement which is dependent on the participants’ truthfulness in responding to the question items that cannot be realistically validated. The honesty of the respondents is accepted in good faith; 3) The question items can be rephrased and redesigned according different social-cultural perspectives that may affect the responses of the participants. 4) There is the possibility of additions of more than eight creativity elements which may prove the present research to be limited in its coverage of the scope of creativity elements; 5) There could be a limitation factor in the findings through the lack of execution of the CSEQ in other languages. Delimitations The researcher would like to list two delimitations of this study. 1) CSEQ was designed for measuring the eight creativity elements and therefore it cannot be generalized for other forms of study (i.e., personality); 2) The current study was designed for student population (university level) and therefore caution must be exercise in generalizing to other age groups (i.e., high school). Due to the above limitations and delimitations, the findings of this research should be interpreted with caution. However, regardless of the above limitations and delimitations, the study of CSEQ is a new psychological instrument for measuring the eight creativity elements but is based on the

9

strong theoretical foundations of established researches. Recommendations The recommendations based on this study are: 1) Validation of CSEQ instrument within a multi-cultural population In order to counter the points of one, three and five in Limitations, it is recommended that future research of CSEQ be conducted within multi-cultural populations. 2) Future studies with different demographic parameters for generalization purposes. In order to counter the point 2 in Delimitations, it is recommended that future researches would be designed to include different demographic parameters (age groups) for wider generalizations. Since this research utilizing CSEQ as a psychological assessment instrument is new, this research is only meant to be a pilot or exploratory study for more substantial research in the area of the eight creativity

10

Reference Besemer, S.P., & O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics (pp. 367-389). Buffalo, NY: Beraly. Ermisch, J., Iacovou, M & Skew, A. J. (2011).Family Relationships, in Understanding Society, ed. McFall, S. ESRC, Swindon, UK. Fasko, D. Jr., (2000-2001). Creativity and Education. Creativity Research Journal, 2000–2001, Vol. 13, Nos. 3 & 4, 317–327. Kiernan, K.E. and Mensah, F.K. (2011), Poverty, family resources and children’s early educational attainment: the mediating role of parenting, British Educational Research Journal 37(2) 317-336. Kuhn, J.-T., & Holling, H. (2009). Measurement invariance of divergent thinking across gender, age, and school forms. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 1-7. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.1 Maisuria, A., (2005). The Turbulent Times of Creativity in the National Curriculum. Policy Futures in Education, Volume 3, Number 2. McCrae, R. R., Arenberg , D. , & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Declines in divergent thinking with age: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-sequential analyses . Psychology and Aging, 2,130-137. Olofin, Olusoji A., (2013). The Spoken and the Written Language: Confusion between English Sounds and Letter, Greener

Journal of Art and Humanities, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 009-018. Philip E. Vernon. P. E., (1973). Creativity: A Current Bandwagon. The Canadian Psychologist Vol. 14, No. 1, January 1973. Palmon, R. R., (2011). Introduction to Special Issue: The Psychology of Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace. © 2011 American Psychological Relationship, 1931-3896/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018586. Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and Classification. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Relationship. PIERS, E. V. Adolescent creativity. In J. F. Adams (Ed.), Understanding adolescence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1968. Pp. 159-182. Robinson, Ken., (2001) Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative. Chichester: Capstone Publishing Limited. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (1997). Intercultural communication: A reader (eighth ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

11

Setigman, M. E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2000). Positive Psychology, the American Psychological Relationship. lnc. 0003-066X/00/$5.00, Voh 55. No. 1. 5 14 DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5 Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical composers. Journal of Personality, and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840 Strenberg, R. J., Kaufman, J.C., & Pretz, J.E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. New York: Psychology Press.

Stokes, P.D. (1999). Novelty. In M.Runco & S. Prtizker (Eds), Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 2 (pp. 297-304). NY:Academic Press. Sternberg, R. J., The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 2006, Vol. 18, No. 1, 87–98 Vernon, P. E. 1978. “Review of Creativity Attitude Survey.” See Bachman & Tuckman 1978, pp. 361–62. Walby, Sylvia, Theorising Patriarchy, Basil Black Well, Oxford, London 1990. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492.

12

APPENDICES

13

APPENDIX A: CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ)

14

CREATIVITY: SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ)

Dear Participants,

The researcher is currently conducting a research on “Sustainable Educational Development: Identifying, Describing and Comparing Selected Elements of Creativity that may Promote Educational Excellence,” and gratefully thank you for your voluntary participation in answering this questionnaire. All information collected will be kept confidential and secured.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Student’s Demographics

Age Gender Study Preference Year of Study in College

GPA

Fill in,

________yrs

Check relevant,

Male__ / Female__

Check relevant,

Arts:___/ Science: ____ / Math: ___ / Technical: ___ /

Abstract: ___ / Social Sciences: ___ / Religion: ___

Check relevant,

1st :___

2nd: ___

3rd: ___

4th: ___

5th: ___

Fill in the correct answer on the

line below,

1.0 / 1.25 / 1.50 / 1.75 / 2.0 / 2.25 / 2.50 / 2.75 / 3.0 /

5.0 / Inc / D

15

Family Demographics

Parental Family Status

Married (M) / Separated (S) /

Divorced (D) / Remarried (R) / Orphaned (O)

Family Income

1: 25,000 > / 2: 20,000 – 25,000 / 3: 15,000 – 20,000

4: 10,000 – 15,000 / 5: 5,000 – 10,000 / 6: 5,000 <

Strike off the irrelevant,

M / S / D / R / O

Circle your selection,

1: / 2: / 3: / 4: / 5: / 6:

Family Educational Background

Mother

Check,

Father

Check

Elementary Level Elementary Level

Elementary Graduate Elementary Graduate

High School Level High School Level

High School Graduate

High School Graduate

College Level College Level

College Graduate College Graduate

16

Reasons for Choosing the Program

Check relevant,

My field of interest

I have basic knowledge / experience related to this program

Graduates in this program are in demand

Opportunity to study / work abroad

Opportunity to begin and manage my own business

I can’t find jobs for lesser qualifications

Student’s Linguist Ability

Number of Spoken Language

Circle number,

Number of Written Languages

Circle number,

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10

17

Answering Questions

Please answer all questions by checking your relevant choice in the blank space below the choices,

1. Have you tried travelling on a different route to reach a same destination?

1 - Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 - All the Time

2. Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an old repetitive problem?

1 – Not At All

2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 – All the Time

3. Have you ever tried changing your hair style to have new look?

1 – Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 - All the Time

4. Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new problem?

1 – Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 – All the Time

5. Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other resources, trying to cross a torrential river on a fallen tree log was a feasible idea?

1 – Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 – All the Time

6. Have you ever considered analyzing a problem by viewing it under different scenarios?

1-Not At All 2-Seldom 3-Uncertain 4-Often 5-All the Time

7. Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost when making decisions for personal purchases?


18

8. Have you tried generating a new idea using two existing ideas?


9. Have you ever wondered whether the performance of the pop group “KARA” can be replicated in your own country?


10. Have you tried using “H2o” rather than “water” in your daily conversation?


11. Have you ever considered moving to a different town or city to restart a same business that has failed in the current venue?


12. Have you ever wondered, what is the common link between Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?


13. Have you ever tried using bamboo to make arrows, planks for flooring and a spear?


14. Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project or business?


15. Have you considered studying an entirely new course in the event you fail your present course?


19

16. Have you considered that a replicated version of a hit song can be equally valuable in price and quality?


17. Have you ever thought that you could find a way to cross a field filled with landmines, poisonous snakes and pitfalls?


18. Have you supported any law or a group that protects an original work of art, authorship or music?


19. Have you tried to understand comprehensively the functions of the products that you bought?


20. Have you ever considered learning a foreign language for a new vocational move in your life?


21. Have you used logical reasoning during emotional conflicts?


22. Have you ever been convinced that a same element can be transformed into water, gas, and ice?


20

23. Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new electronic product that had no performance track record?


24. Have you thought that a new religion can be created by combining two or more existing religions?


25. Have you considered the usefulness of the things or products you have bought?


26. Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting it to have a different conclusion but with the same characters?


27. Have you ever thought why children became more active after eating more sweets or chocolates?


28. Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand contact names and phone numbers without any form of gadget aid?


29. Have you ever tried painting a same picture in water color, charcoal, and oil color?


30. Have you ever thought that wine can be made out of mango rather than grapes?


21

31. Have you seen, purchased or owned a replicated art piece?


32. Have you ever tried to get an income without working, without breaking any laws and without asking anyone for help?


33. Have you ever tried replicating a successful activity, project, or business?


34. Have you ever asked yourself that according to your income status, whether buying a hummer is logical?


35. Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson’s portrait in color is the same when it is in black and white?


36. Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand faces without any form of gadget aid?


37. Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with the amount of sleep you have had daily?


22

38. Have you ever tried replicating you friends’ successful study methods and strategies?


39. Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock and hip-hop?


40. Have you ever tried to remake a broken toy into a different one?


23

APPENDIX B: ITEM CODING FOR CREATIVITY: SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ)

24

ITEM CODING FOR CREATIVITY: SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

No Items Creative Elements

2

4

18

14

23

Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an old repetitive problem?

Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new problem?

Have you supported any law or a group that protects an original work of art, authorship or music?

Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project or business?

Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new electronic product that had no performance track record?

Originality

25

5

17

32

28

36

Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other resources, trying to cross a torrential river on a fallen tree

log was a feasible idea?

Have you ever thought that you could find a way to cross a field filled with landmines, poisonous snakes and pitfalls?

Have you ever tried to get an income without working, without breaking any laws and without asking anyone for

help?

Have you ever thought that it was possible to eat using your feet while your hands are tied behind your back?

Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand contact names and phone numbers without any form of

gadget aid?

Ingenuity

26

7

21

25

19

34

Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost when making decisions for personal purchases?

Have you used logical reasoning during emotional conflicts?

Have you considered the usefulness of the things or products you have bought?

Have you tried to understand comprehensively the functions of the products that you bought?

Have you ever asked yourself that according to your income status, whether buying a hummer is logical?

Resolution

27

8

24

12

37

27

Have you tried generating a new idea using two existing ideas?

Have you thought that a new religion can be created by combining two or more existing religions?

Have you ever wondered, what is the common link between Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?

Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with the amount of sleep you have had daily?

Have you ever thought why children became more active after eating more sweets or chocolates?

Synthesis

28

9

31

38

16

33

Have you ever wondered whether the performance of the pop group “KARA” can be replicated in your own country?

Have you seen, purchased or owned a replicated art piece?

Have you ever tried replicating you friends’ successful study methods and strategies?

Have you considered that a replicated version of a hit song can be equally valuable in price and quality?

Have you ever tried replicating a successful activity, project, or business?

Replication

29

10

29

35

22

39

Have you tried using “H2o” rather than “water” in your daily conversation?

Have you ever tried painting a same picture in water color, charcoal, and oil color?

Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson’s portrait in color is the same when it is in black and white?

Have you ever been convinced that a same element can be transformed into water, gas, and ice?

Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock and hip-hop?

Redefinition

30

6

40

13

26

30

Have you ever considered analyzing a problem by viewing it under different scenarios?

Have you ever tried to remake a broken toy into a different one?

Have you ever tried using bamboo to make arrows, planks for flooring and a spear?

Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting it to have a different conclusion but with the same characters?

Have you ever thought that wine can be made out of mango rather than grapes?

Reconstruction

31

11

15

20

3

1

Have you ever considered moving to a different town or city to restart a same business that has failed in the current

venue?

Have considered studying an entirely new course in the event you fail your present course?

Have you ever considered learning a foreign language for a new vocational move in your life?

Have you ever tried changing your hair style to have new look?

Have you tried travelling on a different route to reach a same destination?

Reinitiation

32

APPENDIX C: FREQUENCIES FOR DEMOGRAPHICS

33

FREQUENCIES FOR DEMOGRAPHICS

Statistics

Age Gender

Study Prefere

nce

Year of

Study in

College

GPA Parental

Family

Status

Family

Income

Father Famil

Educational

Background

Mother Famil

Educational

Background

Reasons for Choos

ing Progra

m

Number of

Spoken Langua

ges

Number of

Written Langua

ges

N

Valid 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

Missing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 19.2356

1.3467

3.2500 2.8322

5.3600

1.1333

3.7433

4.6567 4.6756 2.8622

2.3611 2.3022

Median 19.0000

1.0000

3.0000 3.0000

6.0000

1.0000

4.0000

5.0000 5.0000 3.0000

2.0000 2.0000

Mode 20.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Std. Deviation

2.13766

.47617

1.61498

1.25221

2.19803

.50360

1.59661

1.38838 1.38932 1.44106

.66171 .66687

Variance 4.570 .227 2.608 1.568 4.831 .254 2.549 1.928 1.930 2.077 .438 .445

Skewness 1.779 .645 .610 .112 -.384 4.841 -.227 -1.050 -.950 .113 1.571 1.619

Std. Error of Skewness

.082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082

Kurtosis 7.048 -

1.587

.061 -.902 -.754 26.161

-1.076

.475 .243 -1.125 3.894 4.525

Std. Error of Kurtosis

.163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163

Range 17.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 9.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00

Minimum 15.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Maximum 32.00 2.00 7.00 6.00 10.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 6.00

Percentiles 25 18.00

00 1.0000

2.0000 2.0000

4.0000

1.0000

2.0000

4.0000 4.0000 1.0000

2.0000 2.0000

34

50 19.0000

1.0000

3.0000 3.0000

6.0000

1.0000

4.0000

5.0000 5.0000 3.0000

2.0000 2.0000

75 20.0000

2.0000

4.0000 4.0000

7.0000

1.0000

5.0000

6.0000 6.0000 4.0000

3.0000 3.0000

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

15.00 2 .2 .2 .2

16.00 45 5.0 5.0 5.2

17.00 121 13.4 13.4 18.7

18.00 181 20.1 20.1 38.8

19.00 181 20.1 20.1 58.9

20.00 199 22.1 22.1 81.0

21.00 89 9.9 9.9 90.9

22.00 30 3.3 3.3 94.2

23.00 23 2.6 2.6 96.8

24.00 7 .8 .8 97.6

25.00 7 .8 .8 98.3

26.00 6 .7 .7 99.0

27.00 1 .1 .1 99.1

28.00 1 .1 .1 99.2

29.00 2 .2 .2 99.4

30.00 1 .1 .1 99.6

32.00 4 .4 .4 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

35

Gender


Valid

Male 588 65.3 65.3 65.3

Female 312 34.7 34.7 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Study Preference


Valid

Arts 149 16.6 16.6 16.6

Science 130 14.4 14.4 31.0

Math 259 28.8 28.8 59.8

Technical 231 25.7 25.7 85.4

Abstract 31 3.4 3.4 88.9

Social Science 40 4.4 4.4 93.3

Religion 60 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Year of Study in College


Valid

1st Year 164 18.2 18.2 18.2

2nd Year 202 22.4 22.4 40.7

3rd Year 250 27.8 27.8 68.4

36

4th Year 193 21.4 21.4 89.9

5th Year 87 9.7 9.7 99.6

6.00 4 .4 .4 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

GPA


Valid

1.0 57 6.3 6.3 6.3

1.25 72 8.0 8.0 14.3

1.50 74 8.2 8.2 22.6

1.75 79 8.8 8.8 31.3

2.0 145 16.1 16.1 47.4

2.25 148 16.4 16.4 63.9

2.50 171 19.0 19.0 82.9

2.75 114 12.7 12.7 95.6

3.0 37 4.1 4.1 99.7

5.0 3 .3 .3 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Parental Family Status


Valid

Married 819 91.0 91.0 91.0

Separated 62 6.9 6.9 97.9

Divorced 2 .2 .2 98.1

37

Remarried 14 1.6 1.6 99.7

Orphaned 3 .3 .3 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Family Income


Valid

25000> 103 11.4 11.4 11.4

20000 - 25000 126 14.0 14.0 25.4

15000 - 20000 153 17.0 17.0 42.4

10000 - 15000 177 19.7 19.7 62.1

5000 - 10000 199 22.1 22.1 84.2

5000< 142 15.8 15.8 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Father Family Educational Background


Valid

Elementary Level 46 5.1 5.1 5.1

Elementary Graduate 35 3.9 3.9 9.0

High School Level 72 8.0 8.0 17.0

High School Graduate 188 20.9 20.9 37.9

College Level 247 27.4 27.4 65.3

College Graduate 312 34.7 34.7 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

38

Mother Family Educational Background


Valid

Elementary Level 39 4.3 4.3 4.3

Elementary Graduate 40 4.4 4.4 8.8

High School Level 69 7.7 7.7 16.4

High School Graduate 224 24.9 24.9 41.3

College Level 182 20.2 20.2 61.6

College Graduate 346 38.4 38.4 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Reasons for Choosing Program


Valid

My field of interest 235 26.1 26.1 26.1

I have basic knowledge / experience related to this

program

142 15.8 15.8 41.9

Graduates in this program are in demand

172 19.1 19.1 61.0

Opportunity to study / work abroad

234 26.0 26.0 87.0

Opportunity to begin and manage my own business

97 10.8 10.8 97.8

I can't find jobs for lesser qualifications

20 2.2 2.2 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

39

Number of Spoken Languages


Valid

1 21 2.3 2.3 2.3

2 585 65.0 65.0 67.3

3 262 29.1 29.1 96.4

4 12 1.3 1.3 97.8

5 20 2.2 2.2 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

Number of Written Languages


Valid

1 34 3.8 3.8 3.8

2 612 68.0 68.0 71.8

3 220 24.4 24.4 96.2

4 17 1.9 1.9 98.1

5 16 1.8 1.8 99.9

6 1 .1 .1 100.0

Total 900 100.0 100.0

40

HISTOGRAM

52

APPENDIX D: RELIABILITY ANALYSES

53

SCALE: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - PILOT STUDY

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases

Valid 300 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 300 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items

N of Items

.886 .907 40

54

SCALE: ORIGINALITY


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.484 .485 5

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an old repetitive problem?

3.0800 1.09516 900

Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new problem?

2.9489 1.07848 900

Have you supported any law or group that protects an original work of art, authorship or

music?

2.6867 1.26194 900

55

Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project or business?

2.4122 1.16305 900

Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new product that had no

performance track record?

2.3667 1.30414 900

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Have you ever

chosen an entirely

new solution to

solve an old

repetitive problem?

Have you chosen an

old solution to

solve an entirely

new problem?

Have you supported any law or group that

protects an original

work of art,

authorship or music?

Have you risked

venturing into a new

and unknown project or business?

Have you bought and

used an entirely

revolutionary new product that had no

performance track

record?

Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an old

repetitive problem?

1.000 .345 .173 .082 .111

Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new

problem?

.345 1.000 .148 .047 -.006

Have you supported any law or group that protects an original

work of art, authorship or music?

.173 .148 1.000 .203 .171

Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project or

business?

.082 .047 .203 1.000 .309

Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new

product that had no performance track record?

.111 -.006 .171 .309 1.000

56

Summary Item Statistics

Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum / Minimum

Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.699 2.367 3.080 .713 1.301 .100 5

Item Variances 1.402 1.163 1.701 .538 1.462 .057 5

Inter-Item Correlations

.159 -.006 .345 .352 -53.686 .011 5

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an old

repetitive problem?

10.4144 8.412 .287 .143 .413

Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new

problem?

10.5456 8.951 .204 .131 .463

Have you supported any law or group that protects an original

work of art, authorship or music?

10.8078 7.797 .290 .085 .407

Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project or

business?

11.0822 8.218 .279 .120 .416

Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new

product that had no performance track record?

11.1278 7.931 .245 .117 .441

57

SCALE: INGENUITY


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.499 .558 5

Item Statistics


Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other resources, trying to cross a torrential river

on a fallen tree log was a feasible idea?

2.6967 1.06736 900

Have you ever thought that you could find a way to cross a field filled with landmines, poisonous

snakes and pitfalls?

2.5022 2.17146 900

58

Have you tried to get an income without working, without breaking any laws and without asking

anyone for help?

2.4689 1.29778 900

Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand contact names and phone numbers

without any form of gadget aid?

2.4456 1.17080 900

Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand faces without any form of gadget aid?

2.4744 1.18030 900


Have you ever

thought that in the absence of any other resources, trying to cross a

torrential river on a fallen tree log was a feasible idea?

Have you ever

thought that you

could find a way to cross a

field filled with

landmines, poisonous snakes and

pitfalls?

Have you tried to get an income

without working, without

breaking any laws

and without asking

anyone for help?

Have you ever

thought how you

can remember a thousand

contact names and

phone numbers without

any form of gadget

aid?

Have you ever

thought how you

can remember a thousand

faces without

any form of gadget

aid?

Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other

resources, trying to cross a torrential river on a fallen tree


1.000 .063 .093 .196 .173



.063 1.000 .131 .174 .134

59

Have you tried to get an income without working, without

breaking any laws and without asking anyone for help?

.093 .131 1.000 .225 .252

Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand contact names and phone

numbers without any form of gadget aid?

.196 .174 .225 1.000 .578


.173 .134 .252 .578 1.000



Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.518 2.446 2.697 .251 1.103 .010 5

Item Variances 2.061 1.139 4.715 3.576 4.139 2.240 5


.202 .063 .578 .515 9.182 .020 5


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other

resources, trying to cross a torrential river on a fallen tree


9.8911 14.531 .181 .046 .493

60



10.0856 9.820 .192 .041 .575

Have you tried to get an income without working, without

breaking any laws and without asking anyone for help?

10.1189 13.006 .262 .082 .450

Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand contact names and phone

numbers without any form of gadget aid?

10.1422 12.118 .448 .357 .351


10.1133 12.259 .422 .353 .364

61

SCALE: RESOLUTION


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.497 .510 5

Item Statistics


Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost when making decisions for personal purchases?

3.2848 1.45274 900


3.1156 1.07349 900


3.4067 1.54616 900

62

Have you tried to understand comprehensively the functions of the products that you bought?

3.2300 1.16177 900

Have you ever asked yourself that according to your income status, whether buying a hummer is logical?

2.4478 1.21565 900


Have you preferred value in quality over

cheapness in cost when

making decisions

for personal

purchases?

Have you used

logical reasoning

during emotional conflicts?

Have you considered

the usefulness

of the things or products you have bought?

Have you tried to understand

comprehensively the functions of the products that

you bought?

Have you ever asked yourself

that according

to your income status,

whether buying a

hummer is logical?

Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost

when making decisions for personal purchases?

1.000 .149 .149 .173 .086


.149 1.000 .255 .309 .144


.149 .255 1.000 .340 .032

Have you tried to understand comprehensively the functions of

the products that you bought?

.173 .309 .340 1.000 .085

Have you ever asked yourself that according to your income status,

whether buying a hummer is logical?

.086 .144 .032 .085 1.000

63

Inter-Item Covariance Matrix

Have you preferred value in quality over

cheapness in cost when

making decisions

for personal

purchases?

Have you used

logical reasoning

during emotional conflicts?

Have you considered

the usefulness

of the things or products you have bought?

Have you tried to understand

comprehensively the functions of the products that

you bought?

Have you ever asked yourself

that according

to your income status,

whether buying a

hummer is logical?

Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost

when making decisions for personal purchases?

2.110 .233 .336 .292 .153


.233 1.152 .423 .385 .187


.336 .423 2.391 .612 .060



.292 .385 .612 1.350 .119



.153 .187 .060 .119 1.478

64



Variance N of Items

Item Means 3.097 2.448 3.407 .959 1.392 .143 5

Item Variances 1.696 1.152 2.391 1.238 2.075 .279 5


.172 .032 .340 .308 10.632 .010 5


Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted

Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost when

making decisions for personal purchases?

12.2000 9.944 .221 .050 .479


12.3692 10.472 .354 .140 .400

Have you considered the usefulness of the things or products you have

bought?

12.0781 8.829 .311 .147 .414



12.2548 9.916 .385 .179 .374



13.0370 11.565 .126 .027 .526

65

SCALE: SYNTHESIS


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.374 .386 5

Item Statistics



3.2011 1.66044 900

Have you thought that a new religion can be created by combining two or more existing religions?

2.2878 1.19810 900

Have you ever wondered, what is the common link between Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?

2.2622 1.17450 900

Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with the amount of sleep you have had daily?

3.1144 1.55765 900

66


3.1000 1.25369 900


Have you tried

generating a new idea using two existing ideas?

Have you thought that

a new religion can be created

by combining

two or more

existing religions?

Have you ever

wondered, what is the common

link between

Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?

Have you ever linked yor feeling of freshness

with the amount of sleep you have had

daily?

Have you ever

thought why

children became

more active after eating

more sweets or

chocolates?


1.000 .030 .072 .109 .130

Have you thought that a new religion can be created by

combining two or more existing religions?

.030 1.000 .250 .077 .118

Have you ever wondered, what is the common link between Hitler,

Jack the Ripper and Nero?

.072 .250 1.000 .039 .058

Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with the amount of

sleep you have had daily?

.109 .077 .039 1.000 .236


.130 .118 .058 .236 1.000

67


Have you tried

generating a new idea using two existing ideas?

Have you thought that

a new religion can be created

by combining

two or more

existing religions?

Have you ever

wondered, what is the common

link between

Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?

Have you ever linked yor feeling of freshness

with the amount of sleep you have had

daily?

Have you ever

thought why

children became

more active after eating

more sweets or

chocolates?


2.757 .060 .141 .282 .270



.060 1.435 .352 .143 .177



.141 .352 1.379 .071 .086



.282 .143 .071 2.426 .461


.270 .177 .086 .461 1.572

68



Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.793 2.262 3.201 .939 1.415 .225 5

Item Variances 1.914 1.379 2.757 1.378 1.999 .401 5


.112 .030 .250 .220 8.289 .006 5



Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted


10.7644 9.393 .148 .027 .366



11.6778 10.757 .186 .075 .325



11.7033 10.976 .167 .067 .338



10.8511 9.315 .201 .064 .311


10.8656 10.094 .250 .077 .277

69

SCALE: REPLICATION


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.440 .459 5

Item Statistics


Have you ever wondered whether the performance of the pop group "KARA" can be

replicated in your own country?

2.2844 1.53389 900

Have you seen, purchased owned a replicated art piece?

2.4256 1.36621 900

Have you ever tried replicating your friends' successful study methods and strategies?

2.7222 1.18413 900

70

Have you considered that a replicated version of a hit song can be equally valuable in price and

quality?

2.4989 1.60471 900

Have you ever tried replicating a successful activity, project, or business?

2.5667 1.21586 900


Have you ever

wondered whether the performance of the pop

group "KARA"

can be replicated in

your own country?

Have you seen,

purchased owned a

replicated art piece?

Have you ever tried replicating

your friends'

successful study

methods and

strategies?

Have you considered

that a replicated

version of a hit song can be equally

valuable in price and quality?


a successful activity,

project, or business?

Have you ever wondered whether the performance of the pop group "KARA" can be replicated in your

own country?

1.000 .114 .020 .093 .113


.114 1.000 .169 .123 .301

Have you ever tried replicating your friends' successful study

methods and strategies?

.020 .169 1.000 .116 .261

Have you considered that a replicated version of a hit song can

be equally valuable in price and quality?

.093 .123 .116 1.000 .138

Have you ever tried replicating a successful activity, project, or

business?

.113 .301 .261 .138 1.000

71


Have you ever

wondered whether the performance of the pop

group "KARA"

can be replicated in

your own country?

Have you seen,

purchased owned a

replicated art piece?


your friends'

successful study

methods and

strategies?

Have you considered

that a replicated

version of a hit song can be equally

valuable in price and quality?


a successful activity,

project, or business?


own country?

2.353 .239 .037 .229 .210


.239 1.867 .274 .269 .501



.037 .274 1.402 .221 .376



.229 .269 .221 2.575 .270


business?

.210 .501 .376 .270 1.478

72



Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.500 2.284 2.722 .438 1.192 .026 5

Item Variances 1.935 1.402 2.575 1.173 1.836 .270 5


.145 .020 .301 .281 14.859 .006 5



Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted


own country?

10.2133 11.142 .140 .025 .457


10.0722 10.494 .290 .111 .341



9.7756 11.709 .224 .083 .391



9.9989 10.373 .191 .037 .421


business?

9.9311 10.736 .340 .148 .315

73

SCALE: REDEFINITION


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.492 .497 5

Item Statistics


Have you tried using "H2o" rather than "water" in your daily conversation?

2.3022 1.42978 900

Have you ever tried painting a same picture in water color, charcoal, and oil color?

2.6767 1.22493 900

Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson's portrait in color is the same when it is in black

and white?

2.5156 1.40268 900

74

Have you ever been convinced that a same element can be transformed into water, gas, and

ice?

2.7167 1.22939 900

Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock, and hip-hop?

2.9478 1.23201 900


Have you tried using

"H2o" rather than "water" in your daily conversation?

Have you ever tried painting a

same picture in

water color,

charcoal, and oil color?

Have you ever

thought that

Michael Jackson's portrait in color is the same when

it is in black and

white?

Have you ever been convinced that a same element can

be transformed into water, gas, and

ice?

Have you ever tried singing a

same song in country, rock, and hip-hop?

Have you tried using "H2o" rather than "water" in your daily

conversation?

1.000 .087 .156 .145 .080

Have you ever tried painting a same picture in water color,


.087 1.000 .201 .159 .270

Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson's portrait in color is the same when it is in black and

white?

.156 .201 1.000 .169 .194

Have you ever been convinced that a same element can be transformed

into water, gas, and ice?

.145 .159 .169 1.000 .190

Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock, and hip-

hop?

.080 .270 .194 .190 1.000

75


Have you tried using

"H2o" rather than "water" in your daily conversation?

Have you ever tried painting a

same picture in

water color,


Have you ever

thought that

Michael Jackson's portrait in color is the same when

it is in black and

white?

Have you ever been convinced that a same element can

be transformed into water, gas, and

ice?

Have you ever tried singing a

same song in country, rock, and hip-hop?


conversation?

2.044 .152 .313 .255 .141



.152 1.500 .346 .240 .408


white?

.313 .346 1.967 .291 .335



.255 .240 .291 1.511 .288

Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock, and hip-

hop?

.141 .408 .335 .288 1.518



Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.632 2.302 2.948 .646 1.280 .058 5

Item Variances 1.708 1.500 2.044 .544 1.362 .075 5

76


.165 .080 .270 .190 3.366 .003 5



Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted


conversation?

10.8567 10.312 .188 .041 .493



10.4822 10.288 .292 .105 .421


white?

10.6433 9.542 .297 .089 .415



10.4422 10.423 .270 .074 .434

Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock, and hip-hop?

10.2111 10.218 .298 .111 .417

77

SCALE: RECONSTRUCTION


N %

Cases

Valid 899 99.9

Excludeda 1 .1

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.346 .392 5

Item Statistics


Have you ever considered analyzing a problem by viewing it under different scenarios?

3.2970 1.31536 899

Have you tried to remake a broken toy into a different one?

3.0189 1.21364 899

Have you ever tried using bamboo to make arrows, planks for flooring and a spear?

2.3526 1.15657 899

78

Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting it to have a different conclusion but with the

same characters?

2.8621 2.46871 899

Have you ever thought that wine can be made out of mango rather than grapes?

2.6352 1.70494 899


Have you ever

considered analyzing a problem by viewing it

under different

scenarios?

Have you tried to

remake a broken toy

into a different

one?

Have you ever tried

using bamboo to

make arrows,

planks for flooring

and a spear?

Have you tried taking

a short story and

rewriting it to have a different

conclusion but with the

same characters?

Have you ever

thought that wine

can be made out of

mango rather than

grapes?

Have you ever considered analyzing a problem by viewing it

under different scenarios?

1.000 .112 .058 .008 .039


.112 1.000 .201 .135 .183

Have you ever tried using bamboo to make arrows, planks for flooring

and a spear?

.058 .201 1.000 .104 .191

Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting it to have a different

conclusion but with the same characters?

.008 .135 .104 1.000 .112

Have you ever thought that wine can be made out of mango rather

than grapes?

.039 .183 .191 .112 1.000

79


Have you ever

considered analyzing a problem by viewing it

under different

scenarios?

Have you tried to

remake a broken toy

into a different

one?

Have you ever tried

using bamboo to

make arrows,

planks for flooring

and a spear?

Have you tried taking

a short story and

rewriting it to have a different

conclusion but with the

same characters?

Have you ever

thought that wine

can be made out of

mango rather than

grapes?



1.730 .179 .088 .027 .087


.179 1.473 .282 .406 .378


and a spear?

.088 .282 1.338 .297 .376



.027 .406 .297 6.095 .472


than grapes?

.087 .378 .376 .472 2.907



Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.833 2.353 3.297 .944 1.401 .130 5

Item Variances 2.708 1.338 6.095 4.757 4.556 3.967 5

80


.114 .008 .201 .193 24.564 .004 5



Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted



10.8687 16.232 .072 .014 .363


11.1468 14.762 .267 .082 .243


and a spear?

11.8131 15.301 .230 .070 .270



11.3037 10.227 .152 .031 .362


than grapes?

11.5306 13.191 .212 .064 .258

81

SCALE: REINITIATION


N %

Cases

Valid 900 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items

.320 .389 5

Item Statistics


Have you ever considered moving to a different town or city to restart a same business that has

failed in the current venue?

2.0811 1.17779 900

Have you considered studying an entirely new course in the event you fail your present course?

2.2556 1.29825 900

Have you considered learning a foreign language for a new vocational move in your life?

3.1400 1.33005 900

82

Have you ever tried changing your hair style to have a new look?

3.1900 2.61137 900

Have you tried travelling on a different route to reach a same destination?

2.9033 1.38102 900


Have you ever

considered moving to a different

town or city to

restart a same

business that has failed in

the current venue?

Have you considered studying an

entirely new course in the event

you fail your

present course?

Have you considered learning a

foreign language for a new vocational move in

your life?

Have you ever tried changing your hair style to

have a new look?

Have you tried

travelling on a

different route to reach a same

destination?

Have you ever considered moving to a different town or city to restart a same business that has failed in

the current venue?

1.000 .269 .137 .027 .125

Have you considered studying an entirely new course in the event

you fail your present course?

.269 1.000 .163 .014 .030

Have you considered learning a foreign language for a new

vocational move in your life?

.137 .163 1.000 .072 .149


.027 .014 .072 1.000 .144

Have you tried travelling on a different route to reach a same

destination?

.125 .030 .149 .144 1.000

83


Have you ever

considered moving to a

different town or city to

restart a same

business that has

failed in the current venue?

Have you considered studying an

entirely new course in the event

you fail your

present course?

Have you considered learning a

foreign language for a new vocational move in

your life?

Have you ever tried changing your hair style to

have a new look?

Have you tried

travelling on a

different route to reach a same

destination?


the current venue?

1.387 .411 .214 .084 .203



.411 1.685 .282 .046 .054



.214 .282 1.769 .250 .274


.084 .046 .250 6.819 .519


destination?

.203 .054 .274 .519 1.907



Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.714 2.081 3.190 1.109 1.533 .264 5

84

Item Variances 2.714 1.387 6.819 5.432 4.916 5.304 5


.113 .014 .269 .255 19.828 .006 5



Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted


the current venue?

11.4889 15.031 .200 .092 .253



11.3144 14.970 .158 .089 .275



10.4300 14.430 .202 .056 .243


10.3800 9.624 .111 .023 .398


destination?

10.6667 14.236 .201 .051 .241

85

APPENDIX E: RELIABILTY ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT SCALES OF CSEQ

86

SCALE: RELIABILTY ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT SCALES OF CSEQ


N %

Cases

Valid 899 99.9

Excludeda 1 .1

Total 900 100.0



Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based

on Standardized

Items

N of Items

.840 .842 8


Originality

Ingenuity

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Originality 1.000 .452 .410 .431 .439 .470 .450 .429

Ingenuity .452 1.000 .378 .437 .440 .500 .440 .308

Resolution .410 .378 1.000 .436 .250 .355 .407 .292

Synthesis .431 .437 .436 1.000 .391 .425 .432 .321

Replication .439 .440 .250 .391 1.000 .462 .381 .299

Redefinition .470 .500 .355 .425 .462 1.000 .466 .369

87

Reconstruction

.450 .440 .407 .432 .381 .466 1.000 .349

Reinitiation .429 .308 .292 .321 .299 .369 .349 1.000



Scale Variance if Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted

Originality 95.4386 367.017 .639 .412 .814

Ingenuity 96.3463 350.070 .607 .386 .816

Resolution 93.4449 373.145 .511 .297 .828

Synthesis 94.9670 364.517 .589 .357 .819

Replication 96.4397 366.340 .541 .329 .825

Redefinition 95.7723 357.622 .631 .410 .813

Reconstruction 94.7690 345.831 .601 .366 .817

Reinitiation 95.3652 365.711 .473 .244 .835

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

108.9347 461.316 21.47828 8


88

Originality

Ingenuity

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Originality 1.000 .452 .410 .431 .439 .470 .450 .429

Ingenuity .452 1.000 .378 .437 .440 .500 .440 .308

Resolution .410 .378 1.000 .436 .250 .355 .407 .292

Synthesis .431 .437 .436 1.000 .391 .425 .432 .321

Replication .439 .440 .250 .391 1.000 .462 .381 .299

Redefinition .470 .500 .355 .425 .462 1.000 .466 .369

Reconstruction

.450 .440 .407 .432 .381 .466 1.000 .349

Reinitiation .429 .308 .292 .321 .299 .369 .349 1.000



Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted

Originality 95.4386 367.017 .639 .412 .814

Ingenuity 96.3463 350.070 .607 .386 .816

Resolution 93.4449 373.145 .511 .297 .828

Synthesis 94.9670 364.517 .589 .357 .819

Replication 96.4397 366.340 .541 .329 .825

Redefinition 95.7723 357.622 .631 .410 .813

Reconstruction 94.7690 345.831 .601 .366 .817

Reinitiation 95.3652 365.711 .473 .244 .835

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

89

108.9347 461.316 21.47828 8

APPENDIX F: CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES

90

CORRELATION BETWEEN AGE AND EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Age Originality

Ingenuity

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Age

Pearson Correlat

ion

1 .053

.031 .003 -.018 .088** .005 .045 .033

Sig. (1-tailed)

.056

.177 .465 .296 .004 .440 .089 .160

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson Correlat

ion

.053 1 .452** .411** .431** .439** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.056 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson Correlat

ion

.031 .452**

1 .378** .437** .440** .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.177 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson Correlat

ion

.003 .411**

.378** 1 .436** .249** .356** .407** .291**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.465 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

91

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Synthesis

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.018 .431**

.437** .436** 1 .390** .425** .432** .320**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.296 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Replication

Pearson Correlat

ion

.088** .439**

.440** .249** .390** 1 .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.004 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson Correlat

ion

.005 .470**

.500** .356** .425** .462** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.440 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson Correlat

ion

.045 .450**

.440** .407** .432** .381** .466** 1 .349**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.089 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson Correlat

ion

.033 .428**

.307** .291** .320** .299** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (1-tailed)

.160 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

92

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN YEAR OF STUDY AND EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Year of

Study in

College

Originality

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Ingenuity

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Year of Study in College

Pearson Correlat

ion

1 -.077* .000 -.049 -.017 -.038 -.076* .032 -.055

Sig. (2-tailed)

.021 .998 .141 .606 .254 .022 .331 .100

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.077*

1 .411** .431** .439** .452** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.021 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson Correlat

ion

.000 .411** 1 .436** .249** .378** .356** .407** .291**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.998 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Synthesis

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.049 .431** .436** 1 .390** .437** .425** .432** .320**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.141 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

93

Replication

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.017 .439** .249** .390** 1 .440** .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.606 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.038 .452** .378** .437** .440** 1 .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.254 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.076*

.470** .356** .425** .462** .500** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.022 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson Correlat

ion

.032 .450** .407** .432** .381** .440** .466** 1 .349**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.331 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.055 .428** .291** .320** .299** .307** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


94

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT REASONS FOR STUDYING THEIR PROGRAMS AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Reasons for

Choosing

Program

Originality

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Ingenuity

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Reasons for

Choosing Program

Pearson Correlat

ion

1 .000 -.036 .067* .050 .039 .030 .015 .007

Sig. (2-tailed)

.988 .274 .044 .134 .238 .373 .661 .829

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson Correlat

ion

.000 1 .411** .431** .439** .452** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.988 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.036 .411** 1 .436** .249** .378** .356** .407** .291**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.274 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Synthesis

Pearson Correlat

ion

.067* .431** .436** 1 .390** .437** .425** .432** .320**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.044 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

95

Replication

Pearson Correlat

ion

.050 .439** .249** .390** 1 .440** .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.134 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson Correlat

ion

.039 .452** .378** .437** .440** 1 .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.238 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson Correlat

ion

.030 .470** .356** .425** .462** .500** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.373 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson Correlat

ion

.015 .450** .407** .432** .381** .440** .466** 1 .349**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.661 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson Correlat

ion

.007 .428** .291** .320** .299** .307** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.829 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900



96

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS LINGUISTIC ABILITY (SPOKEN / WRITTEN AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Number of

Spoken

Languages

Number of

Written

Languages

Originality

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Ingenuity

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Number of Spoken Language

s

Pearson

Correlation

1 .655** .064 .041 .067* .018 .017 .055 .034 .087**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .054 .223 .046 .591 .618 .100 .309 .009

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Number of

Written Language

s

Pearson

Correlation

.655** 1 .027 .001 .075* .024 .008 .047 .045 .048

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .420 .967 .024 .472 .817 .155 .180 .150

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson

Correlation

.064 .027 1 .411** .431** .439** .452** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.054 .420 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson

Correlation

.041 .001 .411** 1 .436** .249** .378** .356** .407** .291**

97

Sig. (2-tailed)

.223 .967 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Synthesis

Pearson

Correlation

.067* .075* .431** .436** 1 .390** .437** .425** .432** .320**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.046 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Replication

Pearson

Correlation

.018 .024 .439** .249** .390** 1 .440** .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.591 .472 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson

Correlation

.017 .008 .452** .378** .437** .440** 1 .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.618 .817 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson

Correlation

.055 .047 .470** .356** .425** .462** .500** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.100 .155 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson

Correlation

.034 .045 .450** .407** .432** .381** .440** .466** 1 .349**

98

Sig. (2-tailed)

.309 .180 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson

Correlation

.087** .048 .428** .291** .320** .299** .307** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.009 .150 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900



99

GENERAL LINEAR MODEL (MANOVA) GENDER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

Gender 1.00 Male 587

2.00 Female 312

Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matricesa

Box's M 114.463

F 3.146

df1 36

df2 1419800.525

Sig. .000

100

Multivariate Testsa

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Intercept

Pillai's Trace .962 2833.707b 8.000 890.000 .000

Wilks' Lambda .038 2833.707b 8.000 890.000 .000

Hotelling's Trace 25.472 2833.707b 8.000 890.000 .000

Roy's Largest Root 25.472 2833.707b 8.000 890.000 .000

Gender

Pillai's Trace .024 2.710b 8.000 890.000 .006

Wilks' Lambda .976 2.710b 8.000 890.000 .006

Hotelling's Trace .024 2.710b 8.000 890.000 .006

Roy's Largest Root .024 2.710b 8.000 890.000 .006

a. Design: Intercept + Gender

b. Exact statistic

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.

Originality .333 1 897 .564

Ingenuity 1.716 1 897 .190

Resolution 1.112 1 897 .292

Synthesis 1.251 1 897 .264

Replication 3.244 1 897 .072

Redefinition .463 1 897 .496

Reconstruction 1.863 1 897 .173

Reinitiation .060 1 897 .806

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + Gender

101

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Dependent Variable

Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model

Originality 55.974a 1 55.974 4.912 .027

Ingenuity 79.911b 1 79.911 4.675 .031

Resolution 1.387c 1 1.387 .098 .754

Synthesis .081d 1 .081 .006 .939

Replication 111.092e 1 111.092 7.492 .006

Redefinition 25.922f 1 25.922 1.842 .175

Reconstruction 205.707g 1 205.707 11.110 .001

Reinitiation 5.907h 1 5.907 .323 .570

Intercept

Originality 146667.837 1 146667.837 12871.942 .000

Ingenuity 127174.905 1 127174.905 7440.472 .000

Resolution 195197.777 1 195197.777 13854.375 .000

Synthesis 159050.537 1 159050.537 11625.532 .000

Replication 124933.250 1 124933.250 8424.913 .000

Redefinition 140008.863 1 140008.863 9949.636 .000

Reconstruction 159991.246 1 159991.246 8640.835 .000

Reinitiation 149469.756 1 149469.756 8179.008 .000

Gender

Originality 55.974 1 55.974 4.912 .027

Ingenuity 79.911 1 79.911 4.675 .031

Resolution 1.387 1 1.387 .098 .754

Synthesis .081 1 .081 .006 .939

Replication 111.092 1 111.092 7.492 .006

Redefinition 25.922 1 25.922 1.842 .175

Reconstruction 205.707 1 205.707 11.110 .001

Reinitiation 5.907 1 5.907 .323 .570

102

Error

Originality 10220.762 897 11.394

Ingenuity 15331.809 897 17.092

Resolution 12638.059 897 14.089

Synthesis 12271.983 897 13.681

Replication 13301.635 897 14.829

Redefinition 12622.367 897 14.072

Reconstruction 16608.598 897 18.516

Reinitiation 16392.498 897 18.275

Total

Originality 174025.000 899

Ingenuity 157875.000 899

Resolution 228339.090 899

Synthesis 187665.000 899

Replication 153769.000 899

Redefinition 168399.000 899

Reconstruction 197215.000 899

Reinitiation 181933.000 899

Corrected Total

Originality 10276.736 898

Ingenuity 15411.720 898

Resolution 12639.446 898

Synthesis 12272.065 898

Replication 13412.727 898

Redefinition 12648.289 898

Reconstruction 16814.305 898

Reinitiation 16398.405 898

a. R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)

b. R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)

c. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)

103

d. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)

e. R Squared = .008 (Adjusted R Squared = .007)

f. R Squared = .002 (Adjusted R Squared = .001)

g. R Squared = .012 (Adjusted R Squared = .011)

h. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)

Estimated Marginal Means

Gender

Dependent Variable Gender Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Originality Male 13.678 .139 13.405 13.951

Female 13.154 .191 12.779 13.529

Ingenuity Male 12.806 .171 12.471 13.141

Female 12.179 .234 11.720 12.639

Resolution Male 15.518 .155 15.214 15.822

Female 15.436 .213 15.019 15.853

Synthesis Male 13.961 .153 13.661 14.260

Female 13.981 .209 13.570 14.392

Replication Male 12.751 .159 12.439 13.063

Female 12.013 .218 11.585 12.441

Redefinition Male 13.286 .155 12.982 13.590

Female 12.929 .212 12.513 13.346

Reconstruction Male 14.514 .178 14.166 14.863

Female 13.510 .244 13.032 13.988

Reinitiation Male 13.629 .176 13.282 13.975

Female 13.458 .242 12.983 13.933

104

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: FATHER AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Father Family Educati

onal Backgro

und

Originality

Ingenuity

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Father Famil

Educational

Background

Pearson Correlat

ion

1 -.019 .037 .050 .032 -.026 .025 .000 -.033

Sig. (2-tailed)

.559 .269 .133 .342 .444 .446 .994 .326

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.019 1 .452** .411** .431** .439** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.559 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson Correlat

ion

.037 .452** 1 .378** .437** .440** .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.269 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson Correlat

ion

.050 .411** .378** 1 .436** .249** .356** .407** .291**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.133 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

105

Synthesis

Pearson Correlat

ion

.032 .431** .437** .436** 1 .390** .425** .432** .320**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.342 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Replication

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.026 .439** .440** .249** .390** 1 .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.444 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson Correlat

ion

.025 .470** .500** .356** .425** .462** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.446 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson Correlat

ion

.000 .450** .440** .407** .432** .381** .466** 1 .349**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.994 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.033 .428** .307** .291** .320** .299** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.326 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900


106

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: MOTHER AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Mother Family Educati

onal Backgro

und

Originality

Ingenuity

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Mother Family

Educational

Background

Pearson Correlat

ion

1 -.030 .036 .084* .058 .008 .074* .034 .038

Sig. (2-tailed)

.365 .287 .011 .082 .812 .026 .304 .260

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.030 1 .452** .411** .431** .439** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.365 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson Correlat

ion

.036 .452** 1 .378** .437** .440** .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.287 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson Correlat

ion

.084* .411** .378** 1 .436** .249** .356** .407** .291**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

107

Synthesis

Pearson Correlat

ion

.058 .431** .437** .436** 1 .390** .425** .432** .320**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.082 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Replication

Pearson Correlat

ion

.008 .439** .440** .249** .390** 1 .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.812 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson Correlat

ion

.074* .470** .500** .356** .425** .462** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.026 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson Correlat

ion

.034 .450** .440** .407** .432** .381** .466** 1 .349**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.304 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson Correlat

ion

.038 .428** .307** .291** .320** .299** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.260 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900



108

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY INCOME AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS

Family

Income

Originality

Ingenuity

Resolution

Synthesis

Replication

Redefinition

Reconstruction

Reinitiation

Family Income

Pearson Correlat

ion

1 -.019 -.071* -.077* -.014 -.019 -.073* -.010 .001

Sig. (2-tailed)

.575 .034 .020 .676 .567 .028 .774 .978

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Originality

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.019 1 .452** .411** .431** .439** .470** .450** .428**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.575 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Ingenuity

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.071*

.452** 1 .378** .437** .440** .500** .440** .307**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.034 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Resolution

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.077*

.411** .378** 1 .436** .249** .356** .407** .291**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.020 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Synthesis Pearson Correlat

ion

-.014 .431** .437** .436** 1 .390** .425** .432** .320**

109

Sig. (2-tailed)

.676 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Replication

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.019 .439** .440** .249** .390** 1 .462** .381** .299**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.567 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Redefinition

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.073*

.470** .500** .356** .425** .462** 1 .466** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.028 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

Reconstruction

Pearson Correlat

ion

-.010 .450** .440** .407** .432** .381** .466** 1 .349**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.774 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899

Reinitiation

Pearson Correlat

ion

.001 .428** .307** .291** .320** .299** .368** .349** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.978 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900



110

APPENDIX G: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

111

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

Student Demographics

Age, Gender, Study Preference, Year of Study in College, GPA, Reasons for Choosing the Program and Student’s Linguistic

Ability

Eight Creativity Elements

Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis, Replication,

Redefinition, Reconstruction, and Reinitiation

Family Demographic

Parental Family Status, Family Income, and Family Educational

Background

H1o

H2o

creativity selected elements questionnaire

Education

study of creativity

selected creativity

innate creativity elements

creativity elements

bangkok creativity

significance of creativity

recognition of creativity

creative assessment