Creativity studies

ISSN 2345-0479 / eISSN 2345-0487

2020 Volume 13 Issue 2: 270–291
https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.11027

ENHANCING CREATIVITY AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS

THROUGH CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING IN TEACHING
MATHEMATICS

Madihah KHALID 1, Supiah SAAD1, Siti Rafiah ABDUL HAMID 1, Muhammad

RIDHUAN ABDULLAH 1, Hasniza IBRAHIM 1*, Masitah SHAHRILL 2
1Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education,

International Islamic University Malaysia, P.O. Box 10, 50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam,

Jalan Tungku Link, BE1410, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei

Received 1 August 2019; accepted 18 March 2020

Abstract. In recent years, calls to nurture and teach creativity from an early age in schools has intensi-
fied. Creativity is something regular in the teaching of arts subjects but is not a common feature in
teaching science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. However, what really matters,
is how the subject is being taught. This research aimed to foster creativity through the teaching of
mathematics via problem solving that challenges the solving of problems in a creative manner, which
is defined as creative problem solving. This quasi-experimental study investigates changes in students
learning of mathematics via creative problem solving. Altogether, 172 Form 1 students forming treat-
ment and comparison groups from four schools in Gombak District area, Malaysia were involved. A
mixed qualitative and quantitative data were collected to investigate the effect of the 3 cycles of creative
problem solving lessons implemented. Instruments used were Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, a
mathematics problem solving test and creativity checklist. This paper will only present the quantitative
data obtained. Results show statistically significant increases in scores for most categories of creativity
and problem solving tests. This research brought together teachers and researchers in trialling creative
problem solving to teach mathematics, to achieve the enhancement of students’ creative thinking and
problem solving skills. This coincided with the introduction of Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah
with new emphasis to strengthen the quality of science, technology, engineering and mathematics
education in general, where higher-order thinking reforms are emphasized.

Keywords: creativity test, creativity in mathematics, enhancing problem solving ability, learning math-
ematics via problem solving, lesson study, new Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah syllabus.

Introduction
Creativity has many meanings to different people. Some believe that it is being imaginative
or inventive, while others associate creativity with original thinking or producing something
that nobody has come up with before. Creativity is also related to a person’s attitude. People

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author
and source are credited.
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 271

can develop a set of attitudes which may influence them into becoming creative, where they
are willing to persevere and attempt their own way of accomplishing something. Robert J.
Sternberg explained creativity by saying,
“Among the attitudes toward life that may generate a person’s creativity is the will-
ingness to (a) redefine problems in novel ways, (b) take sensible risks, (c) “sell” ideas
that others might not initially accept, (d) persevere in the face of obstacles, and (e) ex-
amine whether their own preconceptions are interfering with their creative process”
(2012, p. 5).

No matter what creativity is believed to be, it is at the foundation of innovation which is

one of the vital ingredients for a country’s development, especially for the knowledge-based
economy. Hence, having creative workforce is important for any country to move forward.
Fortunately, every person has the potential to be creative, and creativity is closely related to
ideas, feelings, mind, experience and the need of an individual. Four aspects were identified
in defining creativity:
“1) Interaction of aptitude, process, and environment; 2) Perceptible product, 3) Novel
and useful results in new and useful identifiable product for society and 4) Social con-
text” (Plucker et al., 2004, pp. 90–92).

In mathematics, creativity is resulted when students conceive and create novel approaches
to solving problems that are carefully planned by their mathematics teacher. Aspects of cre-
ativity that is appropriate for their level may be demonstrated as a result of their personal
inquiry. In this study, the process of using creativity to produce novel solutions to the care-
fully planned problems is known as Creative Problem Solving (CPS). CPS has a dual role to
enhance students’ problem solving skills as well as their creativity. Hence, CPS skills refer
to the ability of individuals to solve problems through the development of creative and bril-
liant ideas. The teaching strategies involve a process of reasoning that encourages students
to think through critical questions and appropriate discussions. Discussions and exposure to
a variety of methods can stimulate students’ desire to be more creative in solving problems
and motivate them to learn.
Teaching creativity is feasible in other subjects too. James (2015, p. 1032) claimed that it
is possible to establish creativity-enhancing learning environment. Her paper (James, 2015,
p. 1041) suggested that mind shifts, reflective and intentional practice, and renewed energy
are required to create learning environment that enhance creativity successfully. Another
study by Kaplan (2019, p. 145) on teaching for creativity development related how a course
for trainee teachers was successful in inspiring those teacher candidates in applying and
analyzing creativity theory to instruction. Hence, acknowledging the importance of creativ-
ity and viability of teaching creativity to school children, this research study was undertaken
to investigate the impact of CPS in the subject of mathematics on Form 1 (Year 7) students’
creativity and problem solving skills.
Isoda (2010, p. 17) claimed that problem solving approach is a consequence of lesson
study in Japan since more than a century ago. It is also considered a theory of teaching for the
subject of mathematics that involved inculcating self-learning for Japanese school children
(Isoda, 2010, p. 17) which embrace learning how to learn. Meanwhile, Lesh and Zawojewski
(2007, p. 782) clarified that learning of mathematics should be organized through problem
272 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

solving, and proposed a shift from traditional views of problem solving to one that empha-
sizes, “synergistic relationships between learning and problem solving”. This include:
“the process of interpreting a situation mathematically, which usually involves several
iterative cycles of expressing, testing and revising mathematical interpretations – and
sorting out, integrating, modifying, revising and or refining clusters of mathematical
concepts from various topics within and beyond mathematics” (Lesh & Zawojewski,
2007, p. 782).

1. Creativity and mathematics

1.1. Creativity in general
Creativity is at the foundation of innovation which is one of the vital ingredients for our
country’s development. Creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value
(Robinson & Aronica, 2015, p. 118), and is further divided into two concepts – putting
imagination to work (creativity) and putting new ideas into practice (innovation).
Ken Robinson was quoted as famously saying that “schools kill creativity” at the of-
ficial TED conference in 2006. He asserted that the school environment does not seem to
favour the inculcation of creativity. This include the pedagogy applied by some teachers
that do not only fail to enhance creativity, but make students uncreative, because they are
not given a chance to express their creativity especially in a mathematics class. According
to him (Robinson, 2006), we should also acknowledge multiple types of intelligence, and
argued that the way we are educating our children should be examined, since creativity can
be cultivated to produce creative students.
It is believed that creativity can be nurtured using the appropriate creative environment
because interaction with the everyday creative environment is the most powerful possibil-
ity of nurturing creativity in individuals, especially in children (Mellou, 1996; Ayob et al.,
2011; Trawick-Smith, 2014). Nurturing creativity in school is possible through continuous
enrichment of children’s environment, such as development of creative programs for cre-
ative thinking, and may be fostered across many content areas. Teachers may teach content
and infuse thinking skills particularly creativity without much fuss. However, teachers need
to be clear with the teaching objectives and learning outcomes. Additionally, the teachers
need to identify the right type of learning activities that can be employed and participated
by students (Costa, 2001, p. 246).

1.2. Creativity in mathematics and problem solving

Upon examining the pedagogy of teaching mathematics in many countries, it was found that
mathematics is associated with rote-memorization of formulas or procedures and seat work
(Novak, 2010; Greeno, 2017). Although there is a role for rote-learning, memorized knowl-
edge is not half as useful as knowledge that is actually understood. Rote-learning makes
mathematics lesson boring and led to many students hating mathematics. An article about
the notion of mathematical creativity by Liljedahl and Sriraman (2006, p. 19), proposed that,
mathematical creativity at the school level can be thought of as:
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 273

1. The process that results in unusual (novel) and/or insightful solution(s) to a given
problem or analogous problems, and/or
2. The formulation of new questions and/or possibilities that allow an old problem to be
regarded from a new angle.
The important role of problem solving is obvious in the two statements above and creativ-
ity in mathematics can be promoted through problem solving. Ellwood, Pallier, Snyder, and
Gallate (2009, p. 1) claimed that there is a great overlap between the literature on creativity
and that on problem solving, while Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004, pp. 83–84) consider
creativity as an important component of problem solving. Chamberlin and Moon (2005,
p. 38) define creativity in mathematics as an unusual ability to generate novel and useful
solutions to simulated or real applied problems using mathematical modeling. Consequently,
Posamentier, Smith, and Stepelman (2009, p. 121), claimed that “solving a problem is like
inventing something new”. The role of problem solving in promoting creativity is clear, hence
students should be engaged with challenging problems and be made to experience this aspect
of CPS. This research attempted to nurture creativity through mathematical problem solv-
ing, namely CPS, a problem solving approach with the emphasis on creativity. Creativity is
achieved through solving problems which are open-ended and appropriate to the context of
the topics chosen.
Given that creativity is teachable, we will now define creativity in school mathematics. The
appropriate definition for creativity at school level is given by Sriraman (2005, p. 24) which
is “The process that results in unusual and/or insightful solution(s) to a given problem or
analogous problems”. Meanwhile, Liljedahl and Sriraman defined mathematical creativity as:
“the ability to produce original work that significantly extends the body of knowl-
edge which could also include significant syntheses and extensions of known ideas”
(2006, p. 18).

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics document defines problem solving in

mathematics education as “engaging in a task for which the solution method is not known
in advance” (2000, p. 52). In trying to execute problem solving, students must utilize their
knowledge in finding a solution to a problem, a process which would lead to new discovery
and mathematical understandings. On the other hand, other features that students could
acquire by learning the method of problem solving in mathematics are,
“ways of thinking, habits of persistence and curiosity, and confidence in unfamiliar
situations that will serve them well outside the mathematics classroom” (National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000).

Problem solving is also considered as one of the most important skills in the 21st century
that a student should possess because of the many advantages that a good problem solver
would enjoy in everyday life and in the workplace. Therefore, problem solving should be
considered an integral part of mathematics learning and it should not be viewed as exercises
that students perform at the end of every topic from the school textbook.
Observe the nature of the workforce today, and it can be seen that machines are taking
over the repetitive actions in a job task. Additionally, one in ten persons encounter more
complex problems that require at least 30 minutes to solve, which imply the demand for
complex problem solving skills in many highly skilled managerial, professional and techni-
274 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

cal occupations (OECD, 2014a, p. 13). Because of the importance of problem solving, Pro-
gram for International Student Assessment (PISA), besides testing 15-year old students on
mathematics, science and reading, also focuses testing students on problem solving. In 2003,
students were given a series of paper-based exercises to test their problem solving skills. Then
in 2012, computer-based and the student’s interaction with the problem were introduced
(OECD, 2013, p. 120). In 2012, PISA defines CPS competency as:
“an individual’s capacity to engage in cognitive processing to understand and resolve
problem situations where a method of solution is not immediately obvious. It includes
the willingness to engage with such situations in order to achieve one’s potential as a
constructive and reflective citizen” (OECD, 2013, p. 122).

Hence, teaching mathematics through problem solving is a term used to describe the
method of teaching where the teaching of mathematics topics is focused through problem
solving contexts and enquiry-oriented environments. This method of teaching is demon-
strated by the teacher,
“helping students to construct a deep understanding of mathematical ideas and pro-
cesses by engaging them in doing mathematics: creating, conjecturing, exploring,
testing, and verifying” (Lester et al., 1994, p. 154).

1.3. Problem statement

Malaysian 15-year old students did not score well in the PISA 2012 result for CPS. Malaysia
ranked 39 out of 44 countries participating in the assessment. Our students scored 421 in
mathematics and 422 in problem solving while the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development averages were 511 and 500 respectively (2014c, p. 52). About half of our
students were in level 1 and below in problem solving. Only about 1% was among the top
performers who are able to solve the most complex problems at levels 5 and 6 while the rest
are concentrated at level 2, while some at level 3 (OECD, 2014b, p. 57).
Many of the elements of teaching and learning has been identified by the Ministry of Edu-
cation (Malaysia) (MEM) as initiatives to create a direct impact on the quality of education;
both through student outcomes that are related to curriculum and instruction (including
assessment) and teachers’ teaching (2013, p. 45). However, Mathematics teaching in many
schools in Malaysia can still be characterized as teacher-centred (Lim, 2010; Saleh & Aziz,
2012). This is contrary to the recommendation by the MEM where it was already suggested
in 2003 for teachers to incorporate five elements in teaching and learning mathematics – i.e.
problem solving in mathematics; communication in mathematics; reasoning in mathematics;
mathematical connections; and application of technology, should be the focus (Ministry of
Education, Malaysia, 2003, cited in Lim, 2010, p. 4). The document further proposed a vari-
ety of other teaching approaches such as cooperative learning, contextual learning, mastery
learning, constructivism, enquiry/discovery learning, etc. However, until now many teach-
ers are still employing their traditional teaching practices or strategies and students are still
learning in the way that does not mirror the recommendations given by the MEM.
The new Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah (KSSM) introduced in early 2017 in
Malaysia, saw changes in the mathematics syllabus (such as more topics to be taught at Form
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 275

1 level with some topics being from higher levels before) that made the teachers unprepared
and in need of help. The researchers believe that managing and coping with the syllabus can
be organized via teaching through problem solving, while teachers should be given appropri-
ate training/coaching in order to shift their way of teaching that conform to the new cur-
riculum. Teachers need to work closely with each other to design their classroom instruction
and practice what they learnt directly by trialing and examining their instructional design
together. Fostering creativity can be encouraged through teaching using the problem solving
approach.

1.4. Research objectives and research questions

This paper presents the result of a study which investigate the effect of teaching CPS in math-
ematics to Malaysian or Form 1 children. The main effect that was examined is the change
in students’ creativity, which were measured quantitatively and qualitatively. Consequently,
the effect on students’ ability to solve problems and the relationship between them are also
examined. Any changes in students who participated in this study were documented, par-
ticularly those changes during and after going through the intervention. This study is guided
by the following research questions:
1. Are there differences in children’s creativity after intervention, as measured through
the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and observation checklist?
2. What are the changes in children’s mathematical problem solving ability after inter-
vention?
3. Is there any relationship between creativity and problem solving ability after learning
through CPS?

1.5. Theoretical and conceptual framework

Among the attitudes toward life that may generate a person’s creativity is the willingness to
(a) redefine problems in novel ways, (b) take sensible risks, (c) “sell” ideas that others might
not initially accept, (d) persevere in the face of obstacles, and (e) examine whether their own
preconceptions are interfering with their creative process (Sternberg, 2012, p. 5). Such at-
titudes are teachable and can be ingrained in students through instructions that encourages
them to think for themselves. Sternberg stated that
“Creativity comprises several different aspects: (a) abilities, (b) knowledge, (c) styles
of thinking, (d) personality attributes, (e) motivation, especially intrinsic motivation,
and (f) environment” (2006, p. 88),

and can be suppressed if a person is unwilling to take sensible risks or if he/she is not in
the environment that provides at least minimal support for creativity. It is thus crucially
important, especially in schools, to provide an environment that allows creativity to flourish.
One of the most common frameworks for creative thinking was developed by Torrance
(1971, p. 76) with four aspects of creativity namely – fluency, flexibility, originality and elabo-
ration. He later dropped flexibility in 1984 and added two other aspects – resistance to pre-
276 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

mature closure and abstractness of titles in his figural test. Torrance saw creativity broadly
as the process of sensing a problem, searching for possible solutions, drawing hypotheses,
testing and evaluating, and communicating the results to others. He added that the process
includes original ideas, a different point of view, breaking out of the mould, as well as recom-
bining ideas or seeing new relationships among ideas. However, this research chooses the
four components of creativity that Torrance (1971, p. 76) identified in his original creativ-
ity framework for mathematics problem solving in order to characterize the development
of students’ creative thinking. Creativity is believed to be an integral part of mathematics
(Brunkalla, 2009) and has been proposed as one of the major components to be included
in mathematics education, since “the essence of mathematics is thinking creatively” (Mann,
2006, p. 239).
This study proposed creativity to be fostered through CPS. Whether problem solving is
creative or not depends on how it is taught and how it is learnt. Teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge influences how mathematics will be taught. The problem context (environment –
whether it will be personal or social learning, teacher-centred or student-centred, interactive
etc.) or the nature of tasks (problem type – whether open ended, static, dynamic, ill-defined)
determine the success of CPS. On the other hand, the process of learning (in this case prob-
lem solving), is made up of the following sequence: exploring and understanding, represent-
ing and formulating, planning and executing, and finally monitoring and reflecting (OECD,
2014c) which is comparable to Polya (2004), a classic which was used in the framework of
this study (refer to Figure 1).
The middle part of the framework shows mutual relationship between CPS and creativ-
ity. The components of creativity that were examined in this study are the combination of
Torrance (1971) and Guilford (1967, pp. 10–11) model – fluency, flexibility, originality and
elaboration. Fluency is the ability to generate quantities of ideas, flexibility is the ability to
create different categories of ideas from different points, originality is the ability to create
new and unique ideas and finally, elaboration is the ability to expand on an idea. Meanwhile,
three problem solving criteria were emphasized so that CPS could be generated. The first
criterion is the process of problem solving, where a 4-step process by Polya (2004, p. 41)
in guiding students to solve problems was adopted. The second and third criteria of CPS
are the learning context and nature of problem. The learning context here means students
setting which are characterized by student-centred and collaborative group-work learning,
where social interaction and negotiation of understanding with others can help students to
construct knowledge.
Additionally, the nature of problems describes the kind of problems that were posed dur-
ing CPS which are open-ended, authentic and dynamic. Authentic problems provide realistic
contexts that provide for construction of knowledge. In order to generate creativity in prob-
lem solving, the problems created should be open-ended where multiple solutions (answers
and/or methods) is possible. Dynamic here means the problems created and posed should
create a lively environment where students would be discussing or debating their solutions.
Finally, lesson study will help the teachers to come up with criteria 2 and 3. However, this
paper will only report the middle part, which is on creativity and problem solving and the
relationship between them, and not the lesson study part.
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 277

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the research (source: created by authors)

2. Methodology
A mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology was adopted for this study. The study
investigates changes in students’ creativity after being taught mathematics via the collab-
orative, CPS way. The design of this study is closer to a mix of one-shot and static-group
pre-experimental design. Although comparison group is present, they are not considered
as control group in the pure sense. Four existing classes went through intervention lesson
while three other groups (supposedly 4) acted as comparison groups. The groups were not
rearranged to be equal for serving the purpose of experimental and comparison group as
in the real sense of quasi-experimental design study. Although there are drawbacks to this
design, it is felt that this design is more ethical and non-disruptive in nature because classes
are not rearranged to produce almost equal experimental and control group as in pure quasi-
experimental design. The main result to determine the success of the intervention would be
based on the increase in marks from pre- to post-test. The use of comparison group is only
to confirm if the changes is due to the intervention.

2.1. Population and sample

The sample for this study consists of 172 students, chosen based on purposive sampling,
a non-probability sample that is selected based on characteristics of a population and
the objective of the study. The number of students for each school and class is shown
in Table 1.
278 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

Table 1. The sample of the study (source: created by authors)

Treatment Comparison
School Gender Number % Number %
SMKSS –– Male 10 9.6 – –
–– Female 7 6.7 – –
SMKTS –– Male 13 12.5 11 16.2
–– Female 12 11.5 5 7.3
SMKHC –– Male 9 8.7 12 16.6
–– Female 15 14.4 9 14.3
SMKSG –– Male 21 20.2 17 25.0
–– Female 17 16.4 14 20.6
Total –– Male 53 51.0 40 58.8
–– Female 51 49.0 28 41.2
Grand total 104 100 68 100

Typical case purposive sampling as is applied here, is a type of purposive sampling that is
useful when a researcher wants to study a phenomenon or trend as it relates to what are con-
sidered “typical” or “average” members of the effected population. The sample schools chosen
satisfy certain criteria, that is: average schools, students with average ability in mathematics
measured through Primary School Evaluation Test (Malaysia) result and participating teach-
ers having about 5 years teaching experience. All four schools are normal, semi-urban public
schools. For interview purposes, six students from each school were randomly selected to
participate in the focus-group interview in order to find out their opinions.

2.2. Instruments
Different instruments were employed to collect data for this study. The instruments were the
TTCT (pre- and post-tests) and problem solving (pre- and post-tests), and the interview pro-
tocol for students. Meanwhile, researchers’ field notes, students’ work and video recordings
of all lessons and reflection stages were also used to supplement any missing links when the
situation warrants them. In fact, all activities associated to this study were video-recorded.

2.2.1. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking – pre- and post-

The TTCT that was used in this study is the figural version which requires students to com-
plete and give titles to the picture that they created, given very minimal sketches (lines or
circles etc.) to start. The highly reliable tests are the most widely used tests of its kind and
have been used for identification of the creatively gifted. It comes complete with instruc-
tion and marking scheme as well as means and standard deviations according to grade-level
and age-level. Both the pre- and post-forms were utilized. The test was administered by the
teachers at the school by adhering strictly to the instructions of the researchers. The pre-test
was given out one week before the start of intervention while the parallel post-test was given
after one week of intervention.
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 279

2.2.2. Observation checklist

Although the whole process involved in the study was videotaped, a checklist was prepared
to be used for classroom observation by teachers and observers. It contains 6 items each for
the four domains of creativity i.e. fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. Observers
observed how students solve problems that are discussed in the class (during the lesson)
and tick the appropriate columns of options according to their judgement upon observing
the students.

2.2.3. Problem solving test – pre- and post-

The tests were created based on the PISA 2012 mathematics questions. Six questions were
carefully selected for each test that were developed in parallel, so that they are appropriate
for the age group of the Form 1 students which is approximately 13 years old. Therefore, the
difficulty level of the test selected was only at proficiency level 3 since the original test paper
was created for 15-year-old students as PISA originally intended. Instructions were given to
the teachers to administer the pre- problem solving test one week before the intervention and
one week after the intervention for the post-test. Teachers were reminded that they should
not give this test on the same day as TTCT to avoid students being too tired mentally.

2.3. Instrument validity and reliability

The TTCT and PISA problem solving questions which was adopted in this study has re-
ported very high reliability and validity globally. Therefore, no pilot study was done on them.
However, since the interview protocol are newly created, a pilot study was done to test the
instrument. The TTCT was reviewed four times since it was developed by Torrance in 1966.
According to the TTCT manuals of 1966 and 1974, the range of the test–retest reliability
coefficients is .50 to .93. However, after a few revisions, the reliability estimates of the creative
index ranged between .89 and .94 (Kim, 2006, p. 6), which is way greater than the desired
0.70 level. Although only certain questions from PISA 2012 were used in this research study,
the reliability of PISA problem solving questions of 2012 were reported to be 0.88 (OECD,
2014d). However, the reliability and validity tests were performed on the pre- and post-test
scripts of both tests and the result is in Table 2.

Table 2. Internal reliability and eta-squared value of the instrument (source: created by authors)

Inter-item correlation Analysis of variance

Reliability (η2)
Instrument Pre- Post-
(α)
Mean Range Mean Range Pre- Post-
Torrance Test of .913 .569 .149–.950 .598 .224–.948 9.917** 8.795**
Creative Thinking .923
Problem solving .615 .610 .212 .108–.413 .188 .268–.398 10.495** 25.508**
test
(** p < 0.01).
280 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

The Cronbach’s alpha of TTCT shows a very high reliability while the reliability for the
problem solving test is only at an acceptable level since it is between 0.6 and 0.7 with small
sample (Griethuijsen et al., 2014, p. 588). The mean for inter item correlation were in the
acceptable range of 0.15 – 0.50 while the values of correlation are somewhat in acceptable
range of .15 and .85 for problem solving test but a bit high for TTCT. The eta-squared values
show that the instruments are able to differentiate between the sample of different schools.
The observation checklist shows good reliability for all of the four constructs of original-
ity, elaboration, fluency and flexibility at 0.893, 0.922, 0.894 and 0.938 respectively. The pat-
tern matrix confirmatory factor analysis shows two constructs of originality and elaboration
loading perfectly into two columns while one item from flexibility overlaps in fluency which
otherwise behaves accordingly. Hence the instruments are quite reliable and valid for use in
this study. A summary of research objectives, research questions, data type and collection
strategy, sampling and sample, validity criteria addressed, and data analysis executed in this
study is presented in the Appendix.

3. Results
The findings for this research will be presented according to the research questions. The
quantitative findings will be presented first, followed by the qualitative findings.
Answering research question 1 – determining students’ creativity as measured by the cre-
ativity test.
Table 3 shows the result from the four different schools. It can be observed here that the
data were obtained only from 106 students where 90 were in the treatment group and an-
other class of 16 in the comparison group. The number of creative students increased from

Table 3. The number of creative children (pre- and post-intervention) from both the treatment and the
comparison group (source: created by authors)

Treatment Comparison
School Gender Number of creative Number of creative
pre- post- pre- post-
SMKSS –– Male 7 2 5
–– Female 7 2 6
SMKTS –– Male 14 0 10 11 5 6
–– Female 11 3 8 5 0 1
SMKHC –– Male 9 1 6
–– Female 13 0 9
SMKSG –– Male 15 0 2
–– Female 14 0 1
Total –– Male 44 8 23 11 5 6
–– Female 46 5 24 5 0 1
Grand total 90 13 47 16 5 7
Note: if the creativity index score is 100 and above, students are considered creative.
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 281

13 to 47 (262%) in the treatment group as compared to an increase from 5 to 7 (40%) from

the comparison group. Using the marks as scored from the creativity index and satisfying
the condition of significant correlation between the pre- and post-, paired sample t-test was
executed (Table 4). The result in Table 3 shows a significant difference between the post- and
pre-creativity index for the treatment group. This suggests that the intervention has led to
significant increase in students’ creativity.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was also executed for the creativity index data (it satis-
fies the condition for fairly similar values for the pre TTCT between treatment and compari-
son group and the homogeneity of regression). The result shown in Table 5 is not statistically
significant. Hence, we cannot assume that the difference between the marks from the pre and
post-test is due to the intervention. However, as a note of caution; this test was performed
with very small sample in the comparison group. Hence, although the result seems to suggest
that the intervention did not affect students’ performance in creativity, we need to be careful
when conclusion is being made. The R-Squared seems to suggest that the treatment affect
only 9.1% on the performance.

Table 4. Paired sample t-test comparing post- and pre-test scores in creativity (treatment and compari-
son group) (source: created by authors)

Paired differences
de-
Stan- 95% confidence gree Sig.
Stan- interval of the t-test of (2 tail-
dard
Mean dard difference free- ed)
devia-
error dom
tion Lower Upper
Pair com- Pre-creativity index – –10.69 29.79 7.45 –26.56 5.19 –1.44 15 .17
parison Post-creativity index
Pair Pre-creativity index – –27.76 23.22 2.45 –32.62 –22.89 –11.34 89 .00
treatment Post-creativity index

Table 5. Analysis of covariance testing the significance of the intervention (treatment and comparison
group) (source: created by authors)

Dependent variable: Creativity Index B

Type III sum Degree of Mean Partial eta
Source F-test Significant
of squares freedom square squared
Corrected model 4140.412a 2 2070.206 6.252 .003 .108
Intercept 41161.480 1 41161.480 124.306 .000 .547
Creativity Index A 4135.745 1 4135.745 12.490 .001 .108
Group 239.731 1 239.731 .724 .397 .007
Error 34106.494 10 331.131
3
Total 1237758.000 106
Corrected total 38246.906 105
a. R-Squared = .108 (adjusted R-Squared = .091)
282 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

3.1. Results of structured observation

Table 6 shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each construct of creativity collected
through the checklists that were completed by thirty-six observers during the intervention
of cycles 1 to 3.
The data shows that overall, students’ creativity increases from moderate to high from
the beginning until the completion of the project. Each construct or creativity, i.e. original-
ity, elaboration, fluency and flexibility also increase from moderate to high from the first to
the third cycle. In cycle 1, the construct of fluency gives the highest mean while the lowest
mean is from the construct of flexibility. It can clearly be observed that fluency still shows
the highest mean in cycles 2 and 3, while flexibility still scores the lowest mean. One-way
analysis of variance was performed to investigate if the changes are significant from cycle
to cycle and also according to different schools. Table 7 shows the details of the analysis for

Table 6. Items in observation checklist (source: created by authors)

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3

Items
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Originality 2.921 .644 3.272 .773 3.857 .687
Elaboration 2.907 .701 3.386 .711 3.954 .570
Fluency 2.983 .638 3.405 .673 4.028 1.671
Flexibility 2.861 .767 3.241 .639 3.708 .656
Average score overall 2.910 .708 3.313 .685 3.874 .615

Table 7. Analysis of variance for the comparison of mean in different constructs of creativity for the
3 cycles (source: created by authors)

Sum of Degree of Mean

F-test Significant
squares freedom square
meanOri Between cycles 16.083 2 8.041 16.182 .000
Within cycle 53.170 107 .497
Total 69.253 109
meanEla Between cycles 19.755 2 9.877 22.350 .000
Within cycle 47.287 107 .442
Total 67.041 109
meanFlu Between cycles 29.834 2 14.917 12.395 .000
Within cycle 128.777 107 1.204
Total 158.611 109
meanFlex Between cycles 12.967 2 6.484 13.669 .000
Within cycle 50.754 107 .474
Total 63.721 109
meanAll Between cycles 16.888 2 8.444 20.804 .000
Within cycle 43.430 107 .406
Total 60.317 109
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 283

different cycles. It can be observed that the overall change as well as the changes in originality,
elaboration, fluency and flexibility are all significant.
Answering research question 2 – whether there are any changes in students’ problem solv-
ing ability.
The result from Table 8 shows a 24% increase in the post-test for the treatment group as
compared to 15% increase for the comparison group. It can also be observed that there are
more data from the comparison group for the problem solving test (2 classes) as compared
to the creativity test (1 class).

Table 8. The marks for problem solving test of students from different schools (treatment and compari-
son group) (source: created by authors)

Treatment Comparison
School Gender Number Pre- (%) Post- (%) Number Pre- (%) Post-(%)
SMKSS –– All 14 60 95 – – –
–– Male 7 73 95 – – –
–– Female 7 48 95 – – –
SMKTS –– All 25 37 64 16 44 65
–– Male 14 37 59 11 47 65
–– Female 11 36 71 5 38 64
SMKHC –– All 22 53 70 – – –
–– Male 9 44 73 – – –
–– Female 13 59 68 – – –
SMKSG –– All 29 44 68 31 33 45
–– Male 15 40 56 16 28 39
–– Female 14 29 55 15 39 53
Total –– Male 44 46 68 27 36 50
–– Female 46 41 67 20 39 56
Grand total 90 44 68 47 37 52

Table 9. Paired samples test for treatment and comparison group (source: created by authors)

Paired differences
Degree
95% Confidence
of Sig.
Standard Standard interval of the t-test Free- (2-tailed)
Mean difference
deviation error dom
Lower Upper
Pair treat- Percent 24.20 20.71 2.18 19.86 28.54 11.09 89 .00
ment (post-, pre-)
Pair com- Percent 15.13 18.74 2.73 9.63 20.63 5.54 46 .00
parison (post-, pre-)
284 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

Paired t-test in Table 9 shows a statistically significant result for both the treatment and
comparison groups, suggesting significant improvement in problem solving skills for both
groups. Since the increase for the treatment group is larger than the comparison group, AN-
COVA was run to determine if the difference is due to the intervention. The ANCOVA shows
a statistically significant result suggesting that the larger increase in the treatment group may
have been due to the intervention (see Table 10). The R-Squared value suggests that 27.3% of
the change in problem solving marks may be attributed to the intervention.
Meaningful learning refers to how new information can be used effectively when needed.
When solving mathematics problems in groups and applying the four stages of Polya problem
solving (2004, p. 41), the participants were actively involved with the cognitive, affective and
psychomotor domains of learning.
Answering research question 3 – is there a relationship between creativity and problem
solving ability?

Table 10. Analysis of covariance on tests of between-treatment effects (source: created by authors)

Dependent variable: percent post-

Type III sum of Degree of Mean Sig. Partial eta

Source F-test
squares freedom square nificant squared
Corrected model 15774.540a 2 7887.270 26.546 .000 .284
Intercept 40892.129 1 40892.129 137.630 .000 .507
Percent pre- 8326.023 1 8326.023 28.023 .000 .173
Group 4875.430 1 4875.430 16.409 .000 .109
Error 39813.457 134 297.115
Total 589876.543 137
Corrected total 55587.997 136
a. R-Squared = .284 (adjusted R-Squared = .273)

Table 11. Correlations between pre-Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and pre-problem solving test
(source: created by authors)

Pre-creativity index Percent pre-

Pre-creativity index Pearson correlation 1 –.058
Sig. (2-tailed) .586
Number 90 90

Table 12. Correlations between post-Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and post-problem solving test
(source: created by authors)

Post-creativity index Percent post-

Post-creativity index Pearson correlation 1 .207*
Sig. (2-tailed) .050
Number 90 90
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 285

Correlation analyses was performed on the creativity results and problem solving results
for the children in the treatment group. The first analysis examined if there exist any cor-
relation between the pre-tests in creativity (TTCT set A) and the problem solving before
intervention. Table 11 shows a non-significant negative correlation, suggesting no relation-
ship between students’ ability in creative problem solving and creativity before intervention.
However, when correlation analysis was again performed on the post-tests results of cre-
ativity (TTCT set B) and problem solving, the figures show a statistically significant positive
correlation (Table 12).
This suggest that after the intervention, there is a positive, albeit small relationship be-
tween the increase in the TTCT and the increase in post-problem solving test. Hence, stu-
dents’ exposure to creative problem solving may have contributed to creativity.

4. Discussion
The current study suggests that creative problem solving approaches improves students’ creativ-
ity and support the finding by previous researchers (Teo & Waugh, 2010; Park, 2013; Runco
& Johnson, 2002; Levenson, 2013; Fard et al., 2014). This study seems to strengthen the state-
ment that teachers’ awareness and effort in promoting creativity are able to foster creativity in
students (Teo & Waugh, 2010; Park, 2013; Levenson, 2013). The qualitative data complements
this finding when students’ result suggest that their creativity level increased as they get more
involved in the intervention study – as can be interpreted from the observation data.
Meanwhile, the increase in students’ problem solving ability coincided with Kopka (2010)
and Hu’s, Xiaohui’s, and Shieh’s (2017) findings, where they claimed that problem solving has
created the foundation for a successful mathematics education, which seem to support the
result of this study. This implies that having experienced the teaching and learning through
collaborative CPS, their result increased in tandem. Silver (1997, p. 79) claimed that fostering
creativity strategies will enrich mathematical problem solving. This finding also supported
the suggestion by some authors (Lester et al., 1994, pp. 661–662), who proposed that teach-
ing mathematics by using a problem solving approach can help the students to develop a
deep understanding of mathematical ideas. This observation is also in line with the claims
by Sriraman (2004), which stated that creativity is crucial as a foundation in mathematics.
Nonetheless, even though the mean scores increased, the level of the participants’ creative
problem solving skill was still at a moderate level and can still be improved. The findings
support the suggestions by researchers that enhancing students’ mathematical creativity in
a mathematics classroom also depends powerfully on the learning and interactive environ-
ments (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006).
Obviously, some students need special attention from teachers and being in a large class-
room with the teacher-centred approach does not help. In a large classroom with students
having various capabilities, teachers need to know the correct approach to accommodate
them all. This research addresses this issue by prescribing a collaborative group work among
the students. In his study, Haylock (1987, p. 72) found positive impacts of creativity and cre-
ative problem solving in conducive classrooms. Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to create
powerful learning (and interactive) environments (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006) to provide
286 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

effective learning environments elements in fostering creativity as well as to accommodate

the various needs of students.
Some participants in the study admitted that collaborative solving problems during the in-
terventions made them feel more confident. They also added that solving problems in a group
develops their potential, and some admitted that collaborative CPS made them feel that math-
ematics is easier and learning mathematics is enjoyable. Thus, CPS was able to assist them in
overcoming the challenges of the new syllabus. These findings are in line with the recommenda-
tion by Park (2013, pp. 412, 416) who recommended that fostering creativity in mathematics
can help students think in different ways besides enjoying learning mathematics.
The participants also admitted that they gain knowledge from their friends in the same
group. They were able to check and compare their answers with other groups through an
inter-group discussion. This finding supports the research done by Retalis, Katsamani, Geor-
giakakis, Lazakidou, Petropoulou, and Kargidis (2010). One of the participants raised that
creative problem solving gives him the space to analyse and choose the best method for
answering mathematics questions. His statement supports the work of Anderson, Krathwohl,
Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths, and Wittrock (2000, p. 208) when they claimed
that creativity is a skill that could be cultivated to enhance the cognitive skills, which aims
to be utilized in solving problems. These findings proved the positive impacts of creativity
and creative problem solving (Haylock, 1987). It is crucial for teachers to create powerful
learning and interactive environments to foster creativity (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006). The
findings in this study also show that the recommendation from researchers who recom-
mended problem solving as one of the solutions to many issues in mathematics classroom is
valid (Kopka, 2010; Khalid, 2017).

Conclusions
In conclusions, it can be summarized that the collaborative CPS framework developed and ap-
plied to Form 1 students of this study in learning mathematics is effective. This study suggests
that Form 1 students performed better after the interventions especially in terms of the problem
solving skills and creativity. The students’ creative problem solving and learning framework
addressed the crucial basic characteristics of learning and the method employed has achieved
many of the documented requirements of meaningful learning. This study also implies that
mathematics is a suitable platform to foster creativity. It proved that solving problems in groups
is effective in fostering creativity. Discussion among friends encouraged students to think and
express their thoughts. Hence, students feel that learning mathematics is interesting, and they
are more confident to solve the problems in more creative ways as many people contribute their
idea into the group and not only focus on one solution. To conclude, the findings of this study
has answered all three research questions with favourable responses.

Funding and acknowledgement

This research is supported by grant 2016-0097-106-04 from the National Child Development
Research Centre in 2017.
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 287

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R.,
Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revi-
sion of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Ayob, A., Hussain, A., Marzuki Mustafa, M., & Fauzi Aminuddin Shazi Shaarani, M. (2011). Nurturing
creativity and innovative thinking through experiential learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 18, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.035
Brunkalla, K. (2009). How to increase mathematical creativity – An experiment. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 6(1), 257–266.
Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify
creatively gifted mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-393
Costa, A. L. (Ed.). (2001). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria: Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ellwood, S., Pallier, G., Snyder, A., & Gallette, J. (2009). The incubation effect: Hatching a solution?
Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633368
Fard, A. E., Bahador, A., Moghadam, M. N., Rajabi, H., & Moradi, A. N. (2014). The possible impact
of problem-solving method of instruction on exceptional students’ creativity. Journal of Education
and Training Studies, 2(3), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i3.342
Greeno, J. G. (2017). Forms of understanding in mathematical problem solving. Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315188522-5
Griethuijsen, van R. A. L. F., Eijck, van M. W., Haste, H., Brok, den P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N.,
Savran Gencer, A., & BouJaoude, S. (2014). Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest
in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581–603.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1),
3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367914
Hu, R., Xiaohui, S., & Shieh, Ch. J. (2017). A study on the application of creative problem solving
teaching to statistics teaching. EURASIA: Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
13(7), 3139–3149. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00708a
Isoda, M. (2010). Lesson study: Problem solving approaches in mathematics education as a Japanese
experience. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 17–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.003
James, M. A. (2015). Managing the classroom for creativity. Creative Education, 6, 1032–1043.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.610102
Kaplan, D. E. (2019). Creativity in education: Teaching for creativity development. Psychology, 10,
140–147. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.102012
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818240
Khalid, M. (2017). Fostering problem solving and performance assessment among Malaysian math-
ematics teachers. Sains Humanika, 9(1–2), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v9n1-2.1098
288 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
Kopka, J. (2010). How to solve mathematical problems. Catholic University in Ružomberok. Ružomberok,
Slovakia [unpublished source].
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modelling. In Jr. F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–802). Information Age Pub-
lishing.
Lester, F. K. Jr., Masingila, J. O., Mau, S. T., Lambdin, D. V., Santon, dos V. M., & Raymond, A. M.
(1994). Learning how to teach via problem solving. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Pro-
fessional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 152–166). National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Levenson, E. (2013). Tasks that may occasion mathematical creativity: Teachers’ choices. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(4), 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9229-9
Liljedahl, P., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For the Learning of Mathemat-
ics, 26(1), 17–19.
Lim, Ch. S. (2010). Assessment in Malaysian school mathematics: Issues and concerns. http://www.criced.
tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec/apec2009/doc/pdf_20-21/LimChapSam-paper.pdf
Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
30(2), 236–262. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264
Mellou, E. (1996). Can creativity be nurtured in young children? Early Child Development and Care,
119(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443961190109
Ministry of Education, Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia educational blueprint: Annual report 2013. https://www.
padu.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PADU-AR-2013-ENG.pdf
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Executive summary: Principles and standards for
school mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/PSSM_Execu-
tiveSummary.pdf
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools
and corporations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203862001
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem
solving and financial literacy. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264190511-en.pdf?exp
ires=1580654526&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=074EB03FD4D7FB122A322C1AB81A10BD
OECD. (2014a). Education at a Glance 2014: Highlights. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/eag_
highlights-2014-en.pdf?expires=1580644839&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4F347DD90BB
5080FB66B3D588B605058
OECD. (2014b). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what
they know. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
OECD. (2014c). PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving. Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems.
Vol. V. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264208070-en.pdf?expires=1580659048&id=i
d&accname=guest&checksum=43503BB658FB2794E8280D794380E28E
OECD. (2014d). PISA 2012 technical report. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-tech-
nical-report-final.pdf
Park, M. (2013). Korean primary school teachers’ conceptions of foundations and creativity in math-
ematics. Korean Society of Mathematical Education (Series A: The Mathematical Education), 52(3),
399–422. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2013.52.3.399
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 289

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational
psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Series: Princeton Science Li-
brary. Princeton University Press.
Posamentier, A. S., Smith, B. S., & Stepelman, J. (2009). Teaching secondary mathematics: Teaching and
enrichments units. Merrill Prentice Hall.
Retalis, S., Katsamani, M., Georgiakakis, P., Lazakidou, G., Petropoulou, O., & Kargidis, Th. (2010).
Designing collaborative learning sessions that promote creative problem solving using design pat-
terns. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, Ch. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & Th. Ryberg
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 490–498), 3–4
May, 2010. Aalborg, Denmark.
Robinson, K. (2006). Do schools kill creativity? TED: Ideas worth Spreading. https://www.ted.com/talks/
sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming educa-
tion. Penguin Books.
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity:
A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 427–438.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1434_12
Saleh, S., & Aziz, A. (2012). Teaching practices among secondary school teachers in Malay-
sia. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/37a7/b40e50d9ab5eaf66e8abfcdebee4761ac9b9.pdf ?_
ga=2.20604029.454579747.1580658915-199233841.1528889777
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and
problem posing. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x
Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1),
19–34.
Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? The Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-389
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment-based approach. Creativity
Research Journal, 24(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652925
Teo, L. K. C., & Waugh, R. F. (2010). A Rasch measure of fostering creativity. Creativity Research Jour-
nal, 22(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.481534
Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance tests of creative thinking biased against or in favor of “Disadvan-
taged” groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627101500201
Trawick-Smith, J. (2014). Early childhood development: A multicultural perspective. Pearson Education
Limited.
290 M. Khalid et al. Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem...

Appendix

The mapping of research objectives to the data type, data collection, validity criteria and data analysis
(source: created by authors)

Research Data collection Data

Research objective Data type Validity
questions strategy analysis
To examine the Are there differ- Quantitative Torrance Test Triangulation Statistical –
changes in chil- ences in children’s of Creative member t-test
dren’s creativity creativity after check
before and after intervention, as Qualitative Thinking (pre- prolonged Theme
intervention using measured through and post-) engagement searching
Torrance Test of the Torrance Test Interview
Creative of Creative Think-
Thinking ing?
To examine What are the Quantitative Program for Triangulation Statistical
changes in changes in chil- International member -t-tests,
children’s en- dren’s mathemati- Student Assess- check analysis of
hancement in cal problem-solv- ment problem prolonged covariance
mathematical ing ability after Qualitative solving test. engagement Theme
problem-solving intervention? Classwork searching
as a result of the video tape (ob-
intervention. servation)
Interview
To investigate Is there any rela- Quantitative Torrance Test Triangulation Statistical
the relationship tionship between of Creative member correlation
between creativity creativity and Thinking and check and regres-
and problem-solv- problem-solving Program for prolonged sion
ing ability after ability after learn- International engagement
learning through ing through Student Assess-
creative problem creative problem ment problem
solving solving? solving test

KŪRYBIŠKUMO STIPRINIMAS IR PROBLEMŲ

SPRENDIMO GEBĖJIMAI, KŪRYBIŠKAI SPRENDŽIANT
MATEMATIKOS MOKYMO PROBLEMAS
Madihah KHALID, Supiah SAAD, Siti Rafiah ABDUL HAMID, Muhammad RIDHUAN
ABDULLAH, Hasniza IBRAHIM, Masitah SHAHRILL

Santrauka
Pastaraisiais metais suaktyvėjo raginimai ugdyti kūrybiškumą ir jo mokyti nuo pat
mažumės. Kūrybiškumas yra įprastas mokant meninių dalykų, tačiau nėra paste-
bimas bruožas mokant mokslinių, technologinių, inžinerinių ir matematinių disci-
plinų. Tačiau iš tiesų svarbu tai, kaip mokoma tam tikro dalyko. Šio tyrimo tiks-
las – skatinti kūrybiškumą matematikos mokymo pavyzdžiu, kai kūrybiškai spren-
džiamos problemos, ir tai atitinkamai apibrėžiama. Šiame kvazieksperimentiniame
tyrime nagrinėjami pokyčiai, susiję su tuo, kaip moksleiviai mokosi matematikos,
Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291 291

kūrybiškai spręsdami problemas. Iš viso tyrime dalyvavo 172 pirmosios formos

moksleiviai, priklausantys stebėjimo ir lyginimo grupėms iš keturių mokyklų, esan-
čių Gombako rajono teritorijoje (Malaizija). Buvo surinkti mišrūs kokybiniai ir kie-
kybiniai duomenys, siekiant ištirti realizuotus tris ciklus pamokų, skirtų kūrybi-
niams problemų sprendimams. Buvo naudojamasi šiomis priemonėmis: Torrance’o
kūrybinio mąstymo testu, matematinių problemų sprendimo testu ir kūrybiškumo
rezultatų vertinimo kontroliniu sąrašu. Straipsnyje pristatomi tik kiekybiniai duo-
menys. Rezultatai atskleidžia statistiškai reikšmingą padidėjimą vertinant kūrybiš-
kumą daugelyje kategorijų ir pasitelkiant problemų sprendimo testus. Šiame tyrime
dalyvavo mokytojai ir tyrėjai, atlikti kūrybinio problemų sprendimo bandymai mo-
kant matematikos ir stengiantis ugdyti moksleivių kūrybinį mąstymą bei problemų
sprendimo gebėjimus. Tai atitinka Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah įvadinę
dalį, iš naujo pabrėžiant mokslinį, technologinį, inžinerinį ir matematinį ugdymą
apskritai, šiose srityse akcentuojant aukštesnio lygio pertvarkytą mąstyseną.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: kūrybiškumo testas, kūrybiškumas matematikoje, gebėjimo
spręsti problemas ugdymas, matematikos mokymasis sprendžiant problemas, pamo-
kos tyrimas, Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah naujas planas.