英語能力、創造力與創意動機對於大一新生覺察與運用英語隱喻之預測研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系博. 士. 論. 文. Doctoral Dissertation Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 英語能力、創造力與創意動機對於大一新生覺察與運用英語隱喻之預測研究. Predictability of English Proficiency, Creativity, and Creativity Motivation in Taiwanese Freshmen's Recognition and Production of Creative Metaphors in English. 指導教授：程玉秀博士 Advisor: Dr. Yuh-show Cheng 研究生：王宏均 Graduate: Hung-chun Wang. 中華民國一百零一年六月 June, 2012.

(2) 摘要. 本研究旨在探討臺灣大一新生的英語能力、創造力和創意動機對於他們覺察與運用英語創意隱喻的預測力，同時亦檢視不同英語創意隱喻能力的大一新生在英語創意態度上的差別。研究對象為 215 名就讀於北部一所公立大學的大一生，所有參與的學生須完成包含英語閱讀測驗、英語寫作測驗、陶倫斯創造思考能力測驗、英語創意動機問卷、英語創意隱喻辨識活動和英語創意隱喻創造活動共六項活動，爾後研究者根據二十八名學生對於一份創意態度問卷的回應，探討回應者對於理解和使用英語創意語言的態度。詳細地說，首先，本論文探討英語能力、創造力和創意動機對於覺察與運用創新英語隱喻的預測力，英語能力包括閱讀和寫作能力；創造力包含流暢力、變通力、創新力和整體創造力；創意動機則以「期望價值論」為理論依據，包含對成功的期望和主觀任務價值兩項指標；英語創新隱喻覺察能力意指正確解讀創新隱喻的能力；而英語創新隱喻運用能力則包括隱喻流暢力、隱喻變通力、隱喻創新力和隱喻精密力四項能力。有關上述所獲得的資料則透過統計計量法分析，藉以瞭解變項間的關聯性及自變項對依變項的預測能力。就此點來說，本論文主要發現概述如下： 1. 英語創新隱喻覺察能力和整體英語能力、創造力和創意動機有顯著相關，然而僅整體英語能力和創意動機能有效地預測英語創新隱喻覺察能力。 2. 英語創新隱喻運用能力與整體英語能力、創造力和創意動機有顯著相關，然而僅整體英語能力和創造力能有效地預測英語創新隱喻運用能力。 3. 在三項預測變項中，整體英語能力對於英語創新隱喻覺察能力和運用能力具有最大的預測能力，而創造力和創意動機分別對於英語創新隱喻覺察能力或隱喻運用能力的預測能力則較低。另一方面，本論文亦透過創意態度問卷以瞭解不同英語創新隱喻能力的學習. i.

(3) 者在創意動機上的差異，研究者將填答問卷的學生分為高英語創新隱喻能力組和低創新隱喻能力組，並分析兩組在創意態度上的不同。研究結果顯示兩項態度上的差異可能會影響受試者運用創新隱喻的能力，首先，高成就受試者較強調英語能力和創新隱喻運用能力的關聯性，而低成就者普遍認為英語能力和創新隱喻運用能力無關，高成就受試者對於英語能力的重視，在加上他們實際上較高的英語能力，能提升他們創造英語隱喻時對語言的敏銳度和文字使用上的正確性和多樣性。第二，低成就者運用創新英語隱喻的能力容易受限於他們薄弱的英語程度和學習動機，而高成就者較易感受自我對於創造錯誤或笨拙的表達方式的擔憂，然而高成就者對於文字使用上的擔憂在實際語言創造過程卻能有正向的助益，能提升他們對於語言使用的嚴謹度。透過量化及質化研究方法，本論文共有對理論、實務教學和測驗工具發展上的貢獻：第一，本論文提供了實證資料，驗證了以往創造力理論對於創意思考認知過程的論述，更重要的是，它發現個人領域知識對於創意表現具有最大的影響。第二，在實務教學方面，本論文亦發現改善學習者的英語能力對於提升他們覺察與運用創意英語隱喻的能力可能具有最實際的成效，而創造力和運用創意隱喻能力的關聯性亦顯現出融合創造力訓練活動於英語課堂中的重要性。第三，本論文亦發展出包括英語創意動機問卷等數項研究工具，這些測驗工具能幫助研究者或英語教師更了解學生創意動機以及創意英語隱喻能力。總括而言，本論文除證實了英語能力、創造力和創意動機對於大一新生理解和使用英語創意隱喻能力可能的影響外，同時亦期望能鼓勵更多第二語言習得研究者從事相關研究，以釐清第二語言創造力的多樣性。. 關鍵字：英語能力，創造力，創意思考能力，創意動機，覺察與運用英語隱喻的能力，隱喻流暢力，隱喻變通力，隱喻創新力，隱喻精密力. *本論文使用財團法人語言訓練測驗中心提供之考題資料 ii.

(4) ABSTRACT. This dissertation aimed to investigate the predictability of Taiwanese freshmen’s English proficiency, creativity and creativity motivation in their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. It also intended to explore the creativity attitudes held by Taiwanese freshmen of different creative metaphoric competences. The participants were 215 university freshmen studying in a public university in North Taiwan. All the participants were required to complete six activities: English Reading Proficiency Test, English Writing Proficiency Test, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English, Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors, and Production Task of Creative Metaphors. After that, according to 28 informants’ responses to a creativity attitude survey, this study would also clarify the students’ attitudes toward verbal creativity in English. To be specific, this dissertation first explored whether English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation were valid predictors for EFL learners’ abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. English proficiency includes reading and writing skills. Creativity specifically refers to fluency, flexibility, originality and general creativity. Creativity motivation, which is theoretically grounded in the Expectancy-Value Theory, discusses expectancy for success and subjective task value as the primary indicators. The ability to interpret creative metaphors in English means the skill to comprehend creative metaphors correctly. The ability to produce creative metaphors in English involves four main skills: metaphoric fluency, metaphoric flexibility, metaphoric originality and metaphoric elaboration. Collected data related to the variables discussed above were analyzed by means of statistical measures in order to probe the correlations among all the variables and the predictive power of the independent variables in the dependent variables. iii.

(5) With regard to the results of statistical analyses, findings are summarized below: 1. The ability to interpret creative metaphors in English was significantly correlated with overall English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation. However, only English proficiency and creativity motivation could significantly predict the ability to interpret creative metaphors, while creativity could not. 2. The ability to produce creative metaphors in English was also significantly associated with overall English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation. However, only English proficiency and creativity could effectively predict the ability to produce creative metaphors, while creativity motivation could not. 3. Of the three predictor variables, English proficiency turned out to be the strongest predictor for the abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. By contrast, creativity and creativity motivation indicated much weaker predictability for the ability to interpret or produce creative metaphors in English. On the other hand, by means of the creativity attitude survey, this dissertation also attempted to explore the differences in the participants’ attitudes toward comprehending and producing creative metaphors in English. Analysis of the surveys indicated that two perceptual differences were perhaps significant enough to influence learners’ ability to produce creative metaphors. First of all, the learners with higher creative metaphoric competences emphasized the relationship of English proficiency to productive creative metaphoric competence, while those with lower creative metaphoric competences in general considered them to be unrelated. Secondly, lower-achievers’ ability to produce creative metaphors may be easily hindered by their weak English proficiency and low interest in learning English. With regard to those with higher creative metaphoric competence, they indicated strong concern over creating erroneous and awkward expressions in English. Nevertheless, higher-achievers’ concern over linguistic appropriateness may turn out to be iv.

(6) beneficial instead. Based on these differences, it can be inferred that those higher-achievers’ emphasis on English proficiency and concern over linguistic appropriateness, plus their actual higher English proficiency, can enhance their linguistic sensitivity that can encourage them to produce metaphors that sound accurate and acceptable. Based on the quantitative and qualitative analyses, this dissertation may have three aspects of contribution: theoretical significance, practical significance and instrumental significance. First of all, this study provided empirical evidence supporting the extant theories of creative thinking addressing the cognitive process of creative thinking. Most importantly, it discovered that domain knowledge may have the strongest influence on creative thinking. Secondly, with regard to its practical significance, this study also discovered that enhancing learners’ English proficiency may directly contribute to their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. The close association between creativity and the ability to create metaphors in English further strengthens the importance of incorporating creativity training activities in English classes. Thirdly, this study also developed several instruments that can help SLA researchers and teachers better understand students’ creativity motivation and creative metaphoric competences. To sum up, this dissertation demonstrated the effects of English proficiency, creativity and creativity motivation on university freshmen’s abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. It is hoped that this study can draw more attention from SLA researchers to the investigation of language creativity in English.. Key words: English proficiency, creativity, creative thinking abilities, creativity motivation, abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors, metaphoric fluency, metaphoric flexibility, metaphoric originality, metaphoric elaboration v.

(7) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This dissertation could not have been completed without the invaluable support and encouragement of so many teachers and friends. Here I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to everyone that made this dissertation possible. First thanks are due to my advisor, Dr. Yuh-show Cheng, for her precious support, insightful input and warm encouragement. She afforded me not only many lively discussions that enriched this dissertation but also an extraordinary role model to follow in my life. Her encouragement cultivated my faith in my chosen topic and further aroused my determination to persist in completing this dissertation. Without her untiring effort and support, I would never have made it to the end of this dissertation process. My deepest gratitude also goes to Dr. Su-chin Shih, my committee member and MA thesis advisor. Dr. Shih has always been a great teacher and friend of mine. She has given me many constructive suggestions that helped me gain a better sense of direction in my life. Her “living water” philosophy inspired by the Bible kindled my desire for being a great teacher like her, who always gives warm support and eternal patience to her students. I am also deeply grateful to the other members of my Committee, Dr. Vincent Wu-chang Chang, Dr. Hsi-nan Yeh and Dr. Ching-chih Kuo, for their generosity with their time and feedback. They provided many inspiring perspectives and constructive comments that polished the quality of this dissertation. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to many other teachers and friends for their generous assistance during the course of this dissertation: Mevis Yi-chin Hsieh, for her kind assistance with data collection in the US; the seven professors who evaluated the initial draft of the motivation questionnaire, for their vi.

(8) perceptive comments on the design of the questionnaire; Drs. Chun-ming Shih, Wen-ta Tseng, Ren-hao Li and Chin-tang Tu, for their invaluable statistical assistance; Drs. Pi-lan Yang and Ophelia Huang, for their inspiring feedback to the design of the study. I am also obliged to Dr. Li-chu Sung, Jia-yu Lai, Tsung-yi Chiang, Wei-ning Dong, Doris Zakian, Darwin Roos and Hilary Kanyi for their precious contribution to this dissertation. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to acknowledge the generosity of all the teachers and students who provided the data used in this study. My sincere appreciation also goes to the Fulbright Program sponsored by the Institute of International Education (IIE) in the US and the National Science Council (NSC) in Taiwan for funding my academic exchange at Indiana University Bloomington during the 2010-2011 academic year. My experience in the US not only enriched my life but also provided me with an opportunity to look at the field of second/foreign language acquisition with different perspectives. I am also thankful to Dr. Jonathan Alan Plucker for his academic guidance when I was at Indiana University. Dr. Plucker offered many precious insights during the initial stages of this dissertation. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Language Learning Dissertation Grant Program for funding this dissertation. Their support enabled me to fully concentrate on my dissertation without economic concerns. In addition, a special note of thanks also goes to the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) in Taiwan for their kindness in allowing me to use the tests they developed in this dissertation. Most importantly, I would like to thank my beloved family, especially my grandmother, mother and sister. Ever since I started my graduate study, I have always spent more time outside than at home. My three years of MA study in Kaohsiung, six years of PhD study in Taipei, one year of visiting research in the US, plus countless time spent on my regular reading activities at nearby coffee shops, undoubtedly vii.

(9) deprived them of my company at home. Nevertheless, they have always showed the greatest support for what I have chosen as well as the strongest faith in it. They are a spiritual source of love and strength, and have stood by me for better or for worse. Without their love, understanding and encouragement, I am certain that this dissertation would never have been completed. Thus, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to them.. viii.

(10) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF FLOW CHARTS ........................................................................................ xvii. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1 Rationale................................................................................................................. 4 Purposes of the Study ............................................................................................. 9 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 10 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 11 Definitions of Creativity and Language Creativity .............................................. 12 Creativity ...................................................................................................... 12 Language Creativity ..................................................................................... 13. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 17 Notions of Creativity ............................................................................................ 17 Defining Creativity ....................................................................................... 17 Cognitive Processes of Creative Thinking ................................................... 19 Creative Thinking Abilities .......................................................................... 24 The Role of Creative Thinking Abilities in Second Language Acquisition ................................................................................................... 27 Psychometric Measures of Creativity........................................................... 28 Motivation and Creativity............................................................................. 31 The Role of Motivation in Creative Thinking and Performance .......... 31 The Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation ............... 34 Summary....................................................................................................... 37 Language Creativity ............................................................................................. 38 Notions of Language Creativity ................................................................... 38 Language Proficiency and Language Creativity .......................................... 43 ix.

(11) Metaphoric Competence and Language Creativity ...................................... 44 Notions and Functions of Metaphors ................................................... 44 Multi-faceted Features of Metaphoric Competence ............................. 47 Factors Affecting Metaphoric Competence.......................................... 49 Summary....................................................................................................... 52 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 53. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 54 Overview of the Research .................................................................................... 54 The Participants .................................................................................................... 56 Measurement Instruments .................................................................................... 57 Reading Proficiency Test ............................................................................. 58 Writing Proficiency Test .............................................................................. 59 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ............................................................ 60 Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ............ 61 Pilot Testing and Modifications of the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ................................. 68 Validity and Reliability of the Revised Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ................................. 71 Validity and Reliability of the Finalized Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ................................. 87 Tests of Verbal Creativity in English ........................................................... 98 Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors ............................................. 98 Pilot Testing and Modifications of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors .................................................................... 102 Production Task of Creative Metaphors ............................................. 111 Creativity Attitude Survey .......................................................................... 114 Data Collection Procedure ................................................................................. 115 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 116 Scoring Procedures for the Measures of Creativity .................................... 117. x.

(12) Scoring of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking .......................... 117 Scoring of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors ................... 118 Scoring of the Production Task of Creative Metaphors ..................... 123 Metaphoric Fluency .................................................................... 123 Metaphoric Flexibility ................................................................ 123 Metaphoric Originality ............................................................... 124 Metaphoric Elaboration .............................................................. 125 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................. 126 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................... 127. CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSES AND RESULTS ................................................... 129 Descriptive Data ................................................................................................ 129 Demographic Information of the Participants ............................................ 129 Descriptive Statistics Related to Participants’ Performance on the Measurement Instruments .......................................................................... 131 English Reading and Writing Proficiency .......................................... 131 Creative Thinking Abilities ................................................................ 133 Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ............................... 135 Recognition of Creative Metaphors.................................................... 140 Production of Creative Metaphors...................................................... 140 Correlations Among All the Variables ............................................................... 145 Predictability of English Proficiency, Creativity, and Creativity for Motivation in Abilities to Interpret and Produce Creative Metaphors ............... 148 Predictability of English Proficiency, Creativity, and Creativity Motivation in Receptive Metaphoric Competence .................................... 148 Predictability of English Proficiency, Creativity, and Creativity Motivation in Productive Metaphoric Competence .................................. 150 Relationship Between Creativity Attitudes and Verbal Creativity Abilities ..... 153 Importance of English Proficiency to Verbal Creativity in English .......... 156 Importance of Creativity to Verbal Creativity in English .......................... 159. xi.

(13) Reasons Leading to Low Motivation for Creating New Expressions ........ 160 Amount of Effort Made to Produce Creative Metaphors in English.......... 165 Summary .................................................................................................... 166 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 167. CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 169 Summary and Discussion of the Major Findings ............................................... 169 Predictability of English Proficiency, Creativity, and Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity........................................................................... 169 Relationships Between Creativity Attitudes and Metaphoric Competences .............................................................................................. 174 General Discussion ............................................................................................. 175 Implications of the Study ................................................................................... 176 Theoretical Significance ............................................................................. 176 Pedagogical Significance ........................................................................... 178 Instrumental Significance ........................................................................... 180 Limitations and Implications for Future Research ............................................. 182 Caveats with Regard to Participants........................................................... 183 Caveats with Regard to Instruments........................................................... 183. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 187. Appendix A: Letter of Permission from Language Training and Testing Center ..... 205 Appendix B: Letter of Permission from Psychological Publishing Co., Ltd. ............ 207 Appendix C: Evaluation Form for the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ................................................................. 208 Appendix D: Summary of Comments to the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English.................................................... 224 Appendix E: The Volcano Project ............................................................................. 244 Appendix F: Initial Draft of the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ............................................................................. 245 xii.

(14) Appendix G: Formal Draft of the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ............................................................................. 254 Appendix H: Evaluation of Creative Metaphors in English (Form A) ...................... 263 Appendix I: Raters’ Feedback on the Metaphoric Expressions Used in the First Draft Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors .................................... 275 Appendix J: Evaluation of Creative Metaphors in English (Form B) ....................... 278 Appendix K: Revised Draft of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors. .......... 286 Appendix L: Formal Draft of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors. ............ 303 Appendix M: First Draft of the Production Task of Creative Metaphors .................. 316 Appendix N: Formal Draft of the Production Task of Creative Metaphors .............. 332 Appendix O: Creativity Attitude Survey ................................................................... 342 Appendix P: Thematic Categories Generalized from Participants’ Metaphoric Expressions ........................................................................................... 346 Appendix Q: Classification of the Metaphors and the Corresponding Originality Scores ................................................................................................... 349. xiii.

(15) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.. Questions Included in the Initial Draft of the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ..................................... 65. Table 2.. Results of the Seven Experts’ Evaluation ................................................. 69. Table 3.. Demographical Data of the Participants Responding to the Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 72. Table 4.. Questionnaire Collection Procedure ......................................................... 73. Table 5.. Rotated Factor Patterns of the Nine Items Related to Expectancy for Success ................................................................................................ 75. Table 6.. Further Analysis of Rotated Factor Patterns of the Nine Items Related to Expectancy for Success ........................................................... 76. Table 7.. Rotated Factor Patterns of the 19 Items Related to Subjective Task Value......................................................................................................... 78. Table 8.. Further Analysis of Rotated Factor Patterns of the 15 Items Related to Subjective Task Value .......................................................................... 81. Table 9.. Summary of Learners’ Responses to the Six Subscales in the Revised Questionnaire: Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas and Pearson Correlations ................................................................................. 84. Table 10.. Questions Included in the Revised Draft of the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English ..................................... 85. Table 11.. Fit Measurement Criteria Adopted in This Study..................................... 91. Table 12.. Regression Weights, Standard Error and t Values .................................... 96. Table 13.. Individual Item Reliability, Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted ................................................................................... 97. Table 14.. Thirty Test Items Included in the First Draft of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors .............................................................................. 99. Table 15.. The Thirty Metaphoric Expressions Included in the Second Draft of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors ..................................... 103. Table 16.. Evaluation Results of the Thirty Item Sets ............................................. 107. Table 17.. Summary of Responses to the 14 Items with an Acceptable Metaphor................................................................................................. 111. Table 18.. Results of the Evaluation Survey ............................................................ 113 xiv.

(16) Table 19.. Description of the Verbal Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Scoring Rubric ........................................................................................ 120. Table 20.. Evaluative Dimensions and Measuring Criteria of Metaphoric Creativity ................................................................................................ 126. Table 21.. Demographical Information of the Participants in the Formal Study ..... 130. Table 22.. Results of the English Reading and Writing Proficiency Tests .............. 132. Table 23.. Results of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ............................... 134. Table 24.. Results of the Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity ................................................................................................ 137. Table 25.. Results of the Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors ........................ 140. Table 26.. Statistical Summary of Creative Metaphors ........................................... 141. Table 27.. Results of the Production Task of Creative Metaphors .......................... 142. Table 28.. Correlation Among All the Variables Measured in This Study.............. 147. Table 29.. Intercorrelations Among English Proficiency, Creativity, Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity and Receptive Metaphoric Competence ....... 149. Table 30.. Summary of Regression Analysis on Receptive Metaphoric Competence ............................................................................................ 150. Table 31.. Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Ability to Recognize Creative Metaphors .............................................. 150. Table 32.. Intercorrelations Among English Proficiency, Creativity, Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity and Productive Metaphoric Competence ..... 151. Table 33.. Summary of Regression Analysis on Productive Metaphoric Competence ............................................................................................ 152. Table 34.. Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Ability to Produce Creative Metaphors .................................................. 152. Table 35.. Differences Between the Two Groups in Metaphoric Creativity Skills ....................................................................................................... 155. xv.

(17) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.. Conceptual model of the present study ..................................................... 9. Figure 2.. Types of language creativity ................................................................... 16. Figure 3.. Amabile’s theory of creative performance .............................................. 22. Figure 4.. Runco and Chand’s two-tier model of creative thinking......................... 24. Figure 5.. Types of metonymic associations ............................................................ 45. Figure 6.. The hypothesized model: Expectancy for success .................................. 88. Figure 7.. The hypothesized model: Subjective task value ...................................... 89. Figure 8.. Confirmatory factor analysis of the proposed model: Expectancy for success ............................................................................................... 94. Figure 9.. Confirmatory factor analysis of the proposed model: Subjective task value................................................................................................. 95. Figure 10.. Mean scores of the English reading and writing tests ........................... 133. Figure 11.. Mean scores of creativity thinking abilities........................................... 135. Figure 12.. Mean scores of motivational constructs related to expectancy for success ................................................................................................... 139. Figure 13.. Mean scores of motivational constructs related to subjective task value....................................................................................................... 139. Figure 14.. Mean scores of metaphoric fluency and metaphoric flexibility ............ 144. Figure 15.. Mean scores of metaphoric originality and metaphoric elaboration ..... 144. xvi.

(18) LIST OF FLOW CHARTS Flow Chart 1.. Timeline for Data Collection ........................................................... 116. xvii.

(19) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Creativity has been a heated issue in educational research for decades. In second language acquisition (SLA) research, it has also gained increased attention. Extant SLA research (e.g., Albert & Kormos, 2004; Ottó, 1998) has indicated the important role creativity plays in language learning; nevertheless, this direction of research tends to examine whether creativity as a cognitive ability serves as a valid predictor of L2 learning outcomes. Empirical SLA research has seldom extended to the issue of what factors influence L2 language creativity per se. The present study aimed to bridge creativity and SLA research with a focus on intellectual and psychological factors that may impact English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners’ verbal creativity in English. It specifically explored the predictive power of English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity in EFL learners’ abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. Moreover, to explicate the relationships of motivation to L2 verbal creativity in greater detail, this study also examined how EFL learners’ creativity attitudes contributed to their verbal creativity. Background In 2002, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan proposed the White Paper on Creative Education (2002; WPCE, hereafter), which demonstrated that creativity education has come to the forefront in Taiwanese education. The stated goal of this proposal was to foster Taiwanese people’s creativity and equip them with higher creative potentials and better problem-solving skills. The main impetus to the proposal of the WPCE (2002) were three major problems in Taiwan’s creativity education at the time: (a) insufficient understanding of creativity generally shared by parents, teachers, and the public; (b) neglect of integrating related educational policies. 1.

(20) to consolidate creativity education; and (c) lack of adequate teaching resources that could put creativity education into effect. Owing to these problems, the WPCE intended to cultivate people’s awareness and skills of creativity across five levels: the individual, school, societal, industrial and cultural levels. Since then, particularly related to school education, every year the government subsidizes approximately three to five million US dollars to projects aiming to enhance primary and secondary school students’ creativity (Cheng, Wang, Liu, & Chen, 2010). This policy indicates the highlight of education in Taiwan has made major strides toward the path of developing creative competencies of students. The proposal of the WPCE has further sparked more academic and research interest in the issue of creativity. A close look on National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan1 in September 2010 indicated that only five PhD dissertations completed before the proposal of the WPCE included the terms creativity or creative in the title of the article. However, between August 2003 and July 2009, a total of 45 PhD dissertations contained these two terms in the title. Although the growing number of PhD dissertations related to creativity can be partially attributed to Taiwan’s rapid rise in levels of higher education, it is out of question that the WPCE has also served as a powerful catalyst for the burgeoning interest in creativity research today. Nevertheless, although many creativity studies conducted in the past few years have furthered teachers’ and researchers’ understanding about creativity in varying disciplines such as writing in Chinese (e.g., Chen, 2007) and science (e.g., Chang, 2009; Tsai, 2009), knowledge about the hand creativity can play in English education is comparatively limited. Research in this direction in Taiwan seems to lag behind the rising global interest in language creativity in SLA research. 1. National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan (http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw), powered by National Central Library, is an online up-to-date search engine of MA theses and PhD dissertations completed in Taiwan since the 1950s.. 2.

(21) Language creativity has received increased attention from researchers in applied linguistics and second language studies since mid 1990s (e.g., Carter & McCarthy, 1995; Cook, 1997; Ottó, 1998). Carter and McCarthy (2004) referred to it as a linguistic representation that “involve[s] a single producer who brings about ‘novel’ changes to the language or to forms of language in ways which are innovative and schema-refreshing” (p. 64). In 2007, the international scholarly journal, Applied Linguistics, published a special issue on language creativity in everyday contexts. The guest editors of the issue, Joan Swann and Janet Maybin, selected five research articles related to language creativity in this special issue. All of these articles uphold a common motif that reflects the prevalence of language creativity in communication: “language users do not simply reproduce but recreate, refashion, and recontextualize linguistic and cultural resources in the act of communicating” (Swann & Maybin, 2007, p. 491). This idea has also demonstrated the essential role language creativity plays in daily communication. SLA researchers (e.g., Carter, 2004; Maybin & Swann, 2007) have increasingly expounded the display of language creativity in communication. However, although the growing discussion on language creativity has enhanced SLA teachers’ and researchers’ understanding of what language creativity is, knowledge about what factors may impact L2 language creativity is still rather limited. To bridge this gap, this study, as an exploratory study in this area, looked at how several intellectual and psychological factors may affect learners’ L2 creativity. Drawing on the extant creativity, motivation and SLA research, this study specifically examined how Taiwanese EFL learners’ English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity in English could predict their abilities to interpret and produce creative expressions in English. Rationale for this study will be discussed below by reviewing the relationships of English proficiency, creativity and motivation to creativity.. 3.

(22) Rationale Creativity is influenced by the interaction among many different factors (Amabile, 1996; Runco & Chand, 1995). Amabile’s (1996) model of creative performance and Runco and Chand’s (1995) two-tier model of creative thinking, for example, explicate the reciprocal contribution of multiple cognitive and affective factors to creativity. Amabile (1996) highlights that creative thinking process is affected by three essential components: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation. Doman-related skills refer to domain-related competences such as technical skills. Creativity-relevant skills pertain to cognitive problem-solving skills like abilities to perceive things in a creative way. Task motivation is associated with an individual’s attitude and motivation toward a task he/she will carry out. Like Amabile’s (1996) model, Runco and Chand’s (1995) two-tier model of creative thinking takes into account three similar components: the creative problem-solving process, knowledge, and motivation. The creative problem-solving process vignettes the reciprocal process involving discovery of a problem, generation of ideas, and evaluation of ideas. Knowledge, including both procedural and declarative knowledge, serves as the information basis that influences the problem-solving process. Motivation, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, enables an individual to unleash his/her creative potential. Most importantly, Runco and Chand’s (1995) model prioritizes creative problem-solving process as the primary component, while knowledge and motivation are considered secondary contributors. Nevertheless, while Amabile’s (1996) and Runco and Chand’s (1995) models highlight the significance of multiple cognitive and affective components to creative thinking and performance, both models do not clearly address the comparative importance of these components. This gap of research motivated the present study to put to empirical test the effects of three different factors, which can be seen as representative of the. 4.

(23) components discussed above. To be specific, this study was proposed to examine how well English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity in English could predict verbal creativity in English (see Figure 1). These three variables were selected primarily owing to three reasons. First of all, English proficiency may contribute to L2 verbal creativity because it serves as a type of knowledge base. Creativity research (e.g., Feldhusen, 1995; Kousoulas, 2010; Sternberg, 1988) highlights that knowledge base is critical to an individual’s creative thinking. Individuals generate creative ideas depending on their knowledge base through idea extension, modification or combination (Sternberg, 1988, as cited in Feldhusen, 1995). Having adequate knowledge base is thus foundational for an individual to be creative (Feldhusen, 1995, 2006; Kaufman, 2009; Scott, 1999; Sternberg, 2003). An essential component of knowledge base is domain-relevant skills (Feldhusen, 1995). Amabile (1996) underscores that domain-relevant skills that are important to creative thinking include knowledge about the domain, required technical skills, and special talent in the domain. Because English proficiency can be deemed as a kind of domain knowledge, it may thus serve as an important knowledge base that helps an individual to interpret and produce creative expressions in L2 skillfully. Conversely, Runco and Chand (1995) and Sternberg and Lubart (1995, 1999) have also stated that knowledge may reversely suppress creative thinking. To be more specific, individuals with too much acquired domain knowledge may be over-accustomed to operating on their knowledge structures so as to yield ideas in a conventional fashion, with less ideational flexibility that is fundamental for creative thinking (Hofstadter, 1986; Runco, 1995, as cited in Runco, 2005). In the case of language creativity, English proficiency as a type of domain knowledge may obstruct creativity in the target language rather than encouraging it. When learners become. 5.

(24) more proficient in English, they are likely to show higher conformity to conventional English rules to interpret and produce expressions so that they may lose their creative flexibility. In sum, because the effect of English proficiency in English verbal creativity is inconclusive, this issue thus deserves more research investigation. Secondly, creativity can be identified as special “creative cognition” that helps to generate new and appropriate ideas in the language domain (Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999, p. 189). In this study, creativity thinking abilities are specifically discussed as an individual’s fluency, flexibility and originality in creating novel ideas verbally. According to Amabile’s (1996) model, these creative thinking abilities are associated with creativity-relevant skills. As creativity-relevant skills affect an individual’s creative thinking and performance (Amabile, 1996), learners’ fluency, flexibility and originality in idea generation may potentially impact their abilities to interpret and produce creative expressions in the target language. However, very limited studies have investigated this issue. The dearth of research in this area thus motivated this study to explore how creative thinking abilities affected verbal creativity. The third focus of the present study is on the interface of L2 creativity and motivation toward verbal creativity. Motivation has been a well-established issue in creativity research. Empirical investigations of its relationship to creativity (e.g., Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Greer & Levine, 1991; Prabhu, Sutton, & Sauser, 2008) have indicated that intrinsic motivation enhances learners’ creative behavior while extrinsic motivation obstructs creativity. Nevertheless, other studies (e.g., Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994) have shown that extrinsic motivation can promote creative behavior in specific situations. Apart from intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Runco (2005) pointed out that achievement, which is concerned with “the attainment of some goal or goals” for an individual, may also affect motivation as a powerful force (p. 615). Achievement. 6.

(25) motivation may be conceptualized as an individual’s intrapersonal goals regarding a certain task (Elliot & McGregor, 2001, as cited in Runco, 2005). While it has seldom been applied to investigations of the relationships between motivation and creativity, people’s intrapersonal standards such as goals (e.g., Runco, 2005) also very likely influence creative thinking. Although the role that motivation plays in creative thinking has rarely been investigated from the standpoint of achievement motivation (Runco, 2005), owing to the importance of intrapersonal standards, it deserves researchers’ attention to examine how an individual’s intrapersonal standards affect creativity. The Eccles and colleagues’ model (e.g., Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala, Meece, & Midgley, 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995) of the Expectancy-Value Theory, which puts a great emphasis on an individual’s goal-related intrapersonal standards, provides a sound theoretical framework for research in this direction. This study investigated the interface of creativity and motivation primarily based on the Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) of achievement motivation proposed by Eccles and her colleagues (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000). The EVT has a strong theoretical basis on cognitive factors in the regulation of human behaviors (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). It was also developed to account for the socio-cultural aspect of motivation (Eccles, 2005; Schunk & Pajares, 2005). Because language creativity is generated under the influence of different socio-cultural factors such as social context and interaction types (Carter, 2004), grounding this study in the EVT seems better able to capture how motivation-related psychological and socio-cultural factors influence L2 verbal creativity. In addition to examining the predictability of English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation, this study also attempted to investigate the correlation between EFL learners’ ability to interpret creative metaphors and their ability to produce. 7.

(26) creative metaphors. Creativity research has considerably emphasized an individual’s ability to produce creative products while how individuals perceive creative products is often ignored. Because learners’ abilities to interpret and produce are both considered essential creative metaphoric competences, they are expected to be correlated with each other. The present focus on their correlation will reveal whether an individual’s abilities to perceive and produce creative products are closely associated. Last but not least, this study also intended to investigate the relationships of motivation to L2 verbal creativity in greater depth by looking at EFL learners’ creativity attitudes toward L2 verbal creativity. Kormos, Kiddle and Csizér (2011) reviewed that attitude can be generally defined as “emotional precursors of the initiation of learning behavior” (p. 497). Researchers (e.g., Gardner, 1985, 2006; Kormos et al., 2011; Peak, 1955) have also highlighted that attitude is closely related to motivation in many aspects. Gardner (1985, 2006), for example, claimed that attitude toward issues related to language learning, such as the native speakers of the target language, the language instructor, the course design and the learning situation, is an essential component of motivation. Furthermore, Kormos et al. (2011) proposed an interactive model of second language motivation emphasizing the interplay of several motivational constructs including L2 learners’ goals, attitudes and self-related beliefs. By testing the validity of this model, they discovered that attitudes toward an L2 cast a strong impact on learners’ motivated behaviors by exerting their persistence and effort. To sum up, due to the fact that attitude is a critical motivational factor, the present focus on learners’ attitudinal differences may further clarify how to enhance learners’ verbal creativity in English by instilling adequate creativity attitudes in them.. 8.

(27) QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS. Creativity Motivation. English Proficiency. Creative Thinking Abilities. Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity. Creativity Attitude. Abilities to Interpret and Produce Creative Metaphors in English Figure 1. Conceptual model of the present study Purposes of the Study Due to the problems and rationales discussed above, the present study attempted to investigate the relationships of English proficiency, creativity and motivation toward verbal creativity to EFL learners’ verbal creativity in English. In this study, verbal creativity specifically refers to abilities to interpret and produce creative language. It is generally accepted that interpretive ability as a receptive skill develops prior to productive ability. This is to say, some learners may have better receptive abilities than their productive abilities, while others may have both receptive and productive abilities adequately developed. Examining both abilities can present a more comprehensive picture of L2 creativity. Language creativity, as discussed in related literature on language play, can be categorized in terms of formal, semantic, and pragmatic levels (Cook, 2000). Due to its pioneering nature, the focus of this research was limited to one level of language creativity, that is, the semantic level of language creativity. Because metaphoric processing is related to an individual’s semantic knowledge (Holme, 2004; Ungerer & Schmid, 2006), this study specifically looked at EFL learners’ L2 metaphoric. 9.

(28) creativity, that is, their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. This study was conducted with two research foci: (1) to explore the extent to which EFL learners’ English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity in English predict their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English, and (2) to explicate how EFL learners with different levels of metaphoric competences vary in their perceptions regarding verbal creativity in English. In the first phase, this study would clarify whether English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity are valid predictors of learners’ abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors. In the second phase, this study intended to take a step further to explore how learners of different creative metaphoric competences differ in their attitudes toward verbal creativity. Research Questions This study aimed to bridge the gap of creativity and SLA research by exploring the predictability of EFL learners’ English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward L2 verbal creativity in their verbal abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. It intended to address two research questions: 1. How well can EFL learners’ English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity in English predict their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English? 2. What are the creativity attitudes among EFL learners of different abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English? The first question explored how well the three independent variables could predict abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. The second question investigated creativity attitudes of learners that show different levels of metaphoric competence so as to uncover their perceptual differences and explicate the relationship between their creativity attitudes and verbal creativity skills in English.. 10.

(29) Significance of the Study Creativity research has accumulated a great deal of new knowledge and thinking about how creativity works since the mid-twentieth century, but L2 learners’ verbal creativity has been a rarely explored issue. Aiming to bridge creativity and SLA research, this study may have theoretical, pedagogical and instrumental contributions. On the theoretical level, this study attempted to investigate how several intellectual and psychological factors may influence EFL learners’ abilities to interpret and produce creative expressions in the target language. Extant SLA studies (e.g., Albert & Kormos, 2004; Ottó, 1998) with a focus on creativity often explored its correlation with or predictability of L2 learning outcomes. Knowledge about how multiple factors may influence creative performance is rather limited. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify how English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity in English predict verbal creativity in L2 as well as comparing the predictive power of these factors in a more thorough way. The clarification of these issues is not only essential for integrating the extant theories of creativity, motivation and SLA research but crucial for understanding EFL learners’ creativity dynamics in L2. On the pedagogical level, findings of this study can provide pedagogical recommendations regarding the integration of creativity education into English classrooms. Plucker, Beghetto and Dow (2004) highlighted that how creativity can be incorporated into classroom settings has made very slow progress in creativity research over the past few decades. With regard to English education, how to enhance learners’ verbal creativity in English is also rarely explored. By explicating the potential interplay of the focused variables, this study can help teachers become more cognizant of how learners’ English proficiency, creativity, and motivation toward verbal creativity may affect their verbal creativity in English. Plucker and Dow (2010) highlighted that creativity attitudes may directly affect. 11.

(30) how people apply creativity in their lives; nevertheless, many unhelpful myths prevalently existing in the society may have mistakenly led to people’s inaccurate attitudes toward what creativity really is. To enhance learners’ creativity, they proposed that it is necessary to identify and change people’s deep-seated misconceptions regarding creativity. The present study, also in part inspired by Plucker and Dow’s (2010) claim, explored the effects of learners’ creativity attitudes on their verbal creativity in English. This investigation will further SLA teachers’ and researchers’ understanding regarding how to mold adequate creativity concepts into EFL learners so as to enhance their L2 verbal creativity. Last but not least, with regard to the instrumental implications of the study, the present study developed three measurement instruments that had not been discussed in extant research, including a questionnaire evaluating learners’ creativity motivation toward verbal creativity, and two tests assessing their ability to interpret or produce creative metaphors. All of these instruments were developed through rigorous tests and further pilot-tested on several groups of university students. They could be useful to teachers and researchers interested in obtaining more understanding about EFL learners’ creativity motivation and creative metaphoric competences. They may also serve as a guide for teachers or researchers to develop questionnaires or metaphor tests alike to assess learners’ creativity motivational orientation and abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors. Definitions of Creativity and Language Creativity Creativity Creativity has been defined in various ways by creativity researchers. By a meta-analytic review, Plucker et al. (2004) indicated the definitions of creativity provided in academic journal articles surrounded several defining features, including unique, artistic, psychometric, usefulness, stakeholder, accessible, divergent thinking,. 12.

(31) problem solving, and others. Of all these features of creativity, Plucker et al. (2004) stressed that the most common ones are unique, useful, and involving aspects of divergent thinking. For instance, Rubenstein (2000) associated creativity with novel and unique ideas, and Schuldberg (2001) considered divergent thinking skill an essential part of creativity as inspired by Guilford (1982). Nevertheless, the defining inconsistency also points out the lack of a well-accepted, precise definition in the creativity research (Plucker et al., 2004). Considering this “definition problem,” Plucker et al. (2004) provided an integrated definition of creativity: Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context. (emphasis in the original; Plucker et al., 2004, p. 90) Based on their definition, a creative product is generated under the influence of different personal factors (e.g., aptitude, motivation, beliefs, and attitude), thinking processes (e.g., divergent thinking), and the social environment (e.g., creativityvalued contexts). It also has to be a noticeable product which is considered both novel and useful in a certain social setting. The integrated conceptualization of creativity proposed by Plucker et al. provides a useful operational definition of creativity with most key aspects of creativity highlighted (Baer & Kaufman, 2005). Language Creativity Language creativity can be identified as a specific domain of creativity (Baer, 1991, 1998; Niu, 2003). According to Carter and McCarthy (2004), creative use of language has many functions, such as allowing language users to look at the content of a message from a new angle, to highlight their attitudes, to emphasize key points in a message, or to entertain others with humorous expressions. Creative language can. 13.

(32) make things more salient and memorable as well. For example, advertisers like to manipulate creative language to grab attention from customers. Crystal (1998) highlighted that creative and easily-memorable playful language in an advertisement can make customers “notice the ad…[and become] capable of singling out that product from the array of similar products display” (p. 94). Understanding notions of language play can shed some light on how language creativity can be conceptualized because language play is a common representation of language creativity (e.g., Crystal, 1998; Tarone, 2002). Crystal’s (1998) definition of language play emphasizes the linguistic sense of language play and he refers to it as the playful process of manipulating “some linguistic feature— such as a word, a phrase, a sentence, a part of a word, a group of sounds, a series of letters— and make[ing] it do things it does not normally do” mainly for fun and enjoyment (p. 1). Cook (2000) proposed three types of language play— formal, semantic, and pragmatic levels: Play of forms primarily relates to the use of formal patterns, exact wording and repetition; play of semantic meaning denotes the manipulation of meaning such as using semantically ambiguous words; play of pragmatic use emphasizes pragmatic performance that focuses more on social interaction and relationships. To sum up, this distinction of language play indicates that language creativity can be discussed across formal, semantic, and pragmatic features. A precise operational definition of language creativity is essential for a study on language creativity, and more importantly, an integrated definition is necessary to truly reflect creativity in the language domain without unduly restrictions. Building on previous works in creativity and language creativity (e.g., Cook, 2000; Crystal, 1998; Plucker et al., 2004; Widdowson, 2008), a working definition of language creativity integrating cognitive and linguistic aspects of creativity was proposed in this study: Language creativity is driven by a specific cognitive intelligence possessed by. 14.

(33) every individual. It mainly emerges from the interaction of aptitude, process, and environment, by which language users produce a perceptible language product in either spoken or written form. The creative language product involves a novel use of formal patterns, semantic meanings, or formal-semantic relationships. It must be seen pragmatically appropriate and comprehensible by the audience in a social context. This definition highlights two main linguistic characteristics of language creativity. On one hand, language creativity can be fundamentally discussed across the formal, semantic, and pragmatic senses. The present research takes a step further to include both formal and semantic senses into the larger pragmatic circle. The illustration showing two formal and semantic circles embedded within the pragmatic circle (see Figure 2) emphasizes that language creativity must have its concomitant pragmatic function, no matter whether it is form- or meaning-based. This echoes Widdowson’s (2008) claim that language creativity has to be discussed in relation to its pragmatic sense. On the other hand, as previous studies (e.g., Cekaite & Aronsson, 2005) have stressed that language play can sometimes serve both semantic and syntactic purposes, this model includes a formal-semantic interface of formal pattern and semantic meaning. This interface features a critical property of language creativity that it can also rest with manipulations of formal pattern and semantic meaning at the same time.. 15.

(34) Pragmatic Level Functions. Formal. Patterns. Level Patterns. and Meanings. Semantic Level Meanings. Figure 2. Types of language creativity In Chapter One, I have presented the background of and rationale behind the present study. To address the research issues, I will review research particularly into the areas of creativity, the interplay of creativity and achievement motivation, language creativity, and the relation of language creativity with language play and metaphoric competence.. 16.

(35) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter presents a theoretical and empirical review of two major lines of research— creativity and language creativity. The first section reviews the defining notions, cognitive processes, and measurement instruments of creativity. Most importantly, it discusses factors that affect creative thinking and performance, and the interface of creativity and motivation. The second section touches upon language creativity and it explores definitions of language creativity and other issues related to language creativity, including language play and metaphoric competence. Notions of Creativity Creativity research will be reviewed with respect to the definitions and measures of creativity, factors affecting creativity, and the interplay of creativity and motivation. Defining Creativity The ideas of creativity developed over centuries ago (cf. Becker, 1995; Kaufman, 2009). Nevertheless, it is generally believed that contemporary scientific creativity research started when Joy P. Guildford, the former president of American Psychological Association, gave his presidential speech in 1950, wherein Guilford pointed out that creativity as a neglected topic for psychological research required more research attention from psychologists (Kaufman, 2009; Plucker & Makel, 2010). Guilford’s (1950) call for attention to creativity research lays an essential pathway for contemporary creativity research. Now as a widely studied issue in educational psychology, creativity has attracted abundant research attention. The growing interest in creativity research has also unavoidably led to variations in the definitions of creativity (cf. Cropley, 1999; Plucker et al., 2004). For example, Gardner (1989) considered creativity to be “the human capacity”. 17.

(36) that helps to generate novel and culturally acceptable solutions to a problem (p. 14). Feldhausen and Westby (2003) identified creativity as the ability to produce new, novel, or unique production of ideas, plans, problem solutions, works of arts, poems, and so on. With a different focus, Edwards (2001) emphasized that for creativity to occur, an individual must be willing to explore and accept new ideas even though they are unknown and may be hard to manage. Although a lack of consistent and universally-agreed definition was obvious even 60 years after Guildford’s 1950 presidential speech, the definition provided by Plucker et al. (2004) presents an integrated perspective of creativity that synthesizes the many defining features discussed in the literature. They defined creativity as follows: Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context. (emphasis in the original; p. 90) They conceptualized creativity as a psychological construct that depends on four major dynamic components. To begin with, creativity builds on the interaction of aptitude, process, and environment. Learner aptitude refers to innate cognitive characteristics or skills that can develop through training or learning. These cognitive characteristics and related cognitive processes of creativity are under the influence of environmental factors, which can positively or negatively affect the emergence of creativity. Second, creativity must be demonstrated in an observable product or behavior. An observable product provides people with tangible evidence to judge what is creative and what is not creative. The third feature of creativity relies on novelty and usefulness of the product. As the most widely-mentioned feature of creativity in the extant research, novelty and usefulness are considered two different aspects of creativity, and their mutual interaction determines the likelihood for a product to be judged as creative (Plucker et al., 2004). The interaction. 18.

(37) between novelty and usefulness also indicates that a creative product must be not only novel in its nature but useful in terms of its application. Lastly, a social context is necessary for the judgment of a creative product. Plucker et al. (2004) stressed that creativity must be judged within a social context. The social context provides the overall framework in which a perceptible product is considered novel and useful as compared to others in the same social setting. This integrated definition by Plucker et al. provides a theoretical basis regarding how language creativity is defined in this study. Cognitive Processes of Creative Thinking Creative thinking involves complex cognitive processing (Runco & Chand, 1995). To account for its complex processing, many theoretical models of creative thinking have been proposed, such as Amabile’s (1996) theory of creative performance, Sternberg’s (1988) three-facet model of creativity, Sternberg and Lubart’s (1991, 1992, 1995, 1996) investment theory of creativity, and Urban’s (2003) components model of creativity. Reviewed in this section are two models of creative thinking in which knowledge and motivation play a key but distinct role— Amabile’s (1996) theory of creative performance, and Runco and Chand’s (1995) two-tier model of creative thinking. These models are representative “componential models” that take into account the value of knowledge and motivation in creative thinking; nevertheless, they present a different value on the role knowledge and motivation play in creative thinking. Amabile (1983) strengthens that creativity is “a behavior resulting from particular constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments” (p. 358). Grounded in this rationale, Amabile’s (1996) theory of creativity highlights that creative performance rests with the interplay of three major components: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation (see Figure 3). First of all, domain-relevant skills are general domain-related competences and they mainly include. 19.

(38) an individual’s knowledge about the domain, technical skills, and domain-related talent. Knowledge about the domain concerns an individual’s domain-related knowledge and opinions; for instance, a creative writer must have at least some knowledge about different genres of writing. Technical skills refer to knowledge and competences in using domain-related techniques; for instance, a creative choreographer must have some knowledge about a range of dancing steps and tools that can be incorporated in the dance. Domain-related talent means an individual’s natural talent to do things in the target domain well. Taken together, these skills are considered foundational for any creative performance, and they are likened to a “complete set of response possibilities” that allows an individual to generate alternative responses and provide a common standard against which the new responses can be compared (Amabile, 1996, p. 85). Amabile strengthens that the more competent people are in their domain-relevant skills, the better they are at generating alternative novel responses to solve a problem. The second component of creative performance is creativity-relevant skills, which are related to an individual’s cognitive styles, knowledge of heuristics, and creativityprone work style. Cognitive style refers to an individual’s cognitive competences in solving a problem, and Amabile (1996) provides a list of creativity-related characteristics including the abilities to remember things accurately and to perceive things creatively. Knowledge of heuristics means knowledge about rules and principles that helps an individual to approach a problem by generating ideas and selecting the appropriate ones for solution. Creativity-prone work style denotes an individual’s abilities to process information or cognitive states that are preferable to creative idea generation. Based on several empirical works (e.g., Bergman, 1979; Prentky, 1980; Walberg, 1971), Amabile (1996) highlights that creativity-prone work style includes many features like an individual’s willingness to concentrate on the problem with effort and persistence. She. 20.

(39) also proposes that creativity-relevant skills operate very generally, and people considered highly creative in one domain can often perform creatively in other domains. Thirdly, Amabile’s (1996) model considers task motivation one of the essential elements of creative performance. Task motivation refers to motivational variables that influence an individual’s disposition while carrying out a certain task. It involves the individual’s attitude toward a task by considering the match or mismatch between the task and his/her interests, and perceptions of his/her reasons to perform the task. Both task-related attitude and perceptions rest with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and perceptions of reasons to carry out a task depend especially heavily on extrinsic motivation. Amabile highlights that intrinsic motivation is more likely to stimulate creative performance, whereas extrinsic motivation tends to obstruct creative performance. In addition, Amabile proposes that task motivation is manipulated in a specific way because motivation varies across different types of tasks. In other words, a person highly motivated to be creative in one task may be uninterested in another. In her model of creative performance, Amabile (1996) further points out that domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation are interactive in nature. More importantly, task motivation directly affects domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills. In general, each of the three components contributes to the process of creative thinking as an individual mechanism. Domain-relevant skills provide essential cognitive resources for idea generation, while creativity-relevant skills, serving as “an executive controller,” influence how responses are identified and processed (p. 93). Task motivation casts an impact on how an individual perceives a problem to be solved and how well responses are processed in the cognitive system. For example, an individual who is highly motivated to succeed in a task may want to learn more about the task domain and be more risk-taking during idea-generation process. To sum up, Amabile’s. 21.