the mediating roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation between classroom learning environment and...

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 18 November 2014, At: 14:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

The Mediating Roles of Intrinsic andExtrinsic Motivation Between ClassroomLearning Environment and Creativity amongHospitality Students in TaiwanShu-Ying Lina & Chak-Keung Simon Wongb

a Department of Culinary Art, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitalityand Tourism, No. 1, Songhe Rd, Xiaogang Dist. Kaohsiung City 812, Taiwanb School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong PolytechnicUniversity, Room TH620, 6th Floor, 17 Science Museum Road, TST East,Kowloon, Hong KongPublished online: 22 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Shu-Ying Lin & Chak-Keung Simon Wong (2014) The Mediating Roles of Intrinsic andExtrinsic Motivation Between Classroom Learning Environment and Creativity among Hospitality Students inTaiwan, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19:8, 913-931, DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2013.818050

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.818050

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10941665.2013.818050

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.818050

distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Mediating Roles of Intrinsic and ExtrinsicMotivation Between Classroom Learning

Environment and Creativity among HospitalityStudents in Taiwan

Shu-Ying Lin1∗ and Chak-Keung Simon Wong2

1Department of Culinary Art, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism,

No. 1, Songhe Rd, Xiaogang Dist., Kaohsiung City 812, Taiwan2School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Room

TH620, 6th Floor, 17 Science Museum Road, TST East, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Creativity is generally regarded both as an essential capability for hospitality graduatesthat will enable them to meet the challenges they will face, in the initial years andbeyond, as career professionals and as a key element in enabling hospitality managersto operate businesses successfully. Many studies have already found that creativity canbe promoted or fostered and is not a special talent found in only a few individuals. There-fore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the influences of the classroom learningenvironment (CLE) and motivation to learn on hospitality students’ creativity. The find-ings of this study revealed two critical insights: (1) the important direct and indirect effectsof CLE on creativity and (2) the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation (IM) on creativ-ity. This study found that both CLE and IM to learn can independently and interactivelyaffect hospitality students’ creativity.

Key words: hospitality, creativity, classroom learning, intrinsic motivators, extrinsicmotivators

Introduction

The importance of creativity has been men-

tioned by many researchers; for instance, crea-

tivity could enable a person to identify

possibilities and opportunities that others

may not have seen and to identify and solve

problems (Craft, 2006). Creativity is “the pro-

duction of novel and useful ideas by an indi-

vidual or small group of individuals working

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 2014Vol. 19, No. 8, 913–931, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.818050

∗Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Asia Pacific Tourism Association

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

together” (Amabile, 1988, p. 126). Inno-

vation, on the other hand, is defined as “the

successful implementation of creative ideas

within an organization” (Amabile, 1996).

Thus, creativity (individual level) is considered

as a starting point for innovation (organiz-

ational level) (Amabile, 1996; Zampetakis &

Moustakis, 2006).

Many articles have also discussed the value

of creative ability in the hospitality industry

(Ashley et al., 1995; Hanson, 1993; Holjevac,

2003; Hu & Liu, 2012; Makens, 1991;

Simons & Namasivayam, 1999; Spector,

2003; Tas, LaBrecque, & Clayton, 1996).

Wong and Pang (2003a, 2003b) argued that

the ability to be creative is one of the most

important elements that the hospitality indus-

try must to have for the business development

in the twenty-first century. Creativity is also

been identified as the core competence

needed for chefs to create a culinary artwork

(Horng & Hu, 2008; Horng & Lee, 2006);

therefore, it is needed in culinary education

(Horng & Lee, 2009). As educational insti-

tutions are intended to satisfy the industry’s

need for future employees, it is always impor-

tant for hospitality educators to consider what

kind of graduates the industry would like to

hire.

In the education field, numerous researchers

and educators continually make appeals for

the need to promote students’ creativity

(Cropley, 2001; Csikszentmihalyi, 2006;

Esquivel, 1995; Fasko, 2000–2001; Ferguson

& Berger, 1985; Jackson, 1990; Jackson &

Sinclair, 2006). Creativity needs to be nur-

tured from an early stage of life; however,

giving individuals opportunities to develop

their creativity at different learning stages is

also required (Craft, 2006). A large number

of researchers have perceived the significant

effects of the learning environment on stu-

dents’ creative performance (Amabile, 1996;

Beghetto, 2005; Chambers, 1973; Cole,

Sugioka, & Yamagata-Lynch, 1999; Dineen,

2006; Dineen & Niu, 2008; Dudek, Strobel,

& Runco, 1993; Esquivel, 1995; Fryer, 2006;

Gilbert, Prenshaw, & Ivy, 2006; Hasirci &

Demirkan, 2003; Hill & Amabile, 1993; Nin

& Sternberg, 2003; Niu, 2003; Sak, 2004).

In addition to the learning environment

factors, motivation has also been identified as

essential for individual creativity, and this

may be the most straightforward issue to

address in attempts to stimulate creativity

(Amabile, 1983, 1996; Hon, 2012; Sternberg

& Lubart, 1991).

Many research studies have conceptually

and empirically shown the effects of the class-

room learning environment (CLE) on stu-

dents’ creative potential (Amabile, 1996;

Beghetto, 2005; Chambers, 1973; Cole et al.,

1999; Dineen, 2006; Dineen & Niu, 2008;

Esquivel, 1995; Fryer, 2006; Hill & Amabile,

1993) and the relationship between individual

motivation and creativity (Amabile, 1983,

1996; Greer & Levine, 1991), but no study

has theoretically proposed or empirically

demonstrated the relationships among CLE,

students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

(EM), and student creativity in higher edu-

cation in general or specifically in hospitality

management education. Particularly, previous

research has demonstrated the direct relation-

ship between CLE and creativity; however,

less has been done about the indirect influence,

yet potentially equally or more important,

through students’ intrinsic motivation (IM)

and EM on creativity. Therefore, it is impor-

tant to investigate how both CLE and individ-

ual motivation to learn independently and

interactively affect students’ creativity. The

objectives of this research were (1) to

develop a model showing the relationship

between CLE and creativity among hospitality

students in Taiwan and (2) to discover

914 Shu-Ying Lin and Chak-Keung Simon Wong

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

any mediating effect exerted by intrinsic

motivators and extrinsic motivators in the

relationship between CLE and creativity

among hospitality students in Taiwan.

Review of Literature

Creativity

Creativity can be viewed simply as a phenom-

enon in any realm of human activity; at the

same time, from the perspectives of different

study areas, such as psychology, psycho-

metrics, biography, biology, science, edu-

cation, art, and culture, it could be regarded

as extremely complex. It could be considered

as a property of people, products, and pro-

cesses and it could also be considered as a per-

sonal (Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999) or social

phenomenon (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999) or as

an interaction of both (Lubart, 1999).

In the narrow sense, Guilford (1950) defined

creativity as “the abilities that are most

characteristic of creative people” (p. 444).

Besides, most of definitions of creativity

contain two features: “originality” and “use-

fulness” (Mayer, 1999). In general, creativity

can be defined as the development of ideas,

outcomes, products, or solutions that are

judged as original and novel as well as appro-

priate and potentially useful for the situation

(Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou &

Shalley, 2003).

Generally, measuring creativity is believed

to be a complex task and different research

approaches can be used to study creativity.

Sternberg (1999) summarized six research

approaches in the previous creativity literature

that have been used to understand creativity:

psychometric, psychological, biographical,

biological, computational, and contextual.

Each of these creative research approaches

has its own strengths and weakness. The

method of measuring creativity in this study

was based on an individual’s creative thinking

ability to develop new ideas. The method used

in the psychometric approach is a direct

measurement of creativity and its perceived

correlates with individuals (Plucker &

Renzulli, 1999). As this study focused on the

attribute that may affect students’ creativity

by investigating the influences of the CLE

and individual motivation on creativity, psy-

chometric and contextual approaches were

adopted in this study accordingly.

Classroom Learning Environment

The classroom has a significant impact on

individual learning and creativity. As a favor-

able learning environment is critical to the

development of students’ creative potential,

a number of studies have theoretically and

empirically asserted a positive relationship

between CLE and students’ creativity

(Amabile, 1996; Beghetto, 2005; Chambers,

1973; Cole et al., 1999; Dineen, 2006;

Dineen & Niu, 2008; Dudek et al., 1993;

Esquivel, 1995; Fryer, 2006; Gilbert et al.,

2006; Hasirci & Demirkan, 2003; Hill &

Amabile, 1993; Niu & Sternberg, 2003;

Niu, 2003; Sak, 2004).

Furthermore, Fleith’s (2000) study provided

a comprehensive view of the characteristics

which either stimulate or inhibit the develop-

ment of creativity in the classroom environ-

ment. Teaching strategies, teachers’ attitudes,

classroom activities, and classroom climate

were highlighted as enhancing creativity. In

particular, the findings of this research

suggested that a CLE that provides students

with choice, accepts different ideas, boosts

self-confidence, and focuses on students’

strengths and interests promotes student crea-

tivity. In contrast, ignoring ideas, controlling,

The Mediating Roles of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 915

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and emphasizing classroom structure are

believed to hinder creativity.

Another similar study by Fryer (2006) found

that the factors that facilitate creativity in the

classroom are: (1) teaching approaches,

(2) setting tasks which require creativity,

(3) developing students’ motivation, (4) teach-

ing skills for use in creative work, (5) provid-

ing supportive factors such as encouragement

and openness, (6) offering a context for crea-

tive work, and (7) creating an active learning

involvement with group work. On the other

hand, factors that inhibit students’ creativity

are: (1) assessment, (2) poor teaching,

(3) over-large classes, (4) managerialism,

(5) inadequate student funding, and (6) a

stress on “not failing” rather than freedom to

think or take risks.

Motivation

Two generic types of motivation, IM and EM,

have been used in numerous studies examining

the relationships between IM vs. EM and aca-

demic behaviors (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar,

2005; Moneta & Siu, 2002). A large number

of researchers have supported Amabile’s

point that creative performance can be

affected by motivation (Butler & Nisan,

1986; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Hennessey

& Amabile, 1998; Moneta & Siu, 2002;

Tighe, Picariello, & Amabile, 2003). In

addition, studies have indicated that the

social context, such as the CLE, can affect

motivation, which, in turn, influences individ-

uals’ creative performance (Hill & Amabile,

1993; Tighe et al., 2003). Hill and Amabile

(1993) argued that individuals’ motivational

orientation has been found to be an important

mediator between the social environment and

creativity. They specifically suggested that

intrinsic engagement in activities is needed

for creative performance; in contrast, extrinsic

motivators, such as evaluation pressure,

rewards, and competition in the CLE, decrease

IM and creativity (Amabile, 1979, 1983).

Based on her research on the effects of EM

on creative writers, Amabile (1985) classified

four general categories of EM in the learning

environment: (1) tangible rewards, (2) exter-

nal evaluation (impressing teachers favorably

or enjoying public recognition of work), (3)

external direction of work by teachers or

parents, and (4) doing thing as a means to

extrinsic ends (e.g. getting a good job or

getting into graduate school). In addition,

Moneta and Siu (2002) assessed the effects of

intrinsic and EM on academic and creative

performance. The findings of this study indi-

cated that students’ creative behaviors are

positively related to IM.

Taiwan and Creativity

The concept of “Creativity Education” in

Taiwan has been receiving great attention.

The Taiwanese government, particularly the

Ministry of Education, is trying to develop

Taiwan’s regional image as a country of crea-

tivity and to make it a “Republic of Creativity”

(ROC – the same acronym as that used for the

Republic of China) (Niu, 2006). The Taiwan

Government has made great efforts on the

policy, research, enterprise, and individual

levels to make Taiwan “a place where creativ-

ity is indispensable to everyone’s life and in

which the preservation of creative capital will

be maintained through knowledge manage-

ment” (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2007,

p. 9). The ability to be creative has been recog-

nized as an important factor for success in the

current complex and rapidly changing business

environment. Yang (2006) argued that the dis-

covery of ideas or innovation is an important


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

contributor to economic growth in Taiwan. In

addition, many Taiwanese firms, such as Asus,

Acer, HTC, Giant, and Taiwan Semiconductor

Manufacturing Company, have been recog-

nized with a strong reputation worldwide as

the result of their technological innovation

(Chen, Lin, Chang, & Liu, 2009; Zhu et al.,

2006).

Furthermore, research related to creativity

has a longer history in Taiwan than in some

other Asian countries, such as Mainland

China and Singapore, and Taiwan has also

demonstrated a greater enthusiasm for creativ-

ity in education than those countries (Niu,

2006). Because creativity is at the flourishing

stage in Taiwan, students at universities in

Taiwan were chosen as the population of this

study.

Methodology

This research employed qualitative and quanti-

tative research methods. The development of

questionnaire included a number of stages.

First, an extensive review of the relevant litera-

ture was conducted to generate items for each

research construct. Then, the qualitative

method of in-depth and focus interviews was

used to supplement the measurement items for

the purpose of developing a scale of CLE and

motivation to learn which is suitable for hospi-

tality education in Taiwan. Purposive sampling

(Locke, 2001) was used for qualitative inter-

views to ensure the sample included the views

of three types of groups from different districts

of Taiwan; therefore, four department heads

and four hospitality educators were invited for

in-depth interview and four groups of hospital-

ity students were invited to the focus group

interviews. The technique of content analysis

was applied to analyze the interview data. The

general processes of content analysis for this

study followed those proposed by Glaser and

Strauss (1967), Hatch (2002), and Strauss and

Corbin (1998) and included open coding, cate-

gorizing, and framing, followed by interpret-

ation. First, the interview data were read and

reread thoroughly by the researcher to identify

frames of analysis. Second, the text was

divided into units of information and trans-

formed into categories, labels, or themes.

Then, axial coding (Strauss, 1987) was applied

to search for relationships and consequences

among the categories. After the data were

sorted and organized by frames, the interpret-

ation of the data then moved from categoriz-

ation to the identification of themes. Finally, a

dendrogram was made to illustrate the themes

and subthemes needed for the next stage of

instrument development.

Based on the findings of the qualitative

research, five themes related to CLE which

may influence students’ creativity were identified

and labeled as Course Design, Teacher, Inter-

personal Relationship, Learning Activity, and

Physical Environment. Furthermore, according

to the meaning of these five themes and the sub-

themes, 21 measurement statements were devel-

oped. For motivation to learn, three additional

measurement statements were also created

based on the results of the interviews. Finally, a

preliminary questionnaire consists of measure-

ment statements from previous literature

review (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe,

1994; Fraser, Fisher, & McRobbie, 1996) and

findings of interviews were developed. Measure-

ment items for each research construct in pre-

liminary questionnaire are explained in the

following section.

Measurement Items for ResearchConstructs

CLE: The attributes in What Is Happening in

This Classroom (WIHIC) (Fraser et al.,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1996) were adopted as the bases of an item

pool for assessing students’ perceptions of

the CLE. WIHIC has been widely used and it

combines scales from past questionnaires

with contemporary dimensions for assessing

student perceptions (Dorman, 2008). WIHIC

consists of seven indicators: student cohesive-

ness, teacher support, involvement, investi-

gation, task orientation, cooperation, and

equity. Based on the WIHIC instrument and

the results of this study’s in-depth and focus

group interviews (five themes: Course

Design, Teacher, Interpersonal Relationship,

Learning Activity, and Physical Environment),

a scale was developed containing a compre-

hensive list of 77 items (56 items from

WIHIC and 21 items from the qualitative

study) to assess the overall CLE provided by

hospitality management programs in Taiwan

used in this study. In this study, items were

measured using a seven-point Likert scale (7

¼ always, 6 ¼ almost always, 5 ¼ often, 4 ¼

sometimes, 3 ¼ infrequently, 2 ¼ almost

never, and 1 ¼ never). The CLE was assessed

from the students’ perspective in terms of the

CLE provided in the whole program; it was

not specific to any subject in which the stu-

dents had enrolled.

Motivation to learn: For motivation to

learn, the Work Preference Inventory (WPI;

Amabile et al., 1994) was adopted in this

study to assess individual differences in intrin-

sic and extrinsic motivational orientations.

The WPI has two primary scales, namely, IM

and EM. The IM scale is further subdivided

into two subfactors, Enjoyment and Chal-

lenge. On the other hand, the EM scale is

also further subdivided into two secondary

scales, Compensation and Outward Orien-

tation. Using a seven-point Likert scale (7 ¼

strongly agree, 6 ¼ agree, 5 ¼ somewhat

agree, 4 ¼ neutral, 3 ¼ somewhat disagree, 2

¼ disagree, and 1 ¼ strongly disagree), 30

items were adopted to measure both IM and

EM to learn in this study. A 33-item scale

(30 from the WPI and 3 from the qualitative

study) was finally created to measure students’

motivation to learn.

Creativity: The Abbreviated Torrance Test

for Adults (ATTA) (Goff & Torrance, 2002)

was used to measure the creative thinking

ability of the respondents. This test requires

respondents to apply their imagination and

thinking ability to think of new ideas, define

problems, and solve problems through three

activities related to verbal response and

figural tasks. The ATTA defines overall crea-

tive performance as the sum of the scaled

scores of the four components (fluency, orig-

inality, elaboration, and flexibility) and the

scores of any creative indicator observed.

The seven levels of the Creative Index rep-

resent the degrees of individual creative per-

formance on a scale from one to seven (1 ¼

minimal, 2 ¼ low, 3 ¼ below average, 4 ¼

average, 5 ¼ above average, 6 ¼ high, and 7

¼ substantial creativity). In order to ensure

the reliability and validity of the results, the

creativity test papers were sent back to the

authorized ATTA Company in Taiwan for

evaluation after the respondents had com-

pleted the creativity test.

Participants’ demographic profile: The

background information of the respondents

requested in the questionnaire included

gender, age, year of study, nationality, type

of high school graduated from, name of

program, and experience of enrollment in

courses related to creativity.

Pilot Test

The questionnaire was translated into Chinese

by professional translation companies using

the back-translation technique with a bilingual


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

test (Brislin, Lonner, & Throndike, 1973;

Maneesriwongul & Dixon, 2004). In pretest

procedures, a pilot test with sample of 277

year four students from four academic univer-

sities in Taiwan who were studying in hospi-

tality management programs was conducted

to modify and finalize the instruments before

proceeding to the main data collection.

Exploratory factor analysis was used to ident-

ify the dimensionality of the research con-

structs derived from the literature review and

the qualitative research and to examine the

initial items for scale reliability and validity.

In order to reveal the factor structure, princi-

pal components factor analysis using the

Varimax rotation method was conducted.

For the CLE, an eight-factor solution with

45 items was derived. Each factor was

named according to what it collectively rep-

resented in the context of the CLE: Teacher

and Teaching Approach, Teacher Support,

Cooperation with Classmates, Investigation,

Student Cohesiveness, Equity, Task Orien-

tation, and Involvement. In the motivation to

learn domain, the result was a six-factor sol-

ution with 20 items. Based on the meaning of

the statements, the factors were named and

categorized into IM and EM to learn, which

reflected the contents and meaning of the

retained indicator. For IM, the factors

included are: (1) Preference for Challenge

and (2) Enjoyment and Interest. On the other

hand, EM contained four factors, namely (1)

Good Grades, (2) Recognition, (3) Clear

Tasks and Goals, and (4) Requirements of

Education Institution.

Based on the results of the pilot test, revi-

sions were made to the final instrument for

the main data collection. For the measurement

of creativity, creativity tests (ATTA) were pur-

chased from the authorized ATTA Company

in Taiwan. Finally, sets containing the ques-

tionnaire and a creativity test were collated

and a matching reference number was used

for further data coding.

Sampling and Data Collection

Year four undergraduate students in academic

universities which offered hospitality manage-

ment related programs in Taiwan were

selected as sampling population for this

study. There were several reasons for selecting

year four hospitality university students as the

population for this study. First, the purpose of

this study was to investigate what attributes of

the CLE influence the creativity of hospitality

students. As year four students have already

experienced the CLE for more than three

years, it was more suitable to collect data

from these students. Next, the creativity

assessment in this study diagnosed these hospi-

tality students’ creativity level, and this could

help students, educators, and industry prac-

titioners to better understand whether stu-

dents will be able to demonstrate creativity

in their work and to meet their future work

requirements. Third, since creative ability is

needed in the industry, this study can offer

information to students and educators about

how changes can be made to enhance students’

creativity before they graduate.

The convenience sampling method was used

to select the sample in this study. However, in

order to decrease the probable sampling error,

data were collected according to the distri-

bution of students in each university. As a

result, every academic university in the popu-

lation had a range of certain percentage of stu-

dents included in the sample to ensure the

sample’s level of representativeness and gener-

alizability. After the arrangements had been

made, the sets of final questionnaires and crea-

tivity tests were distributed by the researcher

and the research objectives were explained to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the students during class time. Eventually,

after housekeeping work and deletion of

invalid questionnaires, a total of 481 question-

naires were used to conduct the data analysis,

which represented 46.8% of the target

population.

The data analysis for this study was per-

formed using the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences Version 17.0 and AMOS

16.0. Descriptive analyses were conducted to

show the overall characteristics of the respon-

dents based on the demographic information.

The frequencies of the categorical data,

means, and standard deviations for the con-

tinuous variables were also presented using

descriptive statistics. Structural equation mod-

eling (SEM) was used to investigate the impact

of the CLE and motivation to learn on the

creativity of hospitality. First, confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to inves-

tigate whether the measured variables reliably

reflected the hypothesized latent variables and

whether the factor-loading pattern fitted a

sample from a new population. The construct

reliability and validity of the construct

measurements was tested as well as the

overall fit of the measurement model (Byrne,

2001). In the second part of SEM analysis,

the structural model was tested to investigate

the relationships among the constructs. The

overall fit of the model was expressed by

various goodness-of-fit indicators, including

x2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker

Lewis Index (TLI), root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA), Goodness-of-Fit

Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit

Index (AGFI).

The creativity tests (ATTA) were scored by

the authorized ATTA Company (Psychologi-

cal Publishing Co., Ltd) in Taiwan. Based on

the scoring instructions provided by the

ATTA Manual, two raters who are experts

in the area of creativity and experienced in

ATTA assessment scored the tests indepen-

dently. Then, two versions of results were

compared to detect any inconsistency, follow-

ing a third rater for the evaluation if discre-

pancy was found. Finally, the reliable ATTA

scores of respondents were provided by the

company for the data analysis.

Findings

Respondents Profile

Around 70% of the respondents were female

which was considered rationally by comparing

with the female ration of target population

(62.7%) (MOE, 2009). In terms of age, the

largest group was the 21 or under group

(53.4%) and 37.6% of the respondents were

22 years of age. The most common type of

high school that the students had graduated

from was senior high school (80.5%) followed

by senior vocational high school (5.8%).

Measurement Model Testing

An overall measurement model was examined

which allowed correlation between all of the

latent constructs before testing the structural

model. A single-indicator construct was used

to represent the respondents’ creativity level.

The initial results of the CFA for the overall

measurement model were as follows: x2 ¼

2804.847, df ¼ 1321, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼

0.920, TLI ¼ 0.914, RMSEA ¼ 0.048, GFI

¼ 0.821, and AGFI ¼ 0.799. Except for GFI

and AGFI, all of the other values of the

model fit indices showed a good fit. Given

this acceptable overall model fit, the factor

loadings were examined. Most of the factor

loadings were higher than 0.7, with only two

close to 0.6 but exceeding the minimum


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

requirement of 0.5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham,

& Black, 2010). In order to obtain a better

measurement model, attention was then paid

to the modification indices (MI). After the del-

etion of seven indicators with high MI, the

modified model showed a better model fit: x2

¼ 1831.332, df ¼ 978, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼

0.945, TLI ¼ 0.939, RMSEA ¼ 0.043, GFI

¼ 0.862, and AGFI ¼ 0.841.

Given this satisfactory overall model fit, all

of the constructs in the modified measurement

model were examined for construct validity

and reliability. All of the factor-loadings esti-

mates exceeded the requirement of 0.5 and

most were greater than 0.7 at significant level

of 0.000, thus providing initial evidence of

convergent validity. Additionally, Table 1

shows that for all constructs, reliability

exceeded the suggested threshold of 0.7 and

average variance extracted (AVE) surpassed

0.5 for all constructs, which indicated satisfac-

tory construct reliability and convergent val-

idity. In terms of discriminant validity, for

each construct, the AVE was higher than the

squared correlation coefficients for the corre-

sponding inter-constructs; this provided

strong evidence of discriminant validity

(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In conclusion, the

results of the CFA supported a satisfactory

model fit and gave the researcher confidence

that the questionnaire measured all of the

constructs well and could be used as a baseline

to test the theoretical relations among the

constructs.

Structural Model Testing

The SEM model fit was examined before

checking the structural relationships among

the constructs. According to the goodness-of-

fit indices (x2 ¼ 1796.043 with 976 df,

p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.947, RMSEA ¼ 0.042,

TLI ¼ 0.942, GFI ¼ 0.864, and AGFI ¼

0.843), the structural model was substantively

reasonable and no further amendment was

necessary. The path coefficients were sub-

sequently examined. The results showed that

two variables of CLE, Cooperation with

Classmates (PCreat,CC ¼ 0.159, p , 0.05) and

Equity (PCreat,Equ ¼ 0.144, p , 0.05), had sig-

nificant positive effects on students’ creativity.

Conversely, Investigation (PCreat,Inv ¼ 0.167,

p , 0.05) had a direct negative impact on

creativity. In addition, a statistically signifi-

cant and positive relationship was found

between IM and creativity (PCreat,IM ¼

0.276, p , 0.05).

Three significant path coefficients of CLE

were positively and significantly related to

IM, namely Task Orientation (PIM,TO ¼

0.345, p , 0.001), Involvement (PIM,Invo ¼

0.219, p , 0.05), and Investigation (PIM,Inv

¼ 0.386, p , 0.001); however, Teacher and

Teaching Approach (PIM,TTA ¼ 0.157, p ,

0.05) was found to have an impact on IM,

but this impact was negative. On the other

hand, both Investigation (PEM,Inv ¼ 0.118,

p , 0.05) and Task Orientation (PEM,TO ¼

0.544, p , 0.001) had a positive effect on

EM. The results of each individual path analy-

sis are presented in Table 2. Additionally,

Figure 1 shows the model with the standar-

dized path estimates that were statistically

significant.

Mediating Effects of IM and EM to Learnon Creativity

Since IM and EM were hypothesized to have a

mediation effect on CLE and creativity,

mediation analyses were conducted. The pre-

vious CFA and SEM results for model fit had

confirmed the overall set of relationships

which proved that IM could be influenced by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 1 Correlations (Squared Correlation), Reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Means for the ModifiedMeasurement Model

TTA TS CC Inv SC Equ TO Invo PC EI Grd Rec Creativity

TTA 1

TS 0.52

(0.27)

1

CC 0.24

(0.06)

0.27

(0.07)

1

Inv 0.34

(0.12)

0.39

(0.15)

0.37

(0.14)

1

SC 0.23

(0.05)

0.23

(0.05)

0.55

(0.30)

0.34

(0.12)

1

Equ 0.27

(0.07)

0.39

(0.15)

0.33

(0.11)

0.42

(0.18)

0.44

(0.19)

1

TO 0.33

(0.11)

0.37

(0.14)

0.42

(0.18)

0.47

(0.22)

0.46

(0.21)

0.51

(0.26)

1

Invo 0.32

(0.10)

0.50

(0.25)

0.28

(0.08)

0.51

(0.26)

0.37

(0.14)

0.61

(0.37)

0.49

(0.24)

1

PC 0.11

(0.01)

0.18

(0.03)

0.19

(0.04)

0.47

(0.22)

0.23

(0.05)

0.35

(0.12)

0.38

(0.14)

0.41

(0.17)

1

EI 0.11

(0.01)

0.17

(0.03)

0.24

(0.06)

0.33

(0.11)

0.31

(0.10)

0.25

(0.06)

0.41

(0.17)

0.29

(0.08)

0.42

(0.18)

1

Grd 0.26

(0.07)

0.32

(0.10)

0.33

(0.11)

0.40

(0.16)

0.31

(0.10)

0.35

(0.12)

0.55

(0.30)

0.38

(0.14)

0.26

(0.07)

0.32

(0.10)

1

Rec 0.20

(0.04)

0.17

(0.03)

0.14

(0.02)

0.11

(0.01)

0.15

(0.02)

0.14

(0.02)

0.13

(0.02)

0.19

(0.04)

0.04 (0) 0.18

(0.03)

0.25

(0.06)

1

Creativity 20.02 (0) 20.02 (0) 0.12

(0.01)

0.04 (0) 0.11

(0.01)

0.16

(0.03)

0.06 (0) 0.15

(0.02)

0.16

(0.03)

0.09

(0.01)

0.05 (0) 0.06

(0)

1

Reliability 0.87 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.80 0.90 0.73 –

AVE 0.58 0.69 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.59 0.65 0.82 0.58 0.76 0.51 –

Mean 3.93 4.04 5.41 4.46 5.37 4.53 4.75 4.09 4.61 5.42 4.52 4.48 5.30

S.D. 0.88 1.05 0.97 0.96 0.98 1.30 0.99 1.06 1.11 0.94 1.18 1.10 1.30

Note: TTA, Teacher and Teaching Approach; TS, Teacher Support; CC, Cooperation with Classmates; Inv, Investigation; SC, Student Cohesiveness; Equ, Equity;TO, Task Orientation; Invo, Involvement; PC, Preference for Challenge; EI, Enjoyment and Interest; Grd, Good Grades; Rec, Recognition; –, not applicable.

922

Shu-Y

ing

Lin

and

Chak

-Keu

ng

Simon

Wong

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 2 Structural Relationship Between the Endogenous and Exogenous Variables of the

Model

Structural relationship Standardized coefficient t-Value

CLE to creativity

H1.1: Teacher and Teaching Approach � Creativity 0.006 0.090

H1.2: Teacher Support � 20.124 21.786

H1.3: Cooperation with Classmates � 0.159 2.464∗

H1.4: Investigation � 20.167 22.043∗

H1.5: Student Cohesiveness � 20.030 20.470

H1.6: Equity � 0.144 1.997∗

H1.7: Task Orientation � 20.173 21.638

H1.8: Involvement � 0.130 1.472

CLE to IM

H2.1: Teacher and Teaching Approach � IM to learn 20.157 22.271∗


H2.3: Cooperation with Classmates � 20.055 20.797

H2.4: Investigation � 0.386 5.228∗∗


H2.6: Equity � 20.005 20.065

H2.7: Task Orientation � 0.345 3.293∗∗

H2.8: Involvement � 0.219 2.394∗

CLE to EM

H3.1: Teacher and Teaching Approach � EM to learn 20.026 20.449


H3.3: Cooperation with Classmates � 0.086 1.456

H3.4: Investigation � 0.118 2.003∗


H3.6: Equity � 20.010 20.153

H3.7: Task Orientation � 0.544 7.091∗∗

H3.8: Involvement 0.064 0.839

IM and EM to creativity

H4: IM to learn � Creativity 0.276 2.119∗

H5: EM to learn � 20.020 20.247

EM to IM

H6: EM to learn � IM to learn 0.093 1.003

∗Significant at p , 0.05.∗∗Significant at p , 0.01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Figure 1 The Model With Significant Standardized Path Estimates.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the CLE variables and a significant positive

relationship exists between IM and students’

creativity. However, it was recommended to

conduct a test for these two mediating con-

structs. Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986),

Hair et al.’s (2010), and Holmbeck’s (1997)

three-step process and criteria for testing med-

iating effects using SEM, a model should be

assessed in terms of direct effect and indirect

effect individually before examining both

effects together. The results of the mediation

tests are presented in Table 3. Model 2 (full

mediated effect) provided a good model fit

which would support a mediating role for

IM and EM. Yet, the final model (Model 3)

with direct and mediated effects only sup-

ported the finding that IM partially mediates

the relationship between CLE and creativity,

but it did not provide support for the mediat-

ing effect of EM between CLE and creativity.

Discussions and Conclusions

Consistent with previous studies, both

environmental factors and individual motiv-

ation have been found to play a significant

role in influencing individual creativity inde-

pendently as well as interactively. The findings

of this study illustrate that hospitality students

who cooperate more with other classmates in

class activities or in doing assignments tend

to be more creative. In addition, when students

have same opportunities to contribute in dis-

cussions, the same amount of say in classes,

or an equal chance to answer questions, they

may have the tendency to think insightfully

and creatively. Furthermore, the hypothesis

on the relationship between investigation and

creativity was proposed as a positive relation-

ship; however, the empirical results showed

that investigation had a direct negative influ-

ence on creativity, but an indirect positive

impact on creativity through the mediating

effect of IM. This finding indicates that, at

least in the Taiwan educational content, it is

possible that the creativity of hospitality stu-

dents can be diminished by a CLE that

encourages investigation, but that creativity

can be enhanced when investigation contain

elements of IM. In other words, it may not

be wise to count solely on investigation for

creative performance, but IM also needs to

be included. It may be due to Taiwan tra-

ditional learning environment where is more

passive that is teacher-orientated teaching

style. Students are “shaped” to respect tea-

chers and only do whatever teachers asked

without the “investigative” mood of thinking

in their learning. It is clear that if students do

not enjoy (without IM) the conditions of an

investigation, creativity cannot be enhanced.

Only investigation tasks combined with IM

may enhance students’ creativity. Therefore,

one important implication of this finding is

that simply providing a CLE with an investi-

gation element is not sufficient to increase hos-

pitality students’ creativity; instead, students

must also be provided with IM in order to gen-

erate sufficient enjoyment to enhance their

creativity.

With regard to the influence of IM and EM

on creativity, the results of this study showed

that IM did enhance creativity, but EM did

not influence creativity. The result of the posi-

tive impact of IM on creativity confirms the

finding of previous research that creativity

can be increased when an individual is intrinsi-

cally motivated. In other words, when hospi-

tality students are more intrinsically

motivated, their creative performance tends

to be higher. This finding concurs with Ama-

bile’s (1983) point that IM is essential for indi-

vidual creativity. In addition, considerable

research has evidenced this point that IM is

conducive to creativity over the past years


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 3 Results of the Mediation Effects of IM and EM

Model element Model 1: model with

direct effect

Model 2: model with

only mediated effect

Model 3: model with

direct and mediated

effect

Model fit

x2 ¼ 1129.674, df ¼

525, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼

0.950, TLI ¼ 0.944,

RMSEA ¼ 0.049, GFI

¼ 0.884, AGFI ¼ 0.861

x2 ¼ 1818.296, df ¼

984, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼

0.946, TLI ¼ 0.941,

RMSEA ¼ 0.042, GFI

¼ 0.863, AGFI ¼ 0.843

x2 ¼ 1796.043, df ¼

976, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼

0.947, TLI ¼ 0.942,

RMSEA ¼ 0.042, GFI

¼ 0.864, AGFI ¼ 0.843

Standardized coefficient estimates

TTA � IM – 20.157∗ 20.157∗

TS � IM – 20.100 20.079

CC � IM – 20.030 20.055

Inv � IM – 0.360∗∗∗ 0.386∗∗∗

SC � IM – 0.059 0.063

Equ � IM – 0.019 20.005

TO � IM – 0.315∗∗ 0.345∗∗∗

Invo � IM – 0.242∗∗ 0.219∗

TTA � EM – 20.025 20.026

TS � EM – 0.075 0.072

CC � EM – 0.083 0.086

Inv � EM – 0.122∗ 0.118∗

SC � EM – 20.041 20.042

Equ � EM – 20.013 20.010

TO � EM – 0.551∗∗∗ 0.544∗∗∗

Invo � EM – 0.063 0.064

IM � Creativity – 0.231∗∗ 0.276∗

EM � Creativity – 20.070 20.020

TTA � Creativity 20.038 – 0.006

TS � Creativity 20.145∗ – 20.124

CC � Creativity 0.144∗ – 0.159∗

Inv � Creativity 20.061 – 20.167∗

SC � Creativity 20.013 – 20.030

Equ � Creativity 0.142∗ – 0.144∗

TO � Creativity 20.073 – 20.173

Invo � Creativity 0.191∗ – 0.130

–, Not estimated.∗Significant at p , 0.05.∗∗Significant at p , 0.01.∗∗∗Significant at p , 0.001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Amabile, 1979, 1985; Dewett, 2007;

Kaufman, 2002; Moneta & Siu, 2002;

Prabhu, Sutton, & Sauser, 2008). With

regard to the finding of no relationship

between EM and creativity, one possible

explanation for this is that, generally, extrinsic

motivators such as competition, reward,

evaluation, and grades have been existed in

Taiwan’s education system for a long time.

In this highly competitive and examination-

oriented learning environment, the influence

of extrinsic motivators on students may less

salient since they are used to these extrinsic

motivators. In addition, this study is not the

only one to have found no relationship

between EM and creativity in an Asian

country. Moneta and Siu (2002) examined

the effects of IM and EM on academic per-

formance and creativity among Hong Kong

college students; their results also showed no

relationship between EM and students’ crea-

tivity. Although many studies (Amabile,

1979, 1983, 1985; Butler & Nisan, 1986;

Tighe et al., 2003) have indicated that extrin-

sic motivators can decrease the creative per-

formance, these studies were mainly carried

out in Western countries. Essentially, creativ-

ity has been recognized as culture-specific by

a number of researchers (Csikszentmihalyi,

1999; Niu & Sternberg, 2001, 2002). In

other words, the factors that influence creativ-

ity may be different for people with different

values and beliefs. Therefore, based on this

finding, it could be argued that in the case of

Taiwan hospitality students, EM may not

have a negative influence on creativity.

Moreover, the results of this study provide

substantial support for the predicted mediat-

ing effect of IM on environment and creativity,

which has also been discussed in previous

studies (Hill & Amabile, 1993; Shalley et al.,

2004; Tighe et al., 2003). In this study, the

environment did contribute indirectly to crea-

tivity by affecting individual IM to learn (e.g.

enjoyment, interest, curiosity, and challenge).

This finding suggested that both CLE and IM

should be equally emphasized in the pro-

motion of creativity. In particular, the positive

impacts of the CLE factors of Investigation,

Task orientation, and Involvement on creativ-

ity must pass through mediating role of IM; in

other words, when creating a CLE that con-

tains these three attributes, it must be done

in conjunction with the development of hospi-

tality students’ IM in order to enhance creativ-

ity. As a result, hospitality educators in

Taiwan should not only provide an appropri-

ate CLE, but also, at same time, develop stu-

dents’ IM to learn, as this is essential for

creativity. In particular, the results enhance

educators’ understanding of the influence of

investigation on creativity, because its positive

impact on creativity must pass through the

mediating effect of IM. Therefore, it is impor-

tant to focus attention on ways to develop a

CLE that can increase students’ IM and

which will then enhance creativity.

Because the participants of this study were

fourth year university hospitality students,

the hospitality industry leaders may possibly

want to know what the level of creativity of

these future employees is and to consider

what more can be done to increase their crea-

tive skills. In particular, creativity has been

increasingly emphasized by top managers in

the Taiwanese hotel industry (Horng, Hsu,

Liu, Lin, & Tsai, 2011). On the other hand,

senior hospitality students in Taiwan per-

ceived themselves as not having met the

requirement of creativity in the hospitality

workplace and, at the same time, they have a

strong desire to enhance their creative ability

(Horng & Lu, 2006). Therefore, based on

the results of this study, hospitality prac-

titioners could consider utilizing strategies

for enhancing creativity, such as building a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

supportive working environment where

employees can have an opportunity to

cooperate with others, involving them in dis-

cussions, encouraging them to take risks, and

treating them equally. Additionally, industry

practitioners should put more focus on facili-

tating employees’ IM. When employees

engage in tasks because they find them intrin-

sically interesting, their creative potential can

be promoted at the same time (Amabile,

1996).

In conclusion, the findings of this study

revealed two critical insights: (1) the impor-

tant direct and indirect effects of CLE on crea-

tivity and (2) the mediating effect of IM on

creativity. In particular, this research demon-

strated that both CLE and IM are important

in predicting creativity. In line with these find-

ings, five CLE factors (Cooperation with

Classmates, Equity, Investigation, Task Orien-

tation, and Involvement) can be used by hospi-

tality educators and applied in classrooms or

course curriculum design to improve hospital-

ity students’ creativity in Taiwan. It is rec-

ommended that when teachers plan

assignments, they should place more emphasis

on the processes of inquiry and investigation;

at the same time, directions and clear guide-

lines should be made available to the students

in order to facilitate completion of their

assigned coursework.

Limitations and Future Research

Even with its careful research design and

assessment, this study still contains limitations

which must be noted in any interpretation of

its findings. First, the selection of the method

for assessing creativity was measured in

terms of the individual’s divergent thinking

ability to develop new ideas using ATTA

which could still have some biases and be

unable to measure creativity comprehensively

due to the utilization of a specific measure-

ment. Another limitation can also be found

in terms of sample selection by using a conven-

ience source. The results of this study may not

be generalizable to other populations or across

cultures. Further to the present study, several

future research directions can be rec-

ommended. First, it would be meaningful to

conduct comparative studies of various types

of groups such as cross-cultural comparison

or sample from different years of study.

Future research could also examine the

impact of CLE on creativity by the experimen-

tal approach study which allows for direct

comparison. In addition, from the long-term

perspective, conducting a longitudinal study

to compare hospitality students’ creativity

upon entering and graduating from the

program and to identify changes in the edu-

cational institution over time would be worth-

while. Last but not the least, future research

could also investigate other environmental

variables, for example, family characteristics,

to identify potential impact on hospitality stu-

dents’ creativity so that more implications can

be drawn.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on

artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 37, 221–223.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativ-

ity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects

of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393–399.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and inno-

vation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum-

mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior

(Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to

“The social psychology of creativity”. Boulder, CO:

Westview.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe,

E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Asses-

sing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5),

950–967.

Ashley, R. A., Bach, S. A., Chesser, J. W., Ellis, E. T., Ford,

R. C., LeBruto, S. M., . . . Quain, W. J. (1995). A custo-

mer-based approach to hospitality education. Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,

36(4), 74–79.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–

mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-

ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 1173–1182.

Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student crea-

tivity? The Educational Forum, 69(2), 254–263.

Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Throndike, R. M. (1973).

Cross-culture research methods. New York: John Wiley

& Sons.

Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback,

task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motiv-

ation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy, 78(3), 210–216.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with

Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chambers, J. A. (1973). College teachers: Their effect on

creativity of students. Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy, 65(3), 326–334.

Chen, Y. S., Lin, M. J. J., Chang, C. H., & Liu, F. M.

(2009). Technological innovations and industry cluster-

ing in the bicycle industry in Taiwan. Technology in

Society, 31, 207–217.

Cole, D. G., Sugioka, H. L., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C.

(1999). Supportive classroom environments for creativ-

ity in higher education. The Journal of Creative Behav-

ior, 33(4), 277–293.

Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. N. (1999). Motivation and

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativ-

ity (pp. 297–312). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Craft, A. (2006). Creativity in schools. In N. Jackson, M.

Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing crea-

tivity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum

(pp. 19–28). New York: Routledge.

Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learn-

ing: A guide for teachers and educators. London:

Logan Page.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems

perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Foreword: Developing crea-

tivity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom

(Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An

imaginative curriculum (pp. xviii–xx). New York: Rou-

tledge.

Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk

taking and employee creativity in an R&D environ-

ment. R&D Management, 37(3), 197–208.

Dineen, R. (2006). Views from the chalk face: Lecturers’

and students’ perspectives on the development of crea-

tivity in art and design. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M.

Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in

higher education: An imaginative curriculum

(pp. 109–117). New York: Routledge.

Dineen, R., & Niu, W. (2008). The effectiveness of

western creative teaching methods in China: An action

research project. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,

and the Arts, 2(1), 42–52.

Dorman, J. P. (2008). Use of multitrait-multimethod mod-

eling to validate actual and preferred forms of the What

is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire.

Learning Environment Research, 11, 179–193.

Dudek, S. Z., Strobel, M. G., & Runco, M. A. (1993).

Cumulative and proximal influences on the social

environment and children’s creative potential. The

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(4), 487–499.

Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster crea-

tivity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 185–202.

Fasko, D. (2000–2001). Education and creativity. Crea-

tivity Research Journal, 13(3&4), 317–327.

Ferguson, D. H., & Berger, F. (1985). Encouraging crea-

tivity in hospitality education. Cornell Hotel and Res-

taurant Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 74–76.

Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of

creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper

Review, 22(3), 148–153.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981, February). Evaluating

structural equations models with unobservable vari-

ables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing

Research, 18, 39–50.

Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April).

Development, validation and use of personal and class


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-

cational Research Association, New York.

Fryer, M. (2006). Facilitating creativity in higher

education: A brief account of national fellows’ views.

In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom

(Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education:

An imaginative curriculum (pp. 74–88). New York:

Routledge.

Gilbert, F. W., Prenshaw, R. J., & Ivy, T. T. (2006). Facil-

itating creativity in higher education: A brief account of

national teaching fellows’ views. In N. Jackson, M.

Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing

creativity in higher education: An imaginative curricu-

lum (pp. 74–88). New York: Routledge.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of

grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.

New York: Aldine.

Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). The abbreviated Tor-

rance test for adults (ATTA). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic

Testing Service.

Greer, M., & Levine, E. (1991). Enhancing creative per-

formance in college students. The Journal of Creative

Behavior, 25(3), 250–255.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist,

5, 444–454.

Hair, J. F., Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black,

W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hanson, B. (1993). Executive creativity. Lodging Hospi-

tality, 49(9), 28.

Hasirci, D., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Creativity in learning

environments: The case of two sixth-grade art-rooms.

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 17–41.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education

settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reward, intrin-

sic motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist,

53(6), 674–675.

Hill, G. K., & Amabile, T. M. (1993). A social psychological

perspective oncreativity: Intrinsic motivation and creativ-

ity in the classroom and workplace. In G. I. Scott (Ed.),

The emergence of a discipline: The emergence of a disci-

pline (pp. 400–432). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub.

Holjevac, I. V. (2003). A vision of tourism and the hotel

industry in the 21st century. Hospitality Management,

22, 129–134.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, concep-

tual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and

moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and

pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

Hon, A. H. Y. (2012). Shaping environments conductive

to creativity: The role of intrinsic motivation. Cornell

Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 53–64.

Horng, J. S., Hsu, H., Liu, C. H., Lin, L., & Tsai, C. Y.

(2011). Competency analysis of top managers in the

Taiwanese hotel industry. International Journal of Hos-

pitality Management, 30, 1044–1054.

Horng, J. S., & Hu, M. L. (2008). The mystery in the

kitchen: Culinary creativity. Creativity Research

Journal, 20(2), 221–230.

Horng, J. S., & Lee, Y. C. (2006). What does it take to be a

creative culinary artist? Journal of Culinary Science &

Technology, 5(2/3), 5–22.

Horng, J. S., & Lee, Y. C. (2009). What environmental

factors influence creative culinary studies? International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,

21(1), 100–117.

Horng, J. S., & Lu, H. Y. (2006). Needs assessment of pro-

fessional competencies of F&B/hospitality management

students at college and university level. Journal of

Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(3), 1–26.

Hu, M. L., & Liu, C. Y. (2012). Gap analysis of hospital-

ity students’ culinary innovation competence perform-

ance. Journal of Tourism and Travel Research, 7(1),

47–59.

Jackson, N., & Sinclair, C. (2006). Developing students’

creativity: Searching for an appropriate pedagogy. In

N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.),

Developing creativity in higher education: An imagina-

tive curriculum (pp. 118–141). New York: Routledge.

Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Tea-

chers’ College Press.

Kaufman, J. C. (2002). Dissecting the golden goose: Com-

ponents of studying creativity writers. Creativity

Research Journal, 14(10), 27–40.

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005).

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in

the classroom: Age differences and academic corre-

lates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2),

184–196.

Locke, K. D. (2001). Grounded theory in management

research. London: Sage.

Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339–350).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Makens, J. C. (1991). Hotel salespersons: Enhancing their

creativity and efficiency. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 32, 52–57.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument

translation process: A methods review. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–186.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In

R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

(pp. 449–460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Education. (2007). White paper on creative

education. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://

www01.creativity.edu.tw/ebook/e_book_english/

Ministry of Education. (2009). Number of students in

higher educational institutions. Retrieved November,

17, 2009, from http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/

b0013/97_student.xls

Moneta, G. B., & Siu, C. M. Y. (2002). Trait intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, academic performance, and

creativity in Hong Kong college students. Journal of

College Student Development, 43(5), 664–683.

Niu, W. (2003). Individual and environmental influences

on Chinese student creativity (Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation). Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Niu, W. (2006). Development of creativity research in

Chinese societies: A comparison of Mainland China,

Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. In J. C. Kaufman

& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook

of creativity (pp. 374–394). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on

artistic creativity and its evaluation. International

Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225–241.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Contemporary studies

on the concept of creativity: The East and the West.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 269–288.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school

influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psy-

chology in the Schools, 40(1), 103–114.

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric

approach to the study of human creativity. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity

and certain personality traits: Understanding the med-

iating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research

Journal, 20(1), 53–66.

Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching

the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review,

26(4), 216–222.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The

effects of personal and contextual characteristic on crea-

tivity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Man-

agement, 30(6), 933–958.

Simons, T., & Namasivayam, K. (1999). The eye of the

beholder: Hotel company CEO perceptions of threats

and opportunities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Research, 23, 354–370.

Spector, A. (2003). Creativity, knowledge are key ingredi-

ents to creating menus. Nation’s Restaurant News,

37(23), 96 and 105.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative

minds. Phi Delta Kapppan, 27(8), 608–614.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis. New York: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative

research: Techniques and procedures for developing

grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tas, R. F., LaBrecque, S. V., & Clayton, H. R. (1996).

Property-management competencies for management

trainees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly, 37, 90–96.

Tighe, E., Picariello, M., & Amabile, T. M. (2003).

Environmental influences on motivation and creativity

in the classroom. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational

psychology of creativity (pp. 199–222). Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton 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.

Wong, C. K. S., & Pang, L. (2003a). Barriers to creativity

in the hotel industry – Perspectives from supervisor and

managerial employees. International Journal of Con-

temporary Hospitality Management, 15(1), 29–37.

Wong, C. K. S., & Pang, L. (2003b). Motivators to crea-

tivity in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Tourism Man-

agement, 24(5), 551–559.

Yang, C. H. (2006). Is innovation the story of Taiwan’s

economic growth? Journal of Asian Economics, 17,

867–878.

Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Linking crea-

tivity with entrepreneurial intention: A structural

approach. International Entrepreneurship and Manage-

ment Journal, 2(3), 413–428.

Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee

creativity: A critical review and directions for future

research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personal

and human resource management (pp. 165–217).

Oxford: Elsevier.

Zhu, B. Y., Wang, H. X., Jiang, Y. Z., Huang, R. Q., Song,

J. S., & Huang, J. K. (2006). Blue ocean strategy in

Taiwan. Taipei: Commonwealth Publishing.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www01.creativity.edu.tw/ebook/e_book_english/

http://www01.creativity.edu.tw/ebook/e_book_english/

the mediating roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation between classroom learning environment and...

Documents