Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20

Download by: [National Taiwan Normal University] Date: 13 December 2015, At: 20:39

Educational PsychologyAn International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Investigating the synergy of critical thinking andcreative thinking in the course of integratedactivity in Taiwan

Yulin Chang, Bei-Di Li, Hsueh-Chih Chen & Fa-Chung Chiu

To cite this article: Yulin Chang, Bei-Di Li, Hsueh-Chih Chen & Fa-Chung Chiu (2015)Investigating the synergy of critical thinking and creative thinking in the course of integratedactivity in Taiwan, Educational Psychology, 35:3, 341-360, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2014.920079

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920079

Published online: 19 May 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 219

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Investigating the synergy of critical thinking and creative thinkingin the course of integrated activity in Taiwan

Yulin Changa, Bei-Di Lib, Hsueh-Chih Chena* and Fa-Chung Chiuc

aEducational Psychology and Counseling, College of Education, National Taiwan NormalUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan; bTaipei Long Men Junior High School, Taipei, Taiwan;cDepartment of Psychological and Social Work, National Defense University, R.O.C., Taipei,Taiwan

(Received 30 August 2012; final version received 27 April 2014)

The relationship lying between critical thinking and creative thinking is oppositeor complementary, results of previous relevant researches have not yet con-cluded. However, most of researches put the effort to compare the respectiveeffect of the thinking methods, either the teaching of creative thinking or that ofcritical thinking. Less of them showed the interest to investigate the combinedeffect of these two thinking skills teaching, especially its synergy. Therefore,present study aimed to discuss the synergy of critical thinking and creative think-ing, and investigated the joined effect of these two methods of thinking in thecourses of ‘Integrated Activity courses’. Not only the separate influence but alsothe synergy would be our interests. Moreover, the outcome would also be com-pared with the learning result of single creative thinking skill teaching. Partici-pants were 147 male students and 118 female students of ninth grade from 8intact classes in a public middle school in Taiwan, the number of total partici-pants were 265. Experimental design was ‘nonequivalent control group pretest/post-test quasi-experimental design’. Participants were assigned into threegroups, three intact classes for creative thinking teaching group (EG1), threeintact classes for ‘critical thinking and creative thinking combined teachinggroup (EG2)’ and two intact classes for regular teaching method group (watch-ing video, control group). All participants took the assessment ‘The New Crea-tive-Thinking Testing’ and ‘The Critical-Thinking Testing, Level 1’ afterreceiving the courses as post-test. Data were analysed statistically by one-wayANCOVA. The results showed that:

(1) Regards to the performance in Integrated Activity courses, no significantdifference was found among students in EG1 and those in EG2. However,the students in both experimental groups got higher scores than those incontrol group did.

(2) As for the ability of critical thinking, students in EG2 got higher score thanthose in EG1 and CG did, but no difference was found among the studentsin EG1 and those in CG.

(3) In respect of originality, students in EG2 got higher score than those inEG1 did, the influence of critical thinking was significant.

Theoretical and possible applications of the results were also discussed. Presentstudy not only manifests the correlation between creative thinking and critical

*Corresponding author. Email: chcjyh@ntnu.edu.tw

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Educational Psychology, 2015Vol. 35, No. 3, 341–360, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920079

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

thinking, but also provides the empirical data for synergy in actual pedagogicalsituations.

Keywords: creative thinking; critical thinking; Integrated Activity courses;teaching for creative thinking; teaching for critical thinking

Introduction

Critical thinking and creative thinking are both the important elements of higherorder thinking (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &Krathwohl, 1956; Lewis & Smith, 1993), they are also the major topics in con-temporary education revolution worldwide. However, gap of viewpoints for thesetwo ways of thinking coexists among scholars in this research field. Somebelieved that creative thinking and critical thinking were irrelevant (Baker, Rudd,& Pomeroy, 2001; Piawa, 2010; Yang & Lin, 2004), while some even thoughtthat they were against to each other by the natures (Chiu, 2010); on the otherhand, others hold the viewpoints that there was something in common betweenthese two ways of thinking (Beyer, 1995; Elder & Paul, 2006, 2007). Moreover,most pedagogical studies of critical thinking and creative thinking only focusedon one of them, either creative thinking or critical thinking. Seldom studies dis-cussed the combined effect of creative thinking and critical thinking in the class(e.g. Aizikovitsh-Udi & Amit, 2011; Koray & Köksal, 2009; Wu & Huang,2007). Even if there was any, the teaching effect of creative thinking and criticalthinking was still investigated, respectively. Therefore, what would happen if criti-cal thinking meets creative thinking remains unknown, not to mention its synergyand its ‘chemistry’.

‘Integrative Activities courses’ is special for the elementary and middle school inTaiwan. It involves with the subjects such as home economics, counsellingguidance, group activity and gender relationship. Topics of the courses includeself-development, everyday life management, social participation, self-protection,environmental protection, etc. According to ‘Grade 1–9 Curriculum Guidelines’,Integrative Activities courses were defined as the activities that guide students topractice, experience and reflect upon the learning process as well as to testify andemploy their learning in the actual situations in daily life (The Ministry of Educationof Taiwan, 2001). By this definition, education of Integrated Activities focuses onknowledge integration and application. This nature makes the courses suitable forraising the high-order thinking. Pedagogical researches about creative thinkingmethod were many but those about critical thinking method were seldom for theIntegrated Activity courses in Taiwan.

To address this issue, present study intended to implement both thinking skills inthe courses of Integrated Activity course, and thus investigate its synergy amongthese two thinking skills.

Creative thinking and critical thinking

Among definitions of creative thinking, the best well known is the perspectives byGuilford, to regard creative thinking as a kind of divergent thinking (Guilford,1956), while creativity is also an expression of divergent thinking. The basicassumption was the more ideas created by divergent thinking, more possible was it

342 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

to generate the unusual answers, and thus lead to higher creativity. Divergent think-ing could be assessed by four factors: fluency, the amount of answers; flexibility, thecategories of answers; originality, the uniqueness of answers; and elaboration, thefineness and the embellishment of answers. This approach of assessment was psy-chometric approach (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999), many well-known creative thinkingtests were designed according to this approach as well (e.g. Guilford, 1963;Torrance, 1966; Williams, 1980). Besides, Mednick and other researchers regardedcreative thinking as remote association between concepts or knowledge nodes inhuman brain (Förster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004; Martindale, 1995; Mednick,1962). The remoter two concepts were associated, the more creativity that new com-bination would be. Both divergent thinking and remote association took creativethinking as a course of ideas creation.

Norris and Ennis (1989) defined critical thinking as reasonable reflective think-ing that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. However, many assessmentsand training courses of critical thinking took critical thinking as reasonable andreflective process of logic thinking (Cheng, Wang, Wu, & Huang, 1996; Ennis,1987; Feely, 1976; Paul, 1995; Yeh, 2003). To be specific, it involved with somecognitive or meta-cognitive skills such as: recognition of assumptions, to identify anunspoken assumption among given statements; inference and inductions, to judgethe degree of true or false based on given information; deductions, to identify thecorrectness of conclusion based on given cues; interpretations, to judge whether theconclusion are drawn from materials provided; evaluation of arguments: to identifythe viewpoints involved with the questions strong or weak. (Watson & Giaser, 1994;Wu, Cheng, & Wang, 1992; Yeh, 2003). In a sum, critical thinking involved withlogical reasoning and judgement on statements, news ideas, arguments, research,etc. (Beyer, 1995). This was convergent thinking named by Guilford, exactly theopposite concept to divergent thinking. To sum up from aforementioned definitions,the relationship of creative thinking and critical thinking was opposite. It was alsosupported by some results of relevant researches. Baker et al. (2001) found that therewas no significant relation among creative thinking and critical thinking. While italso found that creative thinking and critical thinking were negative correlated toeach other (r = −.44 to −56; Chiu, 2010)

However, with development of integrated theories, the gap between creativethinking and critical thinking has been narrowed. Norris and Ennis (1989) inter-preted the relationship of creative thinking and critical thinking in the way of GoodThinking. Both creative thinking and critical thinking are quite important parts ofgood thinking. Critical thinking was specified into ‘evaluative’ and ‘non-evaluative’parts. ‘Non-evaluative’ critical thinking is the level of hypotheses processing, wherecreative thinking and critical thinking converge. On the other hand, creative thinkingis also specified into ‘reflective’ and ‘non-reflective’ parts. ‘Reflective’ creativethinking and critical thinking overlap when individual consciously and deliberatelyproposes hypotheses to the questions. Cheng, Wang, Liu, and Chen (2010) investi-gated association instruction in the course of poetry writing to the students in fourthgrade. And students’ creativity was assessed by the consensual assessment tech-nique. The result found that creativity of the written poetries was not only highlycorrelated to the dimensions related to originality but also to those of appropriate-ness. It was involved with teachers’ and pedagogical workers’ definitions of creativ-ity and convergent thinking.

Educational Psychology 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

In the perspective of problem-solving, (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Smith,Ward, & Finke, 1995; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999) put forward the GeneploreModel involving idea creation and judgement; Runco and Chand (1995) raised thetwo-tiered componential model of creative thinking, of which the bottom tierincluded three skills: problem finding, to identify and define the problems; ideation,the fluency, flexibility and originality of ideas; and evaluation, to evaluate andcriticise the values. Parnes and his followers have developed the creative problem-solving (CPS) model (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Parnes, 1967), which, by meansof six specific stagers involving both divergent thinking and convergent thinking,raised creative solutions to solve problems that could not be handled in ordinaryways. These perspectives regarded creative thinking as a general or special processof problem-solving.

Many scholars of critical thinking perspective (Ennis, 1985; Kurfman, 1967;Ruggiero, 1980; Russell, 1979) also took critical thinking as a process of problem-solving, and included both the concepts of critical thinking and creative thinking. Inother words, either creative thinking or critical thinking can be taken as a skill forproblem-solving in extensive perspective; these two thinking skills were possible tojointly function to develop students’ higher order thinking. Elder and Paul (2006)even claimed that there shall never be a distinct boundary lay between creativethinking and critical thinking. For a student, creative thinking develops along withdevelopment of critical thinking. They are just like the two sides of a coin.

However, empirical researches of combined views were few and the results usu-ally showed that two thinking perspectives were interdependent. For example, todemonstrate the explanation to relationship of creative thinking and critical thinkingby Norris and Ennis (1989), Cheng and Huang (1995) investigated the relation ofcritical thinking and creative thinking by sampling 238 teachers in high school inTaiwan. Result showed that critical thinking and creative thinking were only mildcorrelated to the score of elaboration in graphic test (r = .11, p < .05) and score offlexibility in language test (r = .12, p < .04) among 11 sub-scales of creativity test.The scores of rest sub-scales were almost non-correlated to critical thinking and cre-ative thinking (r = −05 to .08), even correlation of all the tests was low (r = .03).Glassner and Schwarz (2007) claimed that certain researches were operated by thetraditional definition of creative thinking and critical thinking, also the researchmethods were incapable for further relationship analysis. Even in the combined per-spectives of aforementioned definitions, creative thinking and critical thinking werenevertheless two interdependent thinking skills among the border processes of prob-lem-solving or higher order thinking.

However, present study assumed that either creative thinking or critical thinkingcould not be completely independent of the other. Chiu, Chen, Hsu, Wu, and Cho(2008) investigated the influence of students’ ‘subjective standard’ on insight prob-lems task and divergent thinking tasks. The result showed that students of high ‘sub-jective standard’ had been negatively influenced among the aspects of fluency,flexibility and originality of divergent thinking. Therefore, it is worthwhile to dis-cuss the combined effect of both creative thinking and critical thinking in class.Would students be influenced by critical thinking and maintain high subjective stan-dard for divergent thinking tasks, which thus decrease the fluency, flexibility andoriginality? Besides, according to the result of construal level theory (CLT) research,to keep individuals raising the questions of ‘why’ would change their mental repre-sentations to the topics, and their cognitive thinking would characterized with the

344 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

concepts that are abstract, intangible, unobservable, and broad as well (Luguri,Napier, & Dovidio, 2012). Higher level construal potentially led to the activationof boarder long-term memory knowledge node, which helped creative remoteassociation and raised creative performance. Furthermore, when students engaged incritical thinking in the way of self-interrogation, would the performance of studentsbe influenced in divergent thinking tasks? And thus would holding the abstract at ahigher level construal trigger the remote association, leading to increase of fluency,flexibility and originality? The above-mentioned assumption about the influence ofcritical thinking on creative thinking involved hypotheses of ‘subjective standard’and ‘construal level’. Which one is correct? It is worthwhile for furtherinvestigation.

Teaching of creative thinking and critical thinking

The most common strategy of teaching creative thinking were Brainstorming(Osborn, 1953, 1963), Lateral thinking (De Bono, 1971), CPS (Isaksen & Treffinger,2004), etc. Brainstorming is the most general solution for creating the new ideas(Runco, 2007). It helps individuals to: (1) define the topics or clarify the questions,(2) identify the issues or questions, (3) bring out possible solutions. The principlesof brainstorming are: (1) welcome all the ideas and no judgements should be madeof these ideas; (2) as innovative as possible; (3) as much as you can; (4) ‘hitchhike’others’ ideas.

Brainstorming was firstly claimed by Osborn (1953, 1963), it was designed forgroup thinking. However, the debates still lay that ideas form brainstorming werereally helpful to creativity (Parloff & Handlon, 1964). Results of relevant researchshowed that brainstorming is even more effective to an individual than to a group inachieving idea generation. Take students in Taiwan, as example, the way of ‘nine-square mandala’ is more efficient on inspiring the new and unique thoughts.Students firstly wrote down the topics of thinking on the central blank space of a3 × 3 square sheet and then filled in the ideas alongside with individual’s thinkinginto the surrounding eight blank spaces.

As for the teaching strategies of critical thinking, the US Foundation for CriticalThinking once regarded ‘Socratic questioning’ the most ancient but powerful teach-ing tool to help students think critically, analytically and independently (Moore &Rudd, 2002). As a systematic, regular and in-depth questioning method, Socraticquestioning usually focused on basic concepts, principles, theories, themes and ques-tions to seek multi-aspect and multi-goal ideas. Related teaching modes involvedteacher’s guidance to help students examine ‘conflict points’, ‘origin and sources’ oftheir thinking then put forward ‘supports, reasons, proofs or hypotheses’ and finallywork out reasonable inferences and own views (Paul, 1995). Paul and Elder (2007)once guided teachers to make questioning covering the following aspects: (1) goalsand purposes of thinking; (2) ‘question’; (3) information, data and experience; (4)inferences and conclusions; (5) concepts and ideas; (6) assumptions; (7) implicationsand consequences; and (8) viewpoints and perspectives. Results of relevant studiesfound that Socratic questioning was indeed helpful for individuals to inspect theassumptions behind the questions, and increased ones’ skills of critical thinking, aswell as the employing the skills in new contexts (Golding, 2011; Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003; Knezic, Wubbels, Elbers, & Hajer, 2009; Yang, 2008).

Educational Psychology 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Embedding creative and critical thinking into the Integrative Activities course

Specifically for teaching involving thinking skills, Swartz (1992) raised the infusionapproach, which was characterised by developing these skills by embedding them inthe teaching of the set learning material. Swartz and Parks (1994) suggested to useintegrated approach to design curriculum that helped students to improve their think-ing ability, which combined Thinking Skill Teaching outside Classroom andImprovement of Thinking inside Classroom through Teaching Strategies, hoping tofinish curriculum plan, while cultivating students’ thinking ability.

Ennis (1989) categorised teachings of critical thinking into four types, they were(1) General approach, which took critical thinking skills as the explicit courses anddirectly instructed the courses. Such as the study by Riesenmy, Mitchell, Hudgins,and Ebel (1991), 70 students in fourth and fifth grades were recruited for the coursesof critical thinking by the way of self-orientation in St. Louis public schools. (2)Infusion approach, embedded the critical thinking skills into course content andinstructed in explicit way. Such as the study by Zohar, Weinberger, and Tamir(1994), the Biology Critical Thinking Project was developed by the infusion methodfor the biology courses to seventh grades students in Israel. At Taiwan, a four-weekeducational psychology course was developed in the method of infusion by Chengand Yeh (2000). (3) Immersion approach, critical thinking was implicitly raised inthe class. Such as the study by Kamin, O’Sullivan, and Deterding (2002), studentsjoint group discussion after watching short film and critical thinking was thus raised.(4) Mixed approach, teachers adopted two of aforementioned approaches as thestrategy of teaching (Ennis, 1989; McCarthy-Tucker, 1998). By the result of meta-analysis of 117 researches, it was found that infusion approach was most efficient(Abrami et al., 2008).

Hence, present study would take infusion method as teaching strategy in theIntegrative Activities courses. Students would also receive the thinking skills train-ing of brainstorming or Socratic questioning and thus employed it in the class con-text of Integrative Activities courses.

The research question and hypothesis of the present study

To sum up, present study aimed to make comparison among creative thinking teach-ing model, creative thinking and critical thinking combined teaching model and reg-ular teaching model, to investigate the difference of student’s learning performanceand ability of critical thinking and creative thinking in Integrated Activity coursesamong three models.

Hence, present study proposed following hypotheses:1. Hypothesis 1 (Figures 1 and 2). Either creative thinking or critical thinking

teaching could be regarded as higher order teaching that helped students to improvetheir thinking ability and learning motivation (Yeh, 2003). Alongside with aforemen-tioned assumption, present study hypothesised that the learning performances werenot different among the participant in creative thinking teaching, and those in com-bined model of creative thinking and critical thinking teaching. However, learningperformance in experimental groups was better than those in control group in Inte-grated Activity courses.

2. Hypothesis 2.1 (Figures 1 and 2). Students in combined thinking skills modelof both creative thinking and critical thinking teaching group would get higher score

346 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

than those of the rest two groups in critical thinking ability, and there was no differ-ence between latter two groups in the same regard.

3.1. Hypothesis 3 (Figure 1). Where the foregoing ‘subjective standard’ inferencewas tenable while ‘construal level’ inference was not, then students under creativethinking and critical thinking-infused teaching would affect by critical thinking,show poorer fluency, flexibility and originality than those under creative thinking-infused teaching.

Figure 1. Research framework (under the hypothesis of the ‘subjective standard’).

Figure 2. Research framework (under the hypothesis of the ‘construal level’).

Educational Psychology 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

3.2. Hypothesis 3.2 (Figure 2). Where the foregoing ‘construal level’ inferencewas tenable while ‘subjective standard’ inference was not, then students under crea-tive thinking and critical thinking teaching would affect by critical thinking andshow better fluency, flexibility and originality than those under creative thinking-infused teaching.

Methods

Design

It was a non-equivalent control group pretest/post-test design quasi-experimentalstudy. The independent variable was thinking skill teaching methods used in Inte-grated Activity courses. There were three groups: the first experimental group (EG1)under creative thinking skill-infused instructions; the second experimental group(EG2) under creative-and-critical-thinking skill-infused instructions and the controlgroup (CG) under unchanged regular instructions. The dependent variables werescores of Critical Thinking Test-Level I (CTT-I) and scores of New Tests of CreativeThinking, of which the subscales include: verbal fluency, verbal flexibility, verbaloriginality, figural fluency, figural flexibility, figural originality and figural elabora-tion. Students of all groups had, before experimental teaching, taken pretest, withthe scores serve as controlled variables so as to remove influence of students’ abilityof critical thinking and creative thinking before the experimental teaching on theteaching effect. Such teaching lasts for 5 weeks, 90mins each week. At the end ofthe treatment period, all students received post-tested assessment ‘The CriticalThinking Test-Level I (CTT-I)’ and ‘the New Tests of Creative Thinking’. In addi-tion, to master performance of students from all groups in Integrated Activitycourses, researchers had also collected students’ scores during experimental teaching(including homework, oral reports and post-lesson tests).

Participants

Participants were 265 students at Grade 9 from eight intact classes of a middleschool in Taipei, Taiwan. There were 147 males and 118 females, and their averageage was from 13 to 14. This middle school was located in Taipei city, where mostof the students were sourced from the elementary school in neighbourhood. All theparticipants took IQ assessment for normalised grouping into each class, whileentrance. Hence, the level of IQ was not significantly different among these eightintact classes. Researchers assigned these eight classes to each group. There werethree intact classes in EG1, 97 participants, 54 boys and 43 girls; there were threeintact classes in EG2, 104 participants, 58 boys and 46 girls; and the rest intact twoclasses in CG, 64 participants, 34 boys and 30 girls.

Instruments

The instruments were ‘The New Tests of Creative Thinking’ and ‘The CriticalThinking Test-Level I (CTT-I)’.

348 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

The New Tests of Creative Thinking

The New Tests of Creative Thinking consisted of two tasks, verbal creativity task(Unusual uses of chopsticks) and figural creativity task (to draw a Chinese character‘人’) (Wu et al., 1998). Verbal creativity task measured the verbal aspect of creativethinking with three indices: verbal creativity, verbal flexibility and verbal originality;and figural creativity task measured the figural aspect of creative thinking with fourindices: figural fluency, figural flexibility, figural originality and figural elaboration.The score of fluency (verbal/figural) was calculated by following formation: totalresponses minus the repeated or irrelevant ones. The higher the scores, the better thefluency of creative thinking. The score of flexibility (verbal/figural) was calculated byreferring to the category indices in instruction manual, each category had its owncredit. The higher the score, the better the flexibility of creative thinking. The scoreof originality (verbal/figural) was counted by referring to the norm in the manual,each response was scored from 0 to 2. The higher the score, the better the originalityof creative thinking. Elaboration (figural) was identified by the number of figural dec-orative items to the Chinese character ‘人’. One item credited one point. The higherthe points, the better the elaboration of creative thinking. Each task took 10 min.

As for reliability and validity, the inter-rater reliabilities of each indices werehigh, ranged from .93 to .98, except that figural elaboration was .79, and it wasacceptable. And the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients on test–retestreliability were around .34–.60. As for the New Tests of Creative Thinking and Tor-rances’s Creative Thinking Test correlation coefficients of fluency and flexibility,either verbal or figural, all were from middle to high, ranged from .45 to .70; andthat of figural elaboration was acceptable, .11; while those of originality were low(.08–.14), the reason might be the timings of norm establishment (Wu et al., 1998).

Critical Thinking Test-Level I

The (CTT-I) was composed by five tiers: recognition of assumptions, inductions,deductions, interpretations and evaluation of arguments. Each tier consisted of fiveitems and total length of the test was 25 items. The test was multiple-choice withthree options. One credit for correct answer and no credit for wrong one. The higherthe score, the stronger the ability of critical thinking. This test took 25 min (Yeh,2003).

Regards to reliability and validity, according to the analysis (Yeh, 2003), itemdiscrimination was from .20 to .77, average was .47; item difficulty indices (averageof passing percentage) were from .36 to .89, average was .61; internal consistency(α coefficient, Crocker & Algina, 1986) was .76. In respect to validity, by taking2288 students (Grade 5–11) as sample and taking their grade, educational back-ground of the parents, style of thinking and learning performance as external criteria,it was found that the scores CTT-I was highly correlated to these criteria(r = .121–.688, ps < .05).

Procedure

The experimental teaching was implemented for five weeks, the course took 90 minevery week. Each group has a teacher acting by one researcher. One week ahead theformal experimental teaching, all participants took the New Tests of Creative

Educational Psychology 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Thinking and CTT-I as pretests to identify their ability of creative thinking and criti-cal thinking. Each test took 25 min.

Figure 3 illustrates the whole procedure of the experimental teaching. Three top-ics were discussed: cooperation (1 week), domestic violence prevention (2 weeks)and gender equality (2 weeks).

Each topic was composed of two stages: ‘practice’ and ‘application’. In the prac-tice stage: in EG1 classes, the teacher took the topic to guide participants exercisingdivergent thinking by means of individual brainstorming. For example, in the topicof gender equality education, participants firstly received the skills of nine-squaremandala to list the questions among gender relationship and selected the favouriteanswers among themselves, such as dating and romance for teenagers in middleschool, the reason for pros/cons of the romance in middle school, personal character-istics for relationship build-up in a romance. In EG2 classes, participants firstlyreceived skills of nine-square mandala to list aforementioned questions as well, andparticipants exchanged their opinions. Then teachers guided the participants’ think-ing flow by the questions, such as ‘do you agree with other’s answers which are dif-ferent with yours? Why?’, ‘do you have any idea of the background thoughts about

Figure 3. Process of experimental teaching.

350 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

your classmates’ answers? Are their answers against each other?’, ‘Are their view-points strong or weak?’ and ‘what will happen if there were more and more class-mates hold the same point?’ Participants were asked to think and act in other’sviewpoints, and raised two or three Socratic questions for other classmates. In CGclasses, the teacher played videos related to the topic for participants and then partic-ipants shared their views.

In the application stage, participants in EG1 firstly received some open questionsrelated to the topic, such as ‘What are possible causes leading to domestic vio-lence?’ Then participants were asked to employ the nine-square mandala skills leantin practice stage and discussed by groups to choose the answer, explain it in theclass. Teacher only completed the basic knowledge if necessary, and clarified theconfusing concepts and corrected the wrong thought alongside the discussion byparticipants. In EG2 classes, not only providing the open questions related to thetopics and thinking by nine-square mandala skills, but teacher also guided deepthinking into the questions by the way of Socratic questioning. And then teachercompleted the necessary knowledge and clarify the confusion, corrected the wrongconcepts as well. In CG classes, the teacher raised close-ended questions, such as‘What phone number shall you dial in case of domestic violence?’ After Qs & As,teacher then instructed the relevant knowledge and concepts.

Besides, each time after the topics of domestic violence prevention and genderquality, the teacher also carried out 5 min topic-related tests to observe participants’understandings. After five-week course, all the participants took the post-test.

Results

Hypothesis 1: Participants from EG1 and EG2 got higher scores in learning perfor-mance than those from CG.

First, to examine that all the three topics, namely cooperation, domestic violenceprevention and gender equality, helped to improve participants’ learning perfor-mance by integration with creative thinking or critical thinking teaching, researchershave collected scores of learning performance of participants from all three groups,including five-min topic-related tests and oral reports during the class and home-work. Through one-way ANOVA analysis, there was significant difference amongthree groups, F(2225) = 8.97, p < .001, η2 = .07, as shown in Table 1. According toCohen (1988, 1992), η2 ranged from .02 to .10 referred to small effect size. Then,the post hoc analysis was conducted to examine whether participants from EG1 andEG2 were better in learning performance than those from CG, while there was nodifference between EG1 and EG2. Hypothesis 1 was supported by data. The

Table 1. The mean, standard deviation and F-test of learning performance scores of thethree groups.

M SD F post hoc

1. EG1 (n = 104) 94.06 2.50 8.97*** 1, 2 > 32. EG2 (n = 63) 93.60 1.823. CG (n = 61) 91.53 6.32

***p < .001.

Educational Psychology 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

teaching methods of either creative thinking or of critical thinking were helpful toIntegrative Activities learning than traditional method was.

Hypothesis 2: Participants from EG2 got higher scores of critical thinking performancethan those from EG1 and CG, while no difference between EG1 and CG in the sameregard.

To examine effects of critical thinking method for the participants in EG2 in thecourse, this study took the group as independent variable, critical thinking pretestscore as the covariance and critical thinking posttest score as dependent variable.One-way ANCOVA was conducted. See Tables 2 and 3 for results.

According to Table 2, in terms of critical thinking, adjusted means of post-testscores for EG1, EG2 and CG were 21.00, 22.15 and 21.04, respectively, after elimi-nating the variance of pretest scores. According to the analysis result of ANOVA(Table 2), scores of critical thinking test were significantly different among the threegroups, F(2, 261) = 10.49, p < .001, η2 = .03, effect size was small. Then, the posthoc analysis was conducted to rank the performance among three groups, it wasfound that participants from EG2 were better than those from EG1 and CG, whileno difference was found between EG1 and CG. Socratic questioning was demon-strated to be helpful to improve participants’ ability of critical thinking. Thus,Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3.1: Participants from EG1 got higher scores of fluency, flexibility and orig-inality in creative thinking than those from EG2 and CG did, while no significant dif-ference was found between EG2 and CG in the same regard.

Hypothesis 3.2: Participants from both EG1 and EG2 had better ability of creativethinking than those from CG had, and participants from CG2 got higher scores of flu-ency, flexibility and originality than those from EG1 and CG did.

To examine the effect of experimental treatments among three groups, and to com-pare the influence of critical thinking to creative thinking in EG2, this study tookgroup as the independent variable, pretest scores of seven indices of creativethinking as the covariance, verbal fluency, verbal flexibility, verbal originality, fig-ural fluency, figural flexibility, figural originality and figural elaboration; and tookthe post-test scores as the dependent variable. Data were analysed by the statisticalmethod, one-way ANCOVA. Results are shown as Tables 2 and 3. Followings arethe analysis results of seven indices.

Verbal fluency, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CG were20.54, 22.09 and 15.82, respectively. According to results of variable analysis, itwas significantly different among three groups, F(2, 261) = 18.53, p < .001, η2 = .05,small effect size. Results of post-comparison showed that participants of EG1 andEG2 got higher score than CG did, no difference between EG1 and EG2 was found.Verbal fluency was improved with or without the strategy of Socratic questioning,while no difference was found between two experimental groups.

Verbal flexibility, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CG were10.09, 10.61 and 8.15, respectively. Results of variable analysis showed that it wassignificantly different among three groups, F(2, 261) = 21.86, p < .001, η2 = .08,small effect size. Post-comparison showed that participants got bigger values in EG1and EG2 than those in CG. While difference between EG1 and EG2 was not found.Verbal flexibility was improved with or without the strategy of Socratic questioning,while no difference was found between two experimental groups.

352 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Table

2.The

mean,

standard

deviationandadjusted

meanof

criticalthinking

andcreativ

ethinking

performance

ofthethreegroups.

(n=104)

(n=97)

(n=64)

EG1

EG2

CG

(Creative)

(Creative&

critical)

(Regular)

MSD

Adjustedmean

MSD

Adjustedmean

MSD

Adjustedmean

Critical

thinking

Pretest

21.23

3.43

21.00

19.91

3.64

22.15

20.91

3.43

21.04

Posttest

21.39

2.93

21.62

3.13

21.20

3.42

Verbalfluency

Pretest

14.37

9.04

20.54

16.31

9.79

22.09

17.47

10.00

15.82

Posttest

19.22

10.28

22.53

11.32

17.30

10.68

Verbalflexibility

Pretest

7.84

3.46

10.09

8.56

3.46

10.61

8.98

3.15

8.15

Posttest

9.71

3.31

10.73

3.34

8.58

3.50

Verbaloriginality

Pretest

11.77

10.26

17.49

13.19

11.18

20.61

12.62

10.23

14.55

Posttest

16.84

12.31

21.24

15.44

14.67

13.44

Figural

fluency

Pretest

16.27

7.17

20.78

14.74

6.60

21.60

19.08

8.42

16.02

Posttest

20.68

8.16

20.21

7.29

18.30

8.78

Figural

flexibility

Pretest

10.18

3.50

12.33

9.31

3.47

12.66

11.25

3.15

10.32

Posttest

12.38

3.18

12.09

3.45

11.11

3.79

Figural

originality

Pretest

14.84

8.52

16.65

12.66

7.41

19.68

16.86

11.35

12.99

Posttest

16.87

8.54

18.38

8.81

14.61

9.42

Figural

elaboration

Pretest

8.41

5.11

9.51

7.75

5.50

10.08

8.25

4.95

6.84

Posttest

9.70

5.14

9.82

5.24

6.92

3.84

Educational Psychology 353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Verbal originality, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CG were17.49, 20.61 and 14.55, respectively. Results of variable analysis showed that therewas significant difference among three groups, F(2, 261) = 7.28, p < .01, η2 = .03,small effect size. Post-comparison showed that participants got higher score in EG2than those in EG1, and those in EG1 got better scores than those in CG did. Thatverbal originality of participants from both experimental groups have been signifi-cantly improved, especially the performance of participants in EG 2 was improvedmore by Socratic questioning and creative thinking than those in EG1 did.

Figural fluency, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CG were20.78, 21.60 and 16.02, respectively. According to the results of variable analysis,there was significant difference among three groups, F(2, 261) = 24.24, p < .001,η2 = .07, small effect size. Post-comparison showed that EG1 and EG2 scored higherthan CG, but there was no difference between the performance of participants inEG1 and those in EG2. Figural fluency was improved with or without the strategyof Socratic questioning, while no difference was found between two experimentalgroups.

Table 3. Brief list of covariance analysis.

Source SS df F η2 post hoc

Critical thinking Covariance 1594.65 1 428.45*** .62Groups 78.06 2 10.49*** .03 2 > 1, 3Error 971.43 261Corrected total 2572.96 264

Verbal fluency Covariance 19328.36 1 457.81*** .61Groups 1564.58 2 18.53*** .05 1, 2 > 3Error 11019.10 261Corrected total 31496.69 264

Verbal flexibility Covariance 1507.50 1 269.03*** .48Groups 244.98 2 21.86*** .08 1, 2 > 3Error 1462.49 261Corrected total 3150.57 264

Verbal originality Covariance 23915.93 1 240.54*** .46Groups 1447.03 2 7.28** .03 2 > 1, 3Error 25949.95 261Corrected total 51730.49 264

Figural fluency Covariance 10015.80 1 383.76*** .59Groups 1265.53 2 24.24*** .07 1, 2 > 3Error 6811.96 261Corrected total 17064.78 264

Figural flexibility Covariance 1485.76 1 241.61*** .47Groups 224.84 2 18.28*** .07 1, 2 > 3Error 1605.02 261Corrected total 3156.69 264

Figural originality Covariance 10084.61 1 251.69*** .48Groups 1679.96 2 20.96*** .08 2 > 1 > 3Error 10457.63 261Corrected total 21090.89 264

Figural elaboration Covariance 3334.99 1 293.93*** .50Groups 437.50 2 19.28*** .07 1, 2 > 3Error 2961.40 261Corrected total 6688.49 264

Notes: post hoc 1 = EG1, 2 = EG2, 3 = CG.**p < .01. ***p < .001.

354 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Figural flexibility, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CG were12.33, 12.66 and 10.32, respectively. Results of variable analysis showed that therewas significant difference among three groups, F(2, 261) = 18.28, p < .001, η2 = .07,small effect size. Post-comparison showed that participants in EG1 and in EG2scored higher than CG, while the performance of figural flexibility did not differbetween two experimental groups. Figural flexibility was improved with or withoutthe strategy of Socratic questioning, while no difference was found between twoexperimental groups.

Figural originality, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CGwere 16.65, 19.68 and 12.99, respectively. Results of variable analysis showed thatthere were significant difference among three groups, F(2, 261) = 20.96, p < .01,η2 = .08, small effect size. Post-comparison showed that participants in EG2 scoredhigher than those in EG1 did, and participants in EG1 got higher score than those inCG did. Figural originality of participants from both experimental groups has beensignificantly improved, and participants in EG2 were benefited more by the skills ofSocratic questioning and creative thinking than those in EG1 did.

Figural elaboration, adjusted means of post-test scores for EG1, EG2 and CGwere 9.51, 10.08 and 6.84, respectively. Results of variable analysis showed thatthere was significant difference among three groups, F(2, 261) = 19.28, p < .001,η2 = .07, small effect size. Post-comparison showed that participants in EG1 and inEG2 got higher score than those in CG did. And the performance was no differentbetween the participants in EG1 and in EG2. Figural elaboration was improvedeither with or without Socratic questioning among the participants in both experi-mental groups, while there was no difference between such two experimental groupsin the same regard.

In general, both experimental groups got significantly higher score of seven crea-tive thinking indices than CG did. There was no difference among the performanceof fluencies, flexibilities and figural elaboration in both experimental groups; butthere was significant difference among the performance of verbal/figural originality,participants in EG2 got higher score than those in EG1 did. Hypothesis 3.2 was par-tially supported by the data in present study. It showed that originality was increasedunder the synergy of creative thinking and critical thinking.

Discussion

To sum up the results (Figure 4), it found that students’ performance of integratedactivity courses and abilities of critical thinking and creative thinking were bothimproved under the combined teaching methods of critical thinking and creativethinking. They also showed better originality of creative thinking compared to thoseunder teaching methods with only creative thinking. That means when both criticalthinking and creative thinking were integrated in teaching, it was more helpful toinspire students’ originality. Discussions over results of present study are as follows.

Integrating individual brainstorming and Socratic questioning, this study hasdeveloped a teaching method that not only guides critical thinking and creativethinking, but also was suitable for Integrated Activity courses in middle schools.Result showed that such teaching model was able to effectively train students’ criti-cal thinking and creative thinking and was helpful for learning the subject. Theimportance of high-order thinking to learning process was thus demonstrated. In

Educational Psychology 355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

addition, the result was also helpful for further pedagogical grounded practice forteachers or relevant researches.

In terms of critical thinking teaching practice, Socratic questioning as a majorstrategy led to significant improvement of students’ ability of critical thinking inpresent study. Compared with relevant studies, for example, Cheng and Yeh (2000)implemented infusion approach of critical thinking into educational psychologycourse in Taiwan. However, undergraduates in experimental group didn’t have sig-nificant improvement on their critical thinking after four weeks courses. Therefore,it suggested to also have Socratic dialogue, discussion and questioning during thecourses of integrated critical thinking Su and Huang (2006), which investigated theeffect of Socratic questioning on natural science courses among 98 students of sixthgrade in elementary schools of Taiwan. After nine weeks of the courses, students inexperimental groups showed better critical thinking ability and dispositions thenthose in control group. The result was in line with that in present study that Socraticquestioning is really suitable for courses of critical thinking method and for schoolcurriculum.

Besides, this study integrates two thinking methods into course teaching, byfirstly giving guides and doing exercises concerning thinking skills, then asking stu-dents to carry out application based on courses. In the practice stage, students firstlylearnt creative thinking skills then acquired critical thinking skills. As a result, stu-dents’ abilities of both thinking skills were significantly improved. Combinedapproached was even more efficient than simple approach of creative thinking inincreasing the ability of creativity. Take a comparative look at local researches in thepast, Wu and Huang (2007) have designed the Creative and Critical Teaching fornatural science course in elementary schools. The process usually began with stu-dent discussion under guidance of critical thinking teaching, then they made creationby groups, finally they presented group works along with class discussion. As a

Figure 4. Teaching of critical-thinking and creative-thinking exploit the synergy oforiginality.

356 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

result, students from experimental groups presented better creative thinking thanthose from control group, but no significant improvement was found among criticalthinking group. This showed that critical thinking teaching might be difficult for stu-dents to learn thinking skills directly from discussions or teachers’ indirect guidance.Instead, direct teaching and exercises related to thinking skills were needed to helpstudents transfer such skills to practical learning and improve their critical thinkingabilities at the same time.

As for creative thinking teaching, hypothesis of ‘construal level’ was partiallysupported by the results. With the synergy of critical thinking, only performance oforiginality was better among students in EG2 than those in EG1, while the perfor-mance of rest indices remained no different among the two experimental groups.But experimental treatments were still influential to learning, students in experimen-tal groups still scored higher than control group in creative thinking.

The possible reason might be that students in EG2 simultaneously received theskills of creative thinking and critical thinking, even the former played an additiveeffect to the latter. The effect of combined approaches was still hard to exceed theeffect of creative thinking approach with double time acquisition (EG1). On theother hand, students in combined approach of critical thinking and creative thinkinglearnt Socratic questioning by continuing to ask why questions and tended to usethe strategy of abstract cognitive representation as CLT theory claimed (Luguriet al., 2012). An abstract construal makes broad categories become salient and allthe exemplars of this category become partially activated. Therefore, abstract con-structions underscored more diverse possibilities thus promote creativity (Friedman& Förster, 2005). However, as individuals perceived relatively abstract constructionand processed creative thinking, ones may directly link the remoter categories ofconcepts through higher tiers. Therefore, acquiring originality might not be neces-sary to fulfil the condition of sufficient amount of responses (fluency) and categoriesof concepts (flexibility).

Furthermore, the above-mentioned phenomena were not fully in line withGuilford’s basic views of divergent thinking. Guilford thought that the more ideaswere created, the more possibility for later reactions to meet the criterion offlexibility and originality. Alongside with his assumptions, fluency may be consid-ered as the basis of the rest indices except elaboration in divergent thinking measur-ing. However, there have had certain results of relevant researches that were notconsistent with Guilford’s perspectives (Runco, 1993). Results of present studyagain supported the claims that four indices of divergent thinking do not alwaysconnected among the indices. It found that low fluency did not definitely accompanylow flexibility and poor originality. With valid strategy, individuals might as wellperform excellently in certain index of divergent thinking.

Finally, we would like to suggest for further researches. Experimental group ofonly critical thinking methods is suggested to put into the experimental design forcomparison. Moreover, only individual brainstorming and Socratic questioning wereemployed as the respective strategy of creative thinking and critical thinking to dem-onstrate the effect of thinking teaching. There are still many teaching strategies andskills of thinking methods. Investigating the synergy of various combined methodsis recommended to further pedagogical studies.

Educational Psychology 357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

ReferencesAbrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., &

Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and disposi-tions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102–1134.doi:10.3102/0034654308326084

Aizikovitsh-Udi, E., & Amit, M. (2011). Developing the skills of critical and creative think-ing by probability teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1087–1091.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching andassessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.).New York, NY: Longman.

Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creativethinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51, 173–188.

Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa EducationalFoundation.

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxon-omy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I:cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.

Cheng, Y. Y., & Huang, C. H. (1995). A study of creative thinking, critical thinking and itsrelated factors of secondary school teachers. Educational Review, 11, 145–198.

Cheng, Y. Y., Wang, W. C., Liu, K. S., & Chen, Y. L. (2010). Effects of association instruc-tion on fourth graders’ poetry creativity in Taiwan. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 228–235.

Cheng, Y. Y., Wang, W. C., Wu, J. J., & Huang, C. H. (1996). A preliminary report on theconstruction of the Critical Thinking Scale (CTS). Psychological Testing, 43, 213–226.

Cheng, Y. Y., & Yeh, Y. C. (2000). The effect of teaching on critical thinking. Social ScienceQuarterly, 2, 127–142.

Chiu, F. C. (2010). Development of word conception association test for creativity. Psychol-ogy Testing, 57, 295–324.

Chiu, F. C., Chen, H. C., Hsu, C. C., Wu, H. Y., & Cho, S. L. (2008). The impact of implicitand explicit factors on the performance of creativity tasks. Chinese Journal of Psychol-ogy, 50, 125–145.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York,

NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.De Bono, E. (1971). Lateral thinking for management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought.

Journal or Developmental Education, 30, 34–35.Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought,

part II. Journal or Developmental Education, 30, 36–37.Ennis, R. H. (1985). Critical thinking and the curriculum. National Forum, 65, 28–31.Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In J. B. Baron

& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). NewYork, NY.

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and neededresearch. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004

Feely, Jr., T. (1976). Critical thinking: Toward a definition, paradigm and research agenda.Theory & Research in Social Education, 4(1), 1–19.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, andapplications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Förster, J., Friedman, R., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract andconcrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry:Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 88, 263–275.

358 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and criti-cal thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 10–18.

Golding, C. (2011). Educating for critical thinking: Though-encouraging questions in a com-munity of inquiry. Higher Education Research & Development, 30, 357–370.doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.499144

Greenlaw, S. A., & De Loach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discus-sion. The Journal of Economic Education, 34, 36–52.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.Guilford, J. P. (1963). Potentiality for creativity and its measurement. In E. F. Gardner (Ed.),

Proceedings of the 1962 invitational conference on testing problems (pp. 31–39).Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versionsof creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 75–101.

Kamin, C., O’Sullivan, P., & Deterding, R. (2002, April). Does project L.I.V.E. case modalityimpact critical thinking in PBL groups? Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED464921).

Knezic, D., Wubbels, T., Elbers, E., & Hajer, M. (2009). The Socratic dialogue and teachereducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1104–1111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.006

Koray, Ö., & Köksal, M. S. (2009). The effect of creative and critical thinking based labora-tory applications on creative and logical thinking abilities of prospective teachers. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), Article 2, 1–13.

Kurfman, D. (1967). The evaluation of effective thinking. In J. Fair & F. R. Shaftel (Eds.),Effective thinking in the social studies: 37th yearbook (pp. 231–253). Washington, DC:National Council for the Social Studies.

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32,131–137. doi:10.1080/00405849309543588

Luguri, J. B., Napier, J. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Reconstruing intolerance: Abstract think-ing reduces conservatives’ prejudice against nonnormative groups. Psychological Science,23, 756–763.

Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A.Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

McCarthy-Tucker, T. S. N. (1998). Teaching logic to adolescents to improve thinking skills.Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 8, 45–66.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review,69, 220–232.

Moore, L., & Rudd, R. (2002). Using Socratic questioning in the classroom. AgriculturalEducation Magazine, 75, 24–25.

Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking (pp. 16–19). Pacific Grove,CA: Midwest Publications.

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Scribner.Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem

solving (3rd revised ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Parloff, M. B., & Handlon, J. H. (1964). The influence of criticalness on creative problem-

solving in dyads. Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 27, 17–27.Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York, NY: Scribner.Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking how to prepare students for a rapidly changing world.

Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). The art of Socratic questioning. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation

for Critical Thinking.Piawa, C. Y. (2010). Building a test to assess creative and critical thinking simultaneously.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 551–559.Riesenmy, M. R., Mitchell, S., Hudgins, B. B., & Ebel, D. (1991). Retention and transfer of

children’s self-directed critical thinking skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 85,14–25.

Ruggiero, V. R. (1980). The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative. London: Den.

Educational Psychology 359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15

Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,37, 16–22.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development and practice.Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review,7, 243–267.

Russell, B. (1979). A history of Western Philosophy. London: Unwin.Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). Cognitive processes in creative contexts.

In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach(pp. 1–8). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Su, M. Y., & Huang, W. C. (2006). The impact of the Socratic questioning model on sixthgraders’ critical thinking abilities and dispositions. Chinese Journal of Science Education,14, 597–614.

Swartz, R. J. (1992). Critical thinking, the curriculum, and the problem of transfer. In D. N.Perkins, J. Lochhead, & J. Bishop (Eds.), Thinking: The second international conference(pp. 261–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swartz, R. J., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking intocontent instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.

The Ministry of Education of Taiwan. (2001). General guidelines of grade 1–9 curriculum ofelementary and junior high school. Taipei: Author.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Prince-ton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watson, G., & Giaser, E. M. (1994). Watson – Glaser critical thinking appraisal form-S. SanAntonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Williams, F. E. (1980). The creativity assessment packet. Chesterfield, MO: Psychologistsand Educators.

Wu, J. J., Chen, F. Y., Guo, J. H., Lin, W. W., Liu, S. H., & Chen, Y. H. (1998). Develop-ment of a new creativity test of use with students in Taiwan. Taipei: Education departmentof the government of Taiwan.

Wu, J. J., Cheng, Y. Y., & Wang, W. C. (1992). The revision of the Watson-Glaser CriticalThinking Appraisal-Form Zm. Journal of Education & Psychology, 15, 39–78.

Wu, W. L., & Huang, W. C. (2007). Influence of the creative and critical teaching on learningmotivation, critical thinking, and scientific creativity of the fifth-grade students. ScienceEducation Monthly, 304, 12–28.

Yang, Y. T. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class inTaiwan: Asynchronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants.Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 241–264. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9054-5

Yang, S. C., & Lin, W. C. (2004). The relationship among creative, critical thinking andthinking styles in Taiwan high school students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31,45–56.

Yeh, Y. C. (2003). The manual of critical thinking test, level I. Taipei: PsychologicalPublishing.

Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y., & Tamir, P. (1994). The effect of the biology critical thinkingproject on the development of critical thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31, 183–196.

360 Y. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Tai

wan

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:39

13

Dec

embe

r 20

15