1 Contexts of Creative Thinking: A Comparison on Creative ...

Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
ISSN 1948-5786
<strong>Contexts</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: A <strong>Comparison</strong> on <strong>Creative</strong> Performance <strong>of</strong> Student Teachers in
Taiwan and the United States
Amber Yayin Wang, Assistant Pr<strong>of</strong>essor, National Taichung University <strong>of</strong> Education, amberyy@ntcu.edu.tw
Abstract
This article compares the differences in creative thinking between student teachers in Taiwan and the United
States, and attempts to understand the factors that may cause the difference. The results show that the most
distinctive difference between the two groups is the ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration. The findings suggest that creative
thinking has more to do with beliefs than practices. The strong belief in a particular teaching perspective, whether
product- or process-oriented, may have a negative impact on creative thinking, and that developing reading,
writing, and self-expression abilities is likely to help develop the ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration.
Introduction
<strong>Creative</strong> abilities have been recognized as essential in solving complex individual, social, and global problems
through a significant amount <strong>of</strong> research (Amabile, 1983, 1985, 1989; Brown, 1989; Guilford, 1981; Plucker,
Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). With this recognition, promoting creativity has emerged as a major educational issue in
several countries, including Taiwan (Pan, Yang, Chou, & Hong, 2003), the United States (Starko, 1994), and Japan
(Cave, 2001; Ogawa, Kuehn-Ebert, & DeVito, 1991). In order to promote creativity, researchers have attempted to
understand the factors that affect creative performance, such as gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and
academic achievement (Amabile, 1996; Baer, 1999; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006; Cropley, 1997; Dudek, Strobel, &
Runco, 1993; Ogawa et al., 1991; Runco, 2004).
In addition, many studies have reported relevant differences between cultures (Jaquish & Ripple, 1985; Niu &
Sternberg, 2003; Ogawa et al., 1991; Rudowicz, Lok & Kitto, 1995; Saeki, Fan, & Van Dusen, 2001; Straus &
Straus, 1968; Torrance, 1969; Torrance & Sato, 1979). However, many <strong>of</strong> these reports have not provided an
explanation for the differences, and only a few (Niu & Sternberg, 2003; Saeki, Fan, & Van Dusen, 2001) suggest
different cultural emphases (collectivism and individualism) as possible factors. The conclusion was based on the
assumption that major cultural differences may be the cause, however, no documented empirical evidence has
been provided.
Cross-cultural comparisons help achieve awareness <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the cultures that are compared (Hall,
1981), and the awareness makes it possible for the cultures to improve their respective educational processes.
Most <strong>of</strong> the above cross-cultural comparative studies on creativity compare the United States and Asian countries.
Among the few cross-cultural comparative studies on creativity, very few indicate the relationship <strong>of</strong> the results
with any environmental factors, such as diverse teaching perspectives or learning experiences in different
cultures.
In an attempt to provide empirical evidence to the difference in creative performances <strong>of</strong> different cultures, this
article describes the differences in creative thinking between student teachers in Taiwan and the United States,
and explores the relationship <strong>of</strong> creative thinking with teaching beliefs, learning experiences, and academic
achievement. It attempts to understand, among these environmental factors, which factor may cause the
difference.
Defining Creativity
Before discussing creativity research it is necessary to define creativity. <strong>Creative</strong> performance in this paper refers
to the test results <strong>of</strong> the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA). This study, using the ATTA as the
measurement tool for creativity, adopts the Torrance research definition. Torrance (1965; 1966; 1988) defines
creative thinking as the ability to sense problems, make guesses, generate new ideas, and communicate results.
According to Torrance (1988, 2000), and also Tayor and Sackes (1981), creative potential exists among all people,
and can be improved through learning.
A Quick Overview <strong>of</strong> Creativity Research
Research <strong>of</strong> Cross-cultural <strong>Comparison</strong>s
Cross-cultural comparisons help recognize characteristics within one culture, and help develop ways to improve
education or to find a cultural-responsive way to teach and learn. However, creativity research devoted to
1

cross-cultural exploration is sparse (Niu & Sternberg, 2002; Raina, 1999; Raina & Raina, 1974). Some
researchers explore the concept <strong>of</strong> creativity in different countries (e.g., Niu & Sternberg, 2002), others compare
creative performance between cultures (e.g., Torrance, 1967). For the concept <strong>of</strong> creativity, according to Niu and
Sternberg (2002, 2003), Eastern and Western cultures share some universal core characteristics <strong>of</strong> creativity,
such as originality, imagination, intelligence, and independence.
Most cross-cultural studies <strong>of</strong> creative performance compare creativity test scores (e.g., Torrance, 1967), and a
few compare art production (e.g., Niu & Sternberg, 2003). According to Niu and Sternberg (2002), most studies
use divergent thinking tests, such as the TTCT (Torrance, 1966), to measure creative performance. Groups
compared with American culture have mainly been with Asian cultures, such as Chinese (Jaquish & Ripple, 1985;
Rudowicz, Lok & Kitto, 1995; Torrance, 1969), Japanese (Ogawa et al., 1991; Saeki, Fan, & Van Dusen, 2001;
Torrance & Sato, 1979), and Indian (Straus & Straus, 1968; Torrance, 1969).
Most research has found that Americans excelled above Asians on creative performance. When comparing real
creative production, Niu and Sternberg (2003) indicated that both American and Chinese observers evaluated the
artwork <strong>of</strong> American students to be more creative than their Chinese peers. Torrance (1967) revealed that a group
from Minnesota in the United States performed much better than a group from India. Torrance (1969) also showed
that American children scored much higher than Singapore Chinese children or Indian children. Also, Ogawa et al
(1991) reported that no differences were found with fluency, while American children scored higher on flexibility
than Japanese children. The empirical evidence <strong>of</strong> Straus and Straus (1968), Jaquish and Ripple (1985), and
Saeki et al (2001) demonstrated similar findings that American <strong>of</strong> different ages obviously outperformed Indian,
Japanese, and Cantonese Chinese students <strong>of</strong> the same ages.
However, some researchers have provided different findings. Torrance and Sato (1979) discovered that American
education majors scored higher only on fluency, whereas Japanese education students excelled their American
counterparts on all other aspects. Jellen and Klaus (1989), employing a different creativity assessment (TCT-DP),
showed that students in the Philippines performed better than students in England, Germany, and the United
States. Still, students in the United States scored higher than those in China and India in their study. In addition,
Rudowicz et al (1995) used secondary data collected in 1970, 1975, 1981, and 1984 to compare with their primary
data that was collected in 1995, and showed that Hong Kong children excelled beyond children <strong>of</strong> four other
countries (Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United States) on all scales <strong>of</strong> the TTCT figural form. Again, in
their study, Hong Kong children scored lower than American and Germany children on fluency, flexibility, and
originality on the TTCT verbal form. On the other hand, in a series <strong>of</strong> studies initiated through Zha’s (1986)
comparison <strong>of</strong> children in China and Germany, Zhou, Zha, and Shi (1995, 1998) reported that Chinese children
performed better than their German peers on divergent thinking tests by using a different measuring assessment,
the Finding Geometric Analogies (FGA).
Based on the above diverse findings, it has been shown that one ethnic group does not always perform better than
another. Explanations for possible cross-cultural differences in creative performance have been explored by
different researchers (e.g., Straus & Straus, 1968; Carroll & Howieson, 1990). The factors that influence variant
creative performances, though without empirical evidence, are believed to be either cultural or educational (Niu &
Sternberg, 2003; Rudowicz et al., 1995; Straus & Straus, 1968). For example, Niu and Sternberg (2003) attribute
the low creativity <strong>of</strong> Chinese students to the cultural value on conformity rather than individuality, the educational
preference for analytical abilities rather than self-exploration, and a national emphasis on standardized analytical
assessments.
Research in Social Settings
It has long been assumed that creative performance is influenced by social or cultural factors (e.g., Simonton,
1975). Early in the 1970s, Simonton (1975) affirmed that social, cultural, and political factors affect creative
development. In the literature in this field, factors being investigated include gender (Amabile, 1996; Baer, 1999;
Cropley, 1997; Jellen & Klaus, 1989; McElvain, Fretwell, & Lewis, 1967), culture or ethnicity (Niu & Sternberg,
2003; Rudowicz et al, 1995; Saeki et al, 2001; Torrance, 1967, 1969, Torrance & Sato, 1979; Zhou, Zha, & Shi,
1995, 1998), birth order (Helson, 1968; Joesting, 1975; Roe, 1952; Staffieri, 1970), and religion (Frederick & Price,
2001; Moses, 1985; Zuckerman, 1977). However, the research findings are not consistent and are even
contradictory. Therefore, by observing contradictory findings regarding the relationship between birth order and
creative performance, Albert (1980) and Harrington, Block, and Block, (1987) proposed a different idea: <strong>Creative</strong>
achievement is influenced not by birth order per se, but a family’s special attention and emphasis on a child.
Albert’s (1980) conclusion can be applied to any creativity study. Requiring further understanding may not be
which ethnicity, religion, or culture demonstrates high creativity, but which factors are truly encouraged in a
particular environment.
In addition, regarding social or cultural factors that influence creativity, a factor that shows relatively consistent
results is socioeconomic status (SES), i.e., differences in creative thinking are related to differences in SES.
Obviously, creativity test scores increase with the SES (Dhillon & Mehra, 1987; Dudek, Strobel, & Runco, 1993;
Lichtenwalner & Maxwell, 1969; Runco, 2004; Srivastava, 1982). Therefore, in addition to special attention and
emphasis on the individual, economic resources may also be an important factor that influences creative
2

performance.
Other social and cultural creativity studies propose a similar viewpoint. To generalize the conclusions <strong>of</strong> these
studies, the environmental factors that facilitate creativity are freedom, autonomy, resources, encouragement <strong>of</strong>
originality, freedom from criticism (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Witt & Beorkrem, 1989), low
anxiety (Klein, 1975), an emphasis on self-discovery (Amabile, 1996), and attention to the individual (Albert, 1980;
Harrington et al, 1987). The important characteristics <strong>of</strong> creativity that should be encouraged include
independence, self-confidence, self-esteem (Amabile, 1996; Bean, 1992; Beghetto, 2005; Cannatella, 2004;
Cropley, 1992, 1997; Diakidoy & Kanari, 1999; Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1975, 1992; Von Eschenbach & Noland,
1981), the ability to communicate ideas, and nonconformity (Amabile, 1996; Beghetto, 2005; Cropley, 1992, 1997;
Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1992).
Research in Educational Settings
The factors above appear to be repeated in selected creativity studies on educational settings. In these studies,
traits are suggested for teachers to value and promote in their students. The following summarizes them in four
aspects: cognitive factors, motivation, personality, and social factors. Cognitive factors refer to thinking,
remembering, and reasoning (Campbell, 1960; Cropley, 1992; Pollert et al, 1969). Motivation includes courage,
curiosity, willingness, and task commitment (Beghetto, 2005; Cannatella, 2004; Cropley, 1992, 1997; Gardner,
1988; Torrance, 1992). Personality factors include self-confidence, determination, persistence, tolerance for
ambiguity, and the openness to new experiences (Beghetto, 2005; Cannatella, 2004; Cropley, 1992, 1997;
Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1992). Social factors involve independence, nonconformity, and the ability to
communicate ideas (Amabile, 1996; Beghetto, 2005; Cropley, 1992, 1997; Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1992).
In accordance with these suggested traits, the characteristics repeatedly rated as the most important for the
creative person criteria are determination, curiosity, independence (in judgement and thinking), persistence,
self-confidence, a willingness to take risks (Diakidoy & Kanari, 1999; Torrance, 1975; Von Eschenbach & Noland,
1981). In contrast, an environment that inhibits creativity is one that utilizes test-like activities (Kogan, 1965),
salient rewards, external evaluation, pressure (Amabile, 1983, 1996), order and discipline, less self-control over
individual work, and less attention to personal ideas (Amabile, 1996).
Academic Achievement and <strong>Creative</strong> Performance
Although not directly relevant to developing creativity, educators have been constantly concerned about the
relationships between academic achievement and creative performance (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006; Edwards &
Tyler, 1965; Getzel & Jackson, 1958; Powers & Kaufman, .2004; Torrance, 1964; Toth & Baker, 1990; Wallach &
Kogan, 1965; Yamamoto & Chimbidis, 1966). Many studies (Getzel & Jackson, 1958; Renzulli, Reis, & Smith,
1981; Torrance, 1964) support the concept <strong>of</strong> creativity as a facilitator <strong>of</strong> achievement. In these studies, students
with a low IQ but high creativity performed as well on achievement tests as those with a high IQ but low creativity.
The researchers conclude that creativity is positively correlated with academic achievement. However, an equal
number <strong>of</strong> studies prove the opposite, showing either no positive correlation between creativity and academic
achievement, or a negative relationship between the two (Edwards & Tyler, 1965; Wallach & Kogan, 1965;
Yamamoto & Chimbidis, 1966).
Attempting to explain the contradictory results, Torrance (1962) indicated that positive correlations between
creativity and academic performance are usually found in subject matters that involve creative thinking. Toth and
Baker (1990) provided another argument that high creative ability may interfere with convergent thinking skills and
thus prevent students from achieving academic success within the time constraints <strong>of</strong> a traditional classroom.
Also, Powers and Kaufman (2004) reported significant correlations between creativity and the Graduate Record
Exam (GRE) test scores, a commonly recognized indicator <strong>of</strong> future academic performance. Based on the theory
and a review <strong>of</strong> the literature, Beghetto (2005) suggested that different assessments can be either conducive or
detrimental to creativity. Therefore, Chamorro-Premuzic (2006) analyzed the relationships between creativity and
different types <strong>of</strong> achievement tests by observing 307 university students for 4 years. This most recent longitudinal
study concluded that creativity is positively related to the performance <strong>of</strong> oral exams, group projects, and final
dissertations, but negatively related to test scores <strong>of</strong> multiple-choice and essay-type exams. Apparently, the nature
<strong>of</strong> an achievement test plays a role in deciding if the relationship between creativity and the test is positively or
negatively correlated.
From the above research, scholars familiar with the cultures <strong>of</strong> the United States and China can make certain
conclusion. Niu and Sternberg (2003) found that the environmental factors which are conducive to creativity are
more easily found in American culture than in Chinese culture, and the characteristics <strong>of</strong> creativity are more readily
encouraged in American culture than in Chinese culture. Nevertheless, it is still a speculation, rather than a
conclusion supported by empirical evidence.
Purpose <strong>of</strong> the Study
Therefore, the primary objectives <strong>of</strong> this paper are to understand how creative performances are different with
3

student teachers in Taiwan and the United States, and the educational factors that may cause the differences.
Related questions to be answered are:
(1) What are the differences in creative performance between the two nation groups?
(2) Which factors, such as teaching beliefs, learning experience, and academic achievement, are related to
creative thinking?
Therefore, this paper (1) describes the creative performance <strong>of</strong> future K-12 teachers in Taiwan and the United
States; (2) identifies which educational factors are related to high creativity; and (3) provides recommendations for
policymakers and classroom teachers who are concerned with developing student creativity through education.
Method
Measurement Tools
In order to understand teaching beliefs, learning experiences, academic achievement, and creative performance,
two measurement tools have been employed: a questionnaire and a creativity test. First, the questionnaire, based
on the Teaching Perspective Inventory (TPI) (Pratt & Collins, 2000), investigates teaching perspectives (including
teaching beliefs and K-12 learning experiences), and requires participants to self-report their achievement test
scores. According to the research and report <strong>of</strong> Pratt and Collins (2000), the TPI is a reliable and valid
measurement tool. The result <strong>of</strong> the TPI indicates five scores <strong>of</strong> five perspectives: Transmission, Apprenticeship,
Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform. The definitions <strong>of</strong> the five perspectives are as follows: (1)
Transmission focuses on the effect delivery <strong>of</strong> content knowledge; (2) Apprenticeship on acquiring skills through
modeling practices; (3) Developmental emphasizes cultivating ways <strong>of</strong> thinking; (4) Nurturing facilitates
self-efficacy; and (5) Social Reform which aims at seeking a better society through teaching or challenging values
(Pratt, 1998; Pratt & Collins, 2000). Also, educators may employ one or two <strong>of</strong> the dominant perspectives <strong>of</strong>
teaching, and some may not use any at all.
The test scores requested from the U.S. group <strong>of</strong> participants are the California Basic Educational Skills Test
(CBEST) scores, and those from the Taiwan group are the College Entrance Academic Ability Test (CEAAT)
scores. The CBEST scores include the total result <strong>of</strong> three subjects: mathematics, reading, and writing. The
CEAAT scores include the total result <strong>of</strong> six subjects: Chinese, English, Mathematics, Science, and History.
The measurement tool used to measure creative thinking ability is the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA).
Based on the most widely used and most researched creativity test, the Torrance Test <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> (TTCT)
(Cramond, 1998; Rosenthal, DeMers, Stilwell, Graybeal, & Zins, 1983; Runco & Albert, 1985; Torrance, 1972,
1999), the ATTA is an abbreviated version <strong>of</strong> the TTCT, and has proved to be reliable and valid (Chen, 2006; G<strong>of</strong>f
& Torrance, 2000; Torrance, 1981, 1988, 2000; Torrance & Safter, 1999). The test contains three activities: one
verbal assessment and two figural tests. The result <strong>of</strong> the test provides a sum score for overall creative
performance (i.e., a Creativity Index). It is a composite <strong>of</strong> four sub-scores <strong>of</strong> different creative abilities, Fluency,
Originality, Elaboration, and Flexibility, plus any additional creative indicators.
Population and Sampling
Table 1. Summary <strong>of</strong> Sample Demographics
Taiwan
The United States
No. % No. %
Total No. = 258 125 133
Gender
Male 73 58.4 23 17.4
Female 52 41.6 109 82.6
Missing 1
Age
20 or less than 20 57 45.6 2 1.5
21-25 64 51.2 66 49.6
26-30 4 3.2 32 24.1
31-35 14 10.5
36-40 5 3.8
More than 40 14 10.5
Ethnicity
African American/Black 5 3.8
American Indian/Native
American/Pacific
1 0.8
Islander
Anglo/Caucasian/White 36 27.5
Asian American/Asian 125 100 24 18.3
Hispanic/Latino/Chicano 53 40.5
Other 12 9.2
Missing 2
The participants in this study were student teachers in teacher education programs in the United States and
4

Taiwan. The U.S cities included in the study were Azusa, Claremont, Los Angeles, and Ventura, and the Taiwan
cities included Taipei, Taichung, and Changhwa. In total, 258 valid tests and surveys were collected for analysis.
As indicated in Table 1, the 133 American student teachers included 109 females and 23 males, while the 125
Taiwanese participants consisted <strong>of</strong> 52 females and 73 males. The average age <strong>of</strong> the Taiwan group was relatively
younger than that <strong>of</strong> the group in the United States.
The study <strong>of</strong> the Taiwan group was conducted during regular class time, and the incentive for the participants was
that they would receive their creativity test results as soon as their test booklets were scored. Half <strong>of</strong> the
participants in the United States took part in the study during regular class time, and the other half at a scheduled
time outside <strong>of</strong> regular class time. Different incentives were provided: In addition to the availability <strong>of</strong> their creativity
test results, groups were <strong>of</strong>fered refreshments, bonus credits, and five-dollar gift cards.
Research Procedure
The participants received a creativity test booklet and a copy <strong>of</strong> the questionnaire labeled with the same number.
The ATTA was administered following the instructions in the manual (G<strong>of</strong>f & Torrance, 2002). All ATTA test
booklets were sent back to the Scholastic Testing Service Scoring Center for assessment. The Scoring Center
provided computerized individual test results. Data collected from the test and the survey were stored and
analyzed in EXCEL and SPSS.
Key Variables
The dependent variable in this study is creative performance i.e., the level <strong>of</strong> creativity index measured by the
ATTA. In addition, the ATTA also indicates sub-scores <strong>of</strong> four creative abilities, fluency, originality, elaboration, and
flexibility; these four abilities are also tested and analyzed. Fluency means the ability to produce quantities <strong>of</strong>
ideas. Originality is the ability to produce uncommon ideas or ideas that are totally new or unique. Elaboration is
the ability to embellish ideas with details. Flexibility is the ability to process information or objects in different ways
with the same stimulus. The nine-point scale <strong>of</strong> creative ability has possible values <strong>of</strong> 11 through 19, with a median
<strong>of</strong> 15.
The independent variables in this study relate to the perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching beliefs and learning experiences,
academic achievement, and personal background information. Regarding the perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching beliefs <strong>of</strong>
the participants, their stated teaching beliefs reveal their own teaching preferences. In the same way, their
evaluated learning experiences indicate the prominent characteristics <strong>of</strong> the teaching practices that they
experienced in their own K-12 schooling. The result <strong>of</strong> each TPI mainly generates five scores for the five
perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching, as well as a personal mean and standard deviation <strong>of</strong> the five scores. Total scores for
each perspective are 45. Among the five sum scores, if any score is one standard deviation or more above the
personal mean, the perspective with the high score represents the person’s dominant perspective <strong>of</strong> teaching.
Results
<strong>Comparison</strong> on Nation Groups
Regarding the results <strong>of</strong> the ATTA, American student teachers showed significantly higher scores than their
Taiwanese counterparts. As Figure 1 indicates, the majority <strong>of</strong> the student teachers (31.2%) in Taiwan showed an
average level <strong>of</strong> creativity (CI = 4), whereas the majority (27.1%) in the United States demonstrated a high level <strong>of</strong>
creativity (CI = 6). However, no significant differences were found between the two nation groups in their abilities
with fluency, originality, and flexibility (Table 2). The only difference was on the ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration.
Figure 1. <strong>Comparison</strong> on the Percentages <strong>of</strong> the Creativity Level
Percentage
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Level <strong>of</strong> the Creativity Index
Taiwan
The US
5

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations <strong>of</strong> the Scores on the ATTA (Nation Difference)
Creativity
Creativity
Fluency Originality Elaboration Flexibility Index
Nationality M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Taiwan (N=125) 14.78 2.08 16.67 1.85 14.16 1.72 15.95 2.24 4.29 1.35
The US (N=133) 15.01 2.07 16.78 1.94 14.77 1.93 16.05 2.44 4.68 1.51
T-test Sig. 0.388 0.642 **0.008 0.730 **0.031
* Scaled scores: Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and Flexibility = 11-19; Creativity Level = 1-7.
** T-test shows significant differences.
In addition, for creative indicators revealed on verbal responses, the Taiwanese respondents expressed more
colorful images, and American subjects asked more provocative questions. As to the creative indicators
demonstrated on figural responses, American student teachers outperformed their Taiwanese peers in
abstractness <strong>of</strong> titles, articulateness in telling a story, combination <strong>of</strong> figures, and expressions <strong>of</strong> feelings and
emotions.
<strong>Comparison</strong> on Genders
The U.S. group <strong>of</strong> participants had more females than males, but in the Taiwan group there were more males than
females. In order to eliminate the possibility that the difference in creative performance between the two nation
groups was due to gender difference, the gender difference was examined. As found in the literature, the evidence
shown in this study again was equivocal (Table 3). In the sample for Taiwan, females scored significantly higher
than males (M/SD = Female 4.62/1.27 > Male 4.05/1.37; p = 0.020). In addition, the t-test found significant
differences between genders in fluency (p = 0.013), elaboration (p = 0.002), and flexibility (p = 0.017). Females
performed significantly better than males on the four scores <strong>of</strong> the ATTA. Although the gender difference was not
clear on the ability <strong>of</strong> originality, on average, females scored relatively higher than males.
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations <strong>of</strong> the Scores on the ATTA (Gender Difference)
Creativity
Creativity
Fluency Originality Elaboration Flexibility Index
Nationality M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
TW M = 73 14.40 2.20 16.53 2.12 13.77 1.70 15.56 2.33 4.05 1.37
F = 52 15.33 1.77 16.87 1.40 14.71 1.59 16.50 2.00 4.62 1.27
T-test Sig. **0.013 0.327 **0.002 **0.017 **0.020
US M = 23 15.96 1.74 16.57 1.85 15.04 2.27 16.65 2.21 4.83 1.40
F = 109 14.83 2.09 16.81 1.96 14.73 1.85 15.96 2.46 4.66 1.53
T-test Sig. **0.010 0.577 0.544 0.191 0.616
* Scaled scores: Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and Flexibility = 11-19; Creativity Index = 1-7.
** T-test shows significant differences.
In the sample in the United States gender differences were not as obvious. The only significant difference was in
fluency (p = 0.010). Opposite from the finding in the Taiwan group, males performed significantly better than
females in fluency (M/SD = Female 14.83/2.09 < Male 15.96/1.74). Although males appeared to score higher than
females on elaboration, flexibility, and overall creative performance, no significant gender difference was found.
<strong>Comparison</strong> on Ethnic Groups
American Asians were compared to Asians in Taiwan to understand if subjects that belong to the same ethnic
group perform similarly in the creativity test. From the result (Table 4), it is obvious that American Asians (M = 5.04)
scored significantly higher than Taiwanese Asians (M = 4.29). The t-test showed significant differences between
the two groups on the creativity index (p = 0.013) and elaboration (p = 0.002).
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations <strong>of</strong> the Scores on the ATTA (Ethnicity Difference)
Creativity
Creativity
Fluency Originality Elaboration Flexibility Index
Ethnicity Group M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
TW 4(N=125) 14.78 2.08 16.67 1.85 14.16 1.72 15.95 2.24 4.29 1.35
US 1 (N=5) 14.80 1.79 17.20 2.05 13.80 2.59 15.20 3.27 4.00 1.58
2 (N=1) 15.00 19.00 15.00 14.00 5.00
3 (N=36) 15.50 2.05 17.11 1.89 15.58 1.81 16.42 2.34 5.42 1.50
4 (N=24) 15.46 2.36 17.25 1.45 15.50 1.75 16.54 2.67 5.04 1.27
5 (N=53) 14.57 2.01 16.23 2.07 14.30 1.72 16.13 2.24 4.25 1.47
6 (N=12) 14.92 1.83 17.42 1.62 13.67 2.02 14.75 2.30 4.25 1.14
* Scaled scores: Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and Flexibility = 11-19; Creativity Index = 1-7.
** Ethnicity Group: 1 = African American/Black; 2 = American Indian/Native American/Pacific Islander; 3 =
Anglo/Caucasian/White; 4 = Asian American/Asian; 5 = Hispanic/Latino/Chicano; 6 = Other.
6

<strong>Comparison</strong> on Age Groups
The age factor was examined because the average age <strong>of</strong> the Taiwan group was younger than that <strong>of</strong> the U.S.
group. The ANOVA was performed on the data within each nation group, and no significant difference was
observed between different age groups (TW: F = 1.296, p = 0.277; US: F = 0.894, p = 0.488). Also, the ANOVA
found originality to be relatively least differentiated by age (p = 0.593, the highest among the four components).
Creativity and Teaching Beliefs
Student teachers from both the U.S. and Taiwan shared similar teaching beliefs; and the dominant teaching
perspective in the two countries was the same: the Nurturing perspective (TW: 67.2%, N=93; US: 69.9%, N=84).
This finding corresponds to the conclusion that Pratt and Collins (2000) made about new teachers or teachers in
training: They tend to score higher on the Nurturing perspective. The second influential perspective <strong>of</strong> teaching in
the two nation groups was the Apprenticeship perspective (TW: 26.4%, N=29; US: 21.8%, N=33), and the third
preference was the Developmental perspective (TW: 11.2%, N=16; US: 12.0%, N=14). The Transmission
perspective was not dominant in either country (TW: 3.2%, N=3; US: 2.3%, N=4).
The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between the sum scores <strong>of</strong> the creativity index and <strong>of</strong> the five
perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching beliefs. The results seemed to show that two perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching beliefs,
Apprenticeship and Nurturing, were negatively correlated with creative performance (Table 5). It is important to
note that the two perspectives were represented by the two largest groups <strong>of</strong> respondents, and have the highest
means <strong>of</strong> the sum scores. The results suggest that negative correlations occur in the largest sample groups with
the highest scores, and every perspective has the potential to be negatively correlated with creative thinking
abilities. This means that extreme belief in one perspective is related to low creative thinking scores. Therefore, a
strong adherence to an exclusive perspective may prevent divergent thinking and the consideration <strong>of</strong> diverse
perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching may further the development <strong>of</strong> creative thinking.
Table 5. Correlations between Creativity and Teaching Beliefs
All (N = 239)
Beliefs in the Apprenticeship Perspective - 0.175 (**)
Beliefs in the Nurturing Perspective - 0.173 (**)
Creativity and Learning Experiences
Regarding teaching practices, the two nation groups have significantly different learning experiences. As
hypothesized, teaching in Taiwan is more teacher-oriented or product-oriented than that in the United States.
Although the Transmission perspective was dominant in both countries (TW: 88%, N=110; US: 60.9%, N=81),
learning experiences reported by student teachers in the United States were more divergent. Compared to student
teachers in Taiwan, U.S. student teachers observed significantly (t-test sig < 0.001) more teachers who utilized
Apprenticeship, Developmental, and Nurturing perspectives.
No correlations were observed between creativity and learning experiences. Teaching practices and creative
performance did not seem related. In addition, no significant differences in creative performance were observed
among groups with different learning experiences (All Data: F = 0.034, p = 0.966; TW: F = 1.219, p = 0.299; US: F
= 0.372, p = 0.690). Also, all <strong>of</strong> the five perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching practices were excluded by the regression
analysis as a possible predictor for creative performance.
Creativity and Academic Achievement
A significant and positive correlation between creativity and academic achievement was confirmed by this study.
The creative thinking and achievement test scores inside each nation group were found to be significantly
correlated (Table 6). For the U.S. group, creative thinking scores not only positively related to the total scores, but
also to the sub-scores <strong>of</strong> reading, writing, and mathematics. Apart from this, the elaboration scores were
significantly related to reading and writing scores, but not for math scores.
Table 6. Correlations between Creativity and Academic Achievement
TW (N = 115)
CEAAT Total Scores
Level <strong>of</strong> the Creativity Index 0.245 (**)
US (N = 101) CBEST Total Reading Writing Math
Score <strong>of</strong> Elaboration 0.200 (*) 0.335 (**) 0.345 (**) 0.179
Level <strong>of</strong> the Creativity Index 0.373 (**) 0.454 (**) 0.287 (*) 0.342 (**)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Finally, academic achievement test scores were found to be an important predictor variable for high creativity. In
7

the Taiwan group, the achievement test scores accounted for approximately 10 percent <strong>of</strong> the variation on the
ATTA scores. In the U.S. group the reading scores <strong>of</strong> the CBEST predicted around 18 percent <strong>of</strong> the changes on
the creativity test scores.
Discussion
Teaching Beliefs
To a certain degree, creative thinking is related to teaching beliefs. In this study, the Apprenticeship and the
Nurturing perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching beliefs were found to be negatively correlated with creativity test scores. Since
negative correlations occur in the largest sample groups with the highest scores, it implies that every perspective
has the potential to be negatively correlated with creative thinking abilities. It is possible that a high score in any <strong>of</strong>
the perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching results in a negative correlation with creative thinking, and as the sample grows larger,
the link becomes obvious. This may indicate that creative thinking is related to all <strong>of</strong> the perspectives, and a strong
belief in any particular perspective may result in a tendency to subvert the other perspectives, and may be
detrimental to the development <strong>of</strong> creative thinking.
Learning Experiences
From the statistical evidence <strong>of</strong> the data, the relationship between learning experience and creative thinking is
unclear. The investigation has apparently confirmed the hypotheses that teaching in Taiwan is more
teacher-directed or product-oriented than teaching in the United States, and that American student teachers score
higher on a creativity test than their Taiwanese counterparts. In this study, the learning experiences <strong>of</strong> student
teachers in the two nation groups were significantly different, and the creative thinking scores also were
significantly related to the nation groups. However, statistical evidence does not appear to support a link between
creative thinking and learning experiences.
Similar to the conclusions <strong>of</strong> more than 10 other studies (Bennett, 1976; Horwitz, 1979; Wright, 1975), this study
found that different teaching practices do not seem to affect the creative performance <strong>of</strong> students; however, there
have been almost as many other studies which reported mixed or contradictory results (Horwitz, 1979). In this
study, the educational experiences that student teachers reported may not represent a composite <strong>of</strong> the
educational influence <strong>of</strong> K-12 schooling. Since self-reported learning experiences in this study may not accurately
reflect the individual complexities <strong>of</strong> K-12 education, it is not yet possible, using the evidence in this study, to make
a definite conclusion.
Academic Achievement
The links between academic achievement and creative thinking have been reported in many studies (e.g., Powers
& Kaufman, 2004; Torrance, 1962; Yamamoto & Chimbidis, 1966). Whether it is negatively or positively correlated,
the connection between academic achievement and creative thinking is again verified in this study.
A positive correlation between academic achievement and creative thinking has been demonstrated in this study.
In the sample from both nation groups, a higher score on the achievement test corresponded with a better
performance on the creative test. Academic achievement test scores in both countries, though with a relatively
small percentage, predict performance on the creativity test. According to Chamorro-Premuzic (2006), it may
mean that the achievement tests in the two countries require creative thinking.
An interesting result in the U.S. sample shows that creative thinking scores are most strongly correlated with
reading scores, and elaboration scores with writing scores. Reading and writing require the accumulation <strong>of</strong>
vocabulary (knowledge) and divergent abilities (skills), such as comprehending, evaluating, analyzing,
summarizing, and expressing. Unfortunately, the achievement test scores collected in Taiwan did not include
sub-scores, so the correlations between components <strong>of</strong> the tests and creative thinking were left unexplored.
Therefore, further study is required to determine if creative thinking is also related to reading and writing in Taiwan.
The Ability <strong>of</strong> Elaboration
One important difference in creative performance between the two groups was in the ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration.
American student teachers scored significantly higher than their Taiwanese peers on elaboration (Table 2). The
correlation results <strong>of</strong> elaboration with other variables shows that elaboration was positively correlated with the
CBEST reading and writing scores, but not with the CBEST math scores in the United States, nor with the CEAAT
scores in Taiwan (Table 6). Therefore, the ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration may have a certain connection with the reading
and writing abilities required by the CBEST.
Regarding the correlation results <strong>of</strong> elaboration, Saeki, Fan, and Van Dusen (2001) had a similar finding when
comparing the creative performances <strong>of</strong> Japanese and American college students, with a similar measure <strong>of</strong>
creative thinking, the TTCT. However, Saeki et al (2001) did not provide possible reasons why American college
students scored significantly higher on elaboration than their Japanese peers. Since this study again reveals the
finding that Americans score significantly higher on elaboration than their Asian counterparts, it is worth exploring
8

the possible reasons for the difference.
In this study, the statistical analysis did not appear to provide evidence to explain the difference. The score for
elaboration was not correlated with the sum score <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the perspectives <strong>of</strong> teaching beliefs or teaching
practices within each nation group. Only when the sample included both nation groups were negative correlations
found between elaboration and beliefs in the Apprenticeship or the Nurturing perspectives. In addition, the score
for elaboration was positively correlated only with the reading and especially the writing CBEST scores, but not
with the math CBEST scores in the United States, nor with the CEAAT scores in Taiwan.
According to G<strong>of</strong>f and Torrance (2002), the scoring for elaboration was based on two assumptions: “The first is
that the minimum and primary response to the stimulus figure is a single response. The second is that the
imagination and exposition <strong>of</strong> detail is a function <strong>of</strong> creative ability and is appropriately labeled ‘elaboration’” (p. 11).
Scoring elaboration involves counting the number <strong>of</strong> details (ideas) added to the original stimulus figure. For
example, if the original stimulus figure is a triangle, drawing a house with the triangle as the ro<strong>of</strong> is the primary
single response. Then, adding the ro<strong>of</strong> design, windows, a gate, or a tree is credited as a point for an elaboration
idea.
From the positive correlations <strong>of</strong> elaboration with reading and, most importantly, writing, it is possible that the
abilities required for high scores in reading and writing on the CBEST are also necessary for creative thinking.
According to the CBEST test specifications (CBEST, 2009), reading requires two skill factors: (1) critical analysis
and evaluation; and (2) comprehension and research. As for writing, there are two categories: (1) expressive
writing; and (2) expository writing. It appears that the abilities required for reading and writing on the CBEST do
not include originality or imagination. Rather, the essential abilities for performing well on the reading and writing
sections <strong>of</strong> the CBEST are careful evaluation, critical analysis, and exact verbal expression.
The encouragement <strong>of</strong> self-expression in education in the United States may be a possible reason for Americans
scoring higher on elaboration than their Japanese or Taiwanese peers. Such an assumption seems to find support
in many studies. Many researchers have suggested that freedom <strong>of</strong> expression is an important factor that fosters
creativity (Amabile, 1996; Torrance, 1992; Ogilvie, 1974). However, it requires further empirical evidence to
support this assumption.
Conclusion
As creative performance was significantly and negatively correlated with teaching beliefs in the Apprenticeship
and Nurturing perspectives, and not correlated with teaching practices in any <strong>of</strong> the five perspectives, creative
thinking may have more to do with beliefs and less to do with practices. Teaching beliefs, whether stated or
unconsciously taken for granted, can influence creative thinking, and teaching practices, whether product-oriented
or process-oriented, may simply be forms <strong>of</strong> different instructions which do not have a direct impact on creative
thinking.
Even though a relationship between creative thinking and learning experiences has not been observed in this
study, it is possible that learning experiences may form beliefs about teaching and learning. In addition, since
American student teachers have obviously experienced more diverse teaching practices than their Taiwanese
peers, it is possible that being exposed to diverse teaching practices can promote creative thinking. Due to the
complexities <strong>of</strong> K-12 educational experiences, the study is not yet able to make conclusions about the relationship
between learning experiences and creative thinking.
The positive relationship between creative thinking and academic achievement provides confidence for educators
that achievement tests can assess knowledge and skills, but also can be possible predictors for creative
performance. This study confirms the argument that academic achievement can be improved with the
enhancement <strong>of</strong> creative thinking abilities. Although acquiring knowledge and skills does not guarantee the
development <strong>of</strong> creative abilities, a positive correlation confirms that creative thinking and knowledge can enhance
each other.
Among the comparisons in creative performance one distinction stands out: the ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration. An emphasis
on exploration or self-expression is a possible reason for such difference. The ability <strong>of</strong> elaboration may have a
certain connection with reading, writing, and self-expressive abilities. The encouragement <strong>of</strong> self-expression in
education in the United States can explain why Americans score higher on elaboration than their Japanese or
Taiwanese counterparts.
Finally, this study does not imply the superiority <strong>of</strong> American education or East Asian education; instead, it shows
significant differences or emphases in education in the two countries. If education in the two countries can be
integrated in the respective aspects that need improvement, there is the possibility to draw on the strength <strong>of</strong> each
to <strong>of</strong>fset the weakness <strong>of</strong> the other.
9

References
Albert, R.S. (1980). Family positions and the attainment <strong>of</strong> eminence: A study <strong>of</strong> special family experiences. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 24(2), 87-95.
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology <strong>of</strong> creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T.M. (1985). The social psychology <strong>of</strong> creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality
and Social Science, 45(22), 357-376.
Amabile, T.M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime <strong>of</strong> creativity. New York: Crown.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T.M. & Gryskiewicz, N.D. (1989). The creative environment work scales: Work environment inventory.
Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-254.
Baer, J. (1999). Gender differences. In M.A. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong> creativity, volume one
(pp. 753-758). New York: Academic Press.
Bean, R. (1992). Individuality, self-expression and other keys to creativity: Using the four conditions <strong>of</strong> self-esteem
in elementary and middle schools. Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates.
Beghetto, R.A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(2), 254-263.
Bennett, N. (1976). Teaching styles and pupil progress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, R.T. (1989). Creativity: What are we measure? In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook <strong>of</strong> Creativity, (pp.3-32). New York: Plenum. Campbell, D. (1960). Blind variation and selective
retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380-400.
Cannatella, H. (2004). Embedding creativity in teaching and learning. Journal <strong>of</strong> Aesthetic Education, 38(4),
59-70.
Carroll, J. & Howieson, N. (1990). Is Australia neglecting its creative potential? Gifted Education International, 6(3),
186-191.
Cave, P. (2001, May). Educational reform in Japan in the 1990s: "Individuality" and other uncertainties.
Comparative Education, 37(2), 173-91.
CBEST. (2009). Test specifications <strong>of</strong> the California Basic Educational Skills Test. Retrieved August 1, 2009 from
http://www.cbest.nesinc.com/CA_testspecs.asp
http://www.cbest.nesinc.com/PDFs/CBESTUpdatedTestSpecs.pdf.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). Creativity versus conscientiousness: Which is a better predictor <strong>of</strong> student
performance? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 521-531.
Chen, C.Y. (Revised) 陳 長 益 〈 修 訂 〉。(2006). 陶 倫 斯 創 造 力 測 驗 指 導 手 冊 : 成 人 適 用 精 簡 版 。[Abbreviated Torrance
Test for adults manual: the Taiwan Norm]. Revised according to G<strong>of</strong>f, K. & Torrance, E.P. (2002). 台 北 : 心 理
出 版 社 。
Cropley, A.J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity in the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10

Cropley, A.J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom. In M.A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook,
volume one (pp.83-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Dhillon, P.K. & Mehra, D. (1987). The influence <strong>of</strong> social class and sex on primary school children’s creative
thinking. Asian Journal <strong>of</strong> Psychology Education, 19, 1-10.
Diakidoy, I. & Kanari, E. (1999). Student teachers’ beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal,
25(2), 225-43.
Dudek, S.Z., Strobel, M.G., & Runco, M.A. (1993). Cumulative and proximal influences <strong>of</strong> the social environment
on creative potential. Journal <strong>of</strong> Genetic Psychology, 154(4), 487-499.
Edwards, M.P. & Tyler, L.E. (1965). Intelligence, creativity, and achievement in a nonselective public junior high
school. Journal <strong>of</strong> Educational Psychology, 56, 96-99.
Frederick, C. M., & Price, B. (2001). <strong>Thinking</strong> creatively about religion: Belief-related differences. Journal <strong>of</strong>
<strong>Creative</strong> Behavior, 35(3), 205-224.
Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. <strong>Creative</strong> Research Journal, 1, 8-26.
Getzel, J.W. & Jackson, P.W. (1958). The meaning <strong>of</strong> giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 40(2), 75-78.
G<strong>of</strong>f, K. & Torrance, E.P. (2000). Brief demonstrator form <strong>of</strong> the Torrance tests <strong>of</strong> creative thinking:
Training/teaching manual for adults with technical data. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
G<strong>of</strong>f, K. & Torrance, E.P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Test for adults manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service, Inc.
Guilford, J.P. (1981). Factors that aid and hinder creativity. In J.C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E.P. Torrance (Eds.),
Creativity: Its educational implications. Iowa: Kendall and Hunt.
Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY : Doubleday.
Harrington, D.M., Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects <strong>of</strong> Carl Rogers’s theory <strong>of</strong> creative environments:
Child-rearing antecedents <strong>of</strong> creative potential in young adolescents. Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 851-856.
Helson, R. (1968). Effects <strong>of</strong> sibling characteristics and parental values on creative interest and achievement.
Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality, 36, 589-607.
Horwitz, R.A. (1979). Psychological effects <strong>of</strong> the open classroom. Review <strong>of</strong> Educational Research, 49, 71-85.
Jaquish, G.A. & Ripple, R.E. (1985). A life-span developmental cross-cultural study <strong>of</strong> divergent thinking abilities.
International Aging and Human Development, 20(1), 1-11.
Jellen, H.G. & Klaus, K. (1989). Assessing creative potential world-wide: The first cross-cultural application <strong>of</strong> the
test for creative thinking—drawing production (TCT-DP). Gifted Education International, 6, 78-86.
oesting, J. (1975). Relationship <strong>of</strong> two tests <strong>of</strong> creativity to freshman English grades, school activities, and number
<strong>of</strong> absences for black college students. Psychological Reports, 37, 69-70.
Klein, P.S. (1975). Effects <strong>of</strong> open vs. structured teacher-student interaction on creativity <strong>of</strong> children with different
levels <strong>of</strong> anxiety. Psychology in the Schools, 12, 286-288.
11

Lichtenwalner, J.S. & Maxwell, J.W. (1969). The relationship <strong>of</strong> birth order and socioeconomic status to the
creativity <strong>of</strong> preschool children. Child Development, 40(4), 1241-1247
McElvain, J.L., Fretwell, L.N., & Lewis, R.B. (1967). Relationships between creativity and teacher variability. In J.C.
Gowan, G.D. Demos, & E.P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (pp. 271-272). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Moses, E. G. (1985). Advantages <strong>of</strong> being disadvantaged: A paradox. Journal <strong>of</strong> Negro Education, 54(3),
333-343.
Niu, W. & Sternberg, R.J. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept <strong>of</strong> creativity: The East and the West.
Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong> Behavior, 36(4), 269-288.
Niu, W. & Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case <strong>of</strong> China.
Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103-114.
Ogawa, M., Kuehn-Ebert, C., & DeVito, A. (1991). Differences in creative thinking between Japanese and
American fifth grade children. Ibaraki University Faculty <strong>of</strong> Education Bulletin, 40, 53-59.
Ogilvie, E. (1974). Creativity and curriculum structure. Educational Research, 16, 126-132.
Pan, H.L., Yang, S.K., Chou, Z.Y., & Hong, J.J. 潘 慧 玲 、 楊 深 坑 、 周 祝 瑛 、 洪 仁 進 (2003). 緒 論 : 教 育 改 革 的 脈 絡 、
理 念 與 課 題 [Introduction: Veins, ideals, and tasks <strong>of</strong> education reform]。 國 立 台 灣 師 範 大 學 主 編 , 教 育 發 展 的
新 方 向 : 為 教 改 開 處 方 , 頁 1-14。 台 北 : 心 理 。
Plucker, J.A., Beghetto, R.A., & Dow, G.T. (2004, June). Why isn't creativity more important to educational
psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist,
39(2), 83-96.
Pratt, D.D. & Collins, J.B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory (TPI). In Sork, T.J, Chapman, V., & St. Clair,
R. (Eds.), AERC 2000: An International Conference. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Annual Adult Education Research
Conference. (41st, Vancouver, Canada, June 2-4, 2000). (ERIC Document Reproduction Center No.
ED452417)
Pollert, L.H., Feldhusen, J.F., Van Mondfrans, A.P., & Treffinger, D.J. (1969). Role <strong>of</strong> memory in divergent thinking.
Psychological Reports, 25(1), 151-156.
Powers, D.E. & Kaufman, J.C. (2004). Do standardized tests penalize deep-thinking, creative, or conscientious
students? Some personality correlates <strong>of</strong> Graduate Record Examination test scores. Intelligence, 32,
145-153.
Raina, M.K. (1999). Cross-cultural differences. In M.A. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong> creativity,
volume one (pp. 453-464). New York: Academic Press.
Raina, M.K. & Raina, U. (1974). Creativity research in cross-cultural perspective. Indian Educational Review, 9,
140-167.
Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S.M., & Smith, L.H. (1981). The revolving-door model: A new way <strong>of</strong> identifying the gifted. Phi
Delta Kappan, 62(9), 648-649.
Roe, A. (1952). A psychologist examines sixty-four eminent scientists. Scientific American, 187, 21-25.
Rudowicz, E., Lok, D., & Kitto, J. (1995). Use <strong>of</strong> the Torrance tests <strong>of</strong> creative thinking in an exploratory study <strong>of</strong>
creativity in Hong Kong primary school children: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal <strong>of</strong>
Psychology, 30(4), 417-430.
12

Runco, M.A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Psychology, 55, 657-687.
Saeki, N, Fan, X, & Van Dusen, L. (2001). A comparative study <strong>of</strong> creative thinking <strong>of</strong> American and Japanese
college students. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong> Behavior, 35(1), 24-36.
Simonton, D.K. (1975). Sociocultural context <strong>of</strong> individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal
<strong>of</strong> Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1119-1133.
Srivastava, B. (1982). A study <strong>of</strong> creative abilities in relation to socioeconomic status and culture. Perspectives
in Psychological Research, 5(2), 37-40.
Staffieri, J.R. (1970). Birth order and creativity. Journal <strong>of</strong> Clinical Psychology, 26, 65-66.
Starko, A.J. (1994). Creativity in the classroom. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Straus, J.H. & Straus, M.A. (1968). Family role and sex differences in creativity <strong>of</strong> children in Bombay and
Minneapolis. Journal <strong>of</strong> Marriage and the Family, 30(1), 46-53.
Torrance, E.P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E.P. (1964). The Minnesota studies <strong>of</strong> creative thinking: 1959-1962. In C.W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening
horizons in creativity (pp. 125-144). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Torrance, E.P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E.P. (1966). Torrance tests <strong>of</strong> creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. (Research Ed.). Lexinton, MA:
Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1967, December). Understanding the fourth grade slump in creative thinking: Final report. Athens:
Georgia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Center No. ED018273)
Torrance, E.P. (1969). What is honored: Comparative studies <strong>of</strong> creative achievement and motivation. Journal <strong>of</strong>
<strong>Creative</strong> Behavior, 3(3), 149-154.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity <strong>of</strong> the Torrance Tests <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong> Behavior,
6(4), 236-252.
Torrance, E. P. (1975). Assessing children, teachers, and parents against the ideal child criterion. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 19, 130-139.
Torrance, E.P. (1981). Empirical validation <strong>of</strong> criterion-referenced indicators <strong>of</strong> creative ability through a
longitudinal study. <strong>Creative</strong> Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136-140.
Torrance, E.P. (1988). The nature <strong>of</strong> creativity as manifest in its testing. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature <strong>of</strong>
creativity (pp. 43-75). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1992 January/February). A national climate for creativity and invention. Gifted Child Today, 15(1),
10-14.
Torrance, E.P. (1999). Forty years <strong>of</strong> watching creative ability and creative achievement. Newsletter <strong>of</strong> the
<strong>Creative</strong> Division <strong>of</strong> the National Association for Gifted Children, 10, 3-5.
13

Torrance, E.P. (Ed.) (2000). On the edge and keeping on the edge. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E.P. & Safter, H.T. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond…. Buffalo, NY: <strong>Creative</strong> Education
Foundation Press.
Torrance, E.P. & Sato, S. (1979). Figural creative thinking abilities <strong>of</strong> United States and Japanese majors in
education. <strong>Creative</strong> Child and Adult Quarterly, 4(4), 216-221.
Toth, L. S., & Baker, S. R. (1990). The relationship <strong>of</strong> creativity and instructional style preferences to
overachievement and underachievement in a sample <strong>of</strong> public school children. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Creative</strong>
Behavior, 24(3), 190-198.
Von Eschenbach, J.F. & Noland, R.E. (1981). Changes in student teachers’ perception <strong>of</strong> the creative pupil. The
<strong>Creative</strong> Child and Adult Quarterly, 8, 169-177.
Wallach, M.A. & Kogan, N. (1965). Models <strong>of</strong> thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Witt, L.A. & Beorkrem, M. (1989). Climate for creative productivity as a predictor <strong>of</strong> research usefulness and
organizational effectiveness in an R&D organization. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 30-40.
Wright, R.J. (1975). The affective and cognitive consequences <strong>of</strong> an open education elementary school. American
Educational Research Journal, 12(4), 449-468.
Yamamoto, K. & Chimbidis, M.E. (1966). Achievement, intelligence, and creative thinking in fifth grade children: A
correlational study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 12, 233-241.
Zha, Z. 查 子 秀 . (1986). 超 常 儿 童 心 理 与 教 育 研 究 5 年 [A five-year longitudinal study to the development <strong>of</strong> gifted
children]。 心 理 学 报 [Acta Psychologica Sinica], 2, 123-131.
Zhou, L., Zha, Z. & Shi. J. 周 林 、 查 子 秀 、 施 建 农 . (1995). 5、7 年 级 儿 童 的 图 形 创 造 性 思 维 (FGA) 测 验 的 比 较 研 究
-- 中 德 技 术 创 造 力 跨 文 化 研 究 结 果 之 一 [A comparative study on figural creative thinking (FGA tests) <strong>of</strong> fifth
and seventh grade children—one <strong>of</strong> the findings in the research <strong>of</strong> cross-cultural comparison on creativity
between China and Germany]。 心 理 发 展 与 教 育 ,1,19-23。
Zhou, L., Zha, Z. & Shi. J. 周 林 、 查 子 秀 、 施 建 农 . (1998). 中 — 德 超 常 与 常 态 儿 童 图 形 创 造 性 思 维 的 比 较
[<strong>Comparison</strong>s on figural creative thinking <strong>of</strong> gifted children in China and Germany]。In Zha (Ed.), Investigation
to the development <strong>of</strong> gifted children (pp. 41-51) 查 子 秀 〈 主 编 〉,《 儿 童 超 常 发 展 之 探 秘 —— 我 国 超 常 儿 童 心
理 和 教 育 研 究 20 周 年 文 集 》, 頁 41-51。 重 庆 : 重 庆 出 版 社 。
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the U.S. New York: The Free Press.
14