This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]

On: 20 December 2014, At: 14:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Creativity and Academic Achievement: An

Investigation of Gender Differences
Xiaoxia Ai
Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Xiaoxia Ai (1999) Creativity and Academic Achievement: An Investigation of Gender Differences,
Creativity Research Journal, 12:4, 329-337, DOI: 10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in
any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Creativity Research Journal
1999, Vol. 12, No. 4,329-337
Creativity and Academic Achievement: An Investigation of
Gender Differences
Xiaoxia Ai
Los Angeles Un@edSchool District
ABSTRQCT: Thepurpose of this study was to investigate
the possible relation between creativity and academic
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014
achievement, inparticular, to see ifthis relation might be
dgerent for boys and girls. The 2 research questions
were (a) m a t is the relation between dlferent aspects of
creativity and dzfferent subject areas of academic
achievement?, and (6) Are there any differencesfor boys
and girls in t m of the relation between dzferent as-
pects ofcreativityanddi@erentsubject areas ofacademic
achievement? The students wereJLom 68 schools ran-
domly selectedfiom the Basque County, Spain. Among
these2,264students, 38% were boys and 62% weregirls.
Threecreativitybatteries, the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking F C C Torrance & Ball, 1984), the
Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test (CT; O'Neil, Abedi,
& Spielberger, 1994), and the Villa and Auzmendi Cre-
ativity Test (VAC Aunnenti, Villa,& Abedi, 1996), were
administered to thestudents. Teacherswere alsoaskedto
rate students' creativity. Academic achievement was
operationalized by students 'self-reportof their achieve-
ment in 6subject areas: Spanish, Basque, English, natu-
ralscience,social science, and mathematics. By canoni-
cal correlation analysis, the following results were
found: lfoperationalized by the teachers' ratings, cre-
ativity was related to academic achievement for both
boys andgirls.For boys,Flexibilitywas thepredominant
factor that related to all 6 academic subject areas. For
girk, Elaboration related to 4 of the academicsubject ar-
ear (Spanish, Basque, English, and social science), and
Fluency related to natural science and mathematics. If
operationalized by the other 3 measures (TTCT, CTand
VAT), however, creativity was barely related to aca-
demic achievement. Implications of the results for re-
search in creativity and education are discussed.
The literature has documented numerous studies in the
area of creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950,1959;Torrance,
1968), measurement of creativity (e.g., Guilford &
Creativity Research Journal
Copyright 1999 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hoepfber, 1971; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989;
Thorndike, 1963; Torrance, 1974; Torrance & Goff,
1989), and teaching creative thinking (e.g., Blank &
Parker, 1986; Camevale, Gainer, & Meltzer, 1990;
Jaben, 1985% 198513; Mayer, 1989; Milgram, 1989;
Sanders & Sanders, 1984; Shaw & Cliatt, 1986; Stvall
& Williams, 1985; Torrance, 1972, 1977, 1986;
Torrance & Torrance, 1973). The literature also sug-
gests that aperson's background characteristicshave a
profound impact on his or her cognitive and
noncognitive behavior. Among the background char-
acteristics, gender is one of the most important and
most cited variables in educational and psychological
research literature (e.g., Fennema & Carpenter, 1998).
Unfortunately, the literature on gender differences in
the area of the relation between creativity and academic
performance is scarce.This study focuses on the gender
differences when investigating the relation between
creativity and academic achievement.
The relation between creativity and academic
achievement has been investigated by many educa-
tional researchers and psychologists over the past 3 de-
cades. The zeal to investigate the relationship between
creativity and academic achievement dates back to the
1960%when Getzels and Jackson (1962) first reported
the results of their research on the role of creativity in
school achievement. They demonstrated that a group of
students whose creative ability was in the top 20% of
The data for this study came fiom the Center for the Study of Evalua-
tion, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, Univer-
sity of California-Los Angeles, with the permission of Jamal Abedi.
I thank Jamal Abedi for the data. 1 also thank Noreen Webb for
her numerous suggestions during the preparation of this article.
Manuscript received August 8, 1997; revisions received August
24, 1998 and May 8, 1999; accepted May 15,1999.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to
Xiaoxia Ai, 8427 Kirkwood Drive, Los Angela, CA 90046.
329
 their school and whose intelligence was in the lower
80% performed as well on standardized achievement
tests as a group whose intelligence was in the top 20%
and whose creativity was in the lower 80%, despite a
23-point difference in IQ. Torrance (1962) replicated
Getzels and Jackson's research in eight studies and
found that six confirmed their results. To account for
this discrepancy, Torranceproposed a possible explana-
tion based on Anderson's (1960) threshold theory. He
argued that IQ would have an effect on academic
achievement up to a certain threshold IQ level (about
120), in which further increments in IQ would have no
further effect, but in which creativity would begin to
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014
have an effect.
Yamamoto (1964) replicated Torrance's study
based on a sample of 272 students, Grades 9 through
12. In his study, Yamamoto divided the sample into
two groups, a high-creativity group (top 20% on the
measure of creative thinking) and a low-creativity
group (lower 20%). His results demonstrated that re-
gardless of the subject matter, highly creative students
performed better than low-creative students did when
the effect of intelligence was controlled. His conclu-
sion supported Torrance's. In addition to Getzels and
Jackson, Torrance, and Yamamoto, some other re-
searchers also reported that creativity was related to
academic achievement (e.g., Asha, 1980; Cicirelli,
1965; Counts, 1971; Murphy, 1973).
It is not always the case that the studies oftherelation
between creativity and academic achievement all agree
with eachother. Edwards andTyler(1965) tried to repli-
cate Getzels and Jackson's (1962) study in a sample of
181 ninth-grade students. They concluded that creativ-
ity was not related to school achievement. Torrance's
(1962) threshold hypothesis, which suggests that be-
yond a certain level of intelligence academic achieve-
ment is related increasingly to creativityand ceasesto be
related strongly to intelligence, was not supported by
Marjoribanks's (1976) study. Basedon a sample of400
English schoolchildren, all age 12, Marjoribanks
showed that creativity ceased to be related to achieve-
ment after a threshold level of intelligence is reached.
Some other researchers also agreed that creativity was
not related to academic achievement (e.g., Mayhon,
1966; Tanpraphat, 1976).
Some researchers in other countries also reported
low correlations between school achievement and
creativity test scores, for instance, Haddon and Lyt-
ton (1968) in the United Kingdom. In the Federal Re-
public of Germany and Switzerland, Krause (1972,
1977) showed that correlations between creativity
scores and grades were as low as .09 (physics) or .15
(art). In a longitudinal study from the 7th to the 1 1 th
grade in West Germany, Sierwald (1989) showed that
not only was the correlation between creativity test
scores and school grades actually negative in the case
of physics (-.12), but it did not go beyond .26 even
for art.
The fact that no definite conc~usioncould be drawn
concerning the relation between creativity and aca-
demic achievement has drawn researchers' attention.
To help explain the conflicting results, they attempted
to look at the relation between these two variables fiom
other angles. For example, Shin and Jacobs (1973)
suggested that IQ related to only the more basic types
of achievement, whereas creativity would relate to
higher level achievement that involved divergent ver-
bal behaviors (e.g., creative writing). Bentley (1966),
choosing a sample of 75 graduate students in educa-
tion, found that creativity correlated significantly with
divergent thinking and evaluative abilities, and no cor-
relation existed between creativity and cognitive and
memory scores. Smith (1971) based his study on a
sample of 141 eleventh-grade students. His conclusion
was similar to that of Bentley; that is, creativity ap-
peared as a necessary dimension in performance on the
divergent criteria.
The studies just cited can be divided into three
groups according to their conclusions regarding the re-
lation between creativity and academic achievement.
Some studies found that creativity was related to aca-
demic achievement (e.g ., Asha, 1980; Cicirelli, 1965;
Counts, 1971; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Murphy,
1973; Torrance, 1962; Yamamoto, 1964). Others
found that creativity was not related to academic
achievement (e.g., Edwards & Tyler, 1965; Haddon &
Lytton, 1968; Kim & William, 1993; Krause, 1972,
1977; Marjoribanks, 1976; Mayhon, 1966; Sierwald,
1989; Tanpraphat, 1976). Still some researchers con-
cluded that creativitywas related to higher levels of ac-
ademic achievement that required divergent and
productive ability (e.g., Bentley, 1966; Shin & Jacobs,
1973; Smith, 1971).
What are the possible explanations for this incon-
clusiveness in the literature on the relation between
creativity and academic achievement?
One possible explanationis that the relation between
creativity and academic achievement may be different
Creativity Research Journal

for boys and girls in terms ofwhich particular aspectsof
creativity relate most strongly to different academic
subject areas. The previous studies mostly focused on
whether creativity was correlated with academic
achievementwithout taking into consideration whether
the relation might be different for boys and girls. Very
few studies have investigatedwhether there are gender
differences in the relation between creativity and aca-
demic achievement. The only study that suggested that
the relation between creativity and academic achieve-
ment might be different for boys and girls came Erom
Asha (1980). Asha found that there existed a highly sig-
nificant relationbetween creativityand achievement for
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014
boys. The same trend, although less significantthan that
for boys, also held for girls. Her study implies that cre-
ativity is related to academic achievement for both boys
and girls. However, it does not tell us whether different
aspects of creativity and different academic subject ar-
eas would matter for boys and girls when looking at that
relation.
The research reported here intended to study the re-
lation between creativity and academic achievement,
in particular to see if the relation might be different for
boys and girls. In line with the purpose of this study,
the research questions were as follows:
1. What is the relation between different aspects of
creativity and different subject areas of academic
achievement?
2. Are there any differences for boys and girls in
terms of the relation between different aspects of cre-
ativity and different subject areas of academic achieve-
ment?
Method
Sample
The data for this study came fkom Auzmendi,
Villa, Abedi (1996),1 with the permission of the au-
l~uzmendiet d.'s( I996)studydifferedfrom thisstudy in tamsof
the substantive focus and the statistical analysis. Substantively, their
study focused on the reliability and validity of their newly developed
multiple-choice creativity test, the Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test
(CT).whereas this study focused on the gender differences in the rela-
tion between creativity and academic achievement. Statistically, the
analysis reportedin Auzmendi etd.'sstudy includedareliability analy-
sisof itemintend consistency,principalcomponmtsanalysis,andcor-
relation among the subscales of the four creativity measures,whereas
this study used a canonicalcorrelation analysis.
Creativity Research Journal
Creativity and Academic Achievement
thors. A total of 2,264 students comprised the sample.
They were from 68 schools randomly selected from
the Basque County, Spain. Among these 2,264 stu-
dents, 38% were boys and 62% were girls. The ages
of these students ranged Erom 13 to over 18 years old.
Because the predominant age range was fiom 13 to
16 years old (98.4%), the results can be treated as ap-
plicable to secondary students in the county. Gen-
erally speaking, most of the students (about 60%)
were fiom lower middle-class socioeconomic status
families.
Instruments and Procedure
Three creativity batteries, the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance & Ball, 1984), the
Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test (CT; O'Neil,
Abedi, & Spielberger, 1994), and the Villa and
Auzmendi Creativity Test (VAT; Auzmendi, Villa, &
Abedi, 1996), were administered to the students.
The Spanish version of the prepared TTCT test
booklet was given to the students. The TTCT was
scored according to the scoring instruction in the
TTCT manual. Scores on four subscales of creativity
were collected: Flexibility, Originality, Fluency, and
Elaboration. The CT is a multiple-choice instrument.
The test consists of 60 items divided into four
subscales: Flexibility (1 1 items), Originality (16
items), Fluency (22 items), and Elaboration (11 items).
Each item has three options: Option 1 stands for the
lowest score, option 2 the middle, and option 3 the
highest. The items were scored on a scale from 1 (no
creativity) to 3 (most creative). See the Appendix for
an example of the CT flexibility items.
The VAT has 20 items, each of which is an adjec-
tive related to creativity. The students were asked to
rate themselves on each adjective. The rating scale was
from 1 (least creative) to 5 (most creative). See the Ap-
pendix for an example of the VAT Flexibility items.
The teachers also rated their students on the four
creativity factors (flexibility, fluency, originality, and
elaboration) and on overall creativity using a 5-point
scale system, with scores ranging from 1 (least cre-
ative) to 5 (most creative). The four creativity factors
were defined for the teachers based on T o m c e ' s
(1968) definitions. A high score indicated a high
level of creativity, and a low score indicated low
creativity.
 Academic achievement scores were collected by
asking students to report their last course grades in six
academic fields: Spanish, Basque, English, natural sci-
ences, social sciences, and mathematics. Scores ranged
from 1 (the worst grade) to 6 (the best grade).
Design and Analyses
Table 1 displays the variables included in this study.
The canonical correlations were computed to investi-
gate the relation among the four subscales of the cre-
ativity measures and the six academic variables. One
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014
of the statistical techniques that was used to investigate
the relation between creativity and academic achieve-
ment was zero-order correlation analysis, correlating
each of the four creativity subscales with each aca-
demic achievement variable. It is a univariate analysis
that does not allow for the simultaneous exploration of
the relation between sets of variables. Canonical corre-
lation analysis overcomes this problem because it is a
multivariate analysis.
In the canonical correlation analysis, only signifi-
cant pairs of canonical variates are interpreted. This
depends on two criteria. On the one hand, the statisti-
cal test of the pairs of canonical variates must be sig-
nificant (this is tested by the F test of significance of
canonical correlations). On the other hand, the canon-
ical correlation coefficient must be at least .30 to be
practically significant, because the canonical correla-
tion coefficient less than .30,when squared, repre-
sents less than 10% of the variance (Tabachnick &
FideU, 1983). The .30 cutoff also applies to correla-
Table 1. CreativityMeasures, Creativity Subscales, and Ac-
ademic Achievement Variables
Academic Achievement
Creativity Measures and
Subscales Variables
l'TCT, CT,VAT, and Teacher Spanish
Ratings Basque
Flexibility Natural science
Originality Social science
F~WY English
Elaboration Mathematics
Note: TTCT = Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance &
Ball, 1984); CT = Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test (O'Neil,
Abedi, & Spielberger, 1994);VAT = Villa and Auzmendi Creativity
Test (Auzmendi, Villa, 62 Abedi, 19%).
tions between variables and the canonical variate
(i.e., canonical coefficients).
Because the purpose was to see if the relation be-
tween creativity and aca&mic achievement might be
different for boys and girls, analyses were conducted
separately for boys and girls.
Results
Teacher's Ratings of Creativity
This section presents the results from teachers' rat-
ings of creativity and the six academic achievement
variables for the boys and the girls, respectively.
Boys. The first canonical correlation was .45
(about 20% of overlapping variance). The remaining
three canonical correlations were effectively zero.
With all four canonical correlations included, the ap-
proximate F(24, 859) = 2.99, p < .0001, which was
highly significant. Subsequent approximate F tests
were not statistically significant. The first canonical
correlation, therefore, accounted for the significant
linkage between the two sets of variables; that is, the
four subscales of creativity and the six academic
achievement subject areas.
The analysis of the first pair of canonical variates
accompanying the first canonical correlation is shown
in Table 2. Included in the table are correlations be-
tween the variables and the canonical variate (i.e., ca-
nonical structure), standardized canonical coefficients,
within-set variance accounted for by the canonical
variates (i.e., percentage of variance), redundancies,
and canonical correlation.
With a cutoff of .30 for interpretation of canonical
coefficients, all the academic achievement variables
were relevant to the canonical variate. Among the cre-
ativity subscales variables, flexibility and elaboration
were relevant to the canonical variate. Taken as a pair,
the first set ofcanonicalvariates indicated thatboyswho
were flexible and liked to elaborate tended to have
higher achievement in all six academic subject areas.
The remaining pairs of canonical variates were not in-
terpretedbecausethey werenot statisticallysignificant.
Girls. The first canonical correlation was .52
(27% of overlapping variance). The remaining three
canonical correlations were effectively zero. With all
Creativity Research Journal
 Creativity and Academic Achievement

Table 2. Canonical Correlation Results for Boys and GirLr From Teacher Ratings
-

Correlation Between Canonical

Variate and Each Variable Standardized CoePRcients

Variable Girls BOYS Girls

Academic Achievement
Spanish
Basque
Natural Science
Social Science
English
Mathematics
Percent of Variance .60
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014

Redundancy .12
Creativity
Flexibility .44
Originality .26
Fluency .28
Elaboration .34
Percent of Variance .56
Redundancy .I I
Canonical Correlation .45

four canonical correlations included, the approximate
F(24,747) = 3.31, p < .0001, which is highly signifi-
cant, and with the first canonical correlation re-
moved, subsequent approximate F tests were not sta-
tistically significant. The first canonical correlation,
therefore, accounted for the significant linkage be-
tween the two sets of variables; that is, the four
subscales of creativity and the six academic achieve-
ment subject areas.
Analysis of the first pair of canonical variates ac-
companying the fmt canonical correlation is shown in
Table 2. Included in the table are correlations between
the variables and the canonical variate (i.e., canonical
structure), standardized canonical coefficients,
within-set variance accounted for by the canonical
variates (i.e., percentage of variance), redundancies,
and canonical correlation.
With a cutoff of .30 for interpretation of canonical
coefficients, all the academic achievement variables
were relevant to the canonical variate. All the creativ-
ity subscale variables were also relevant to the canoni-
cal variate, with the order of magnitude being
elaboration, fluency, flexibility, and originality. Taken
as a pair, the first pair of canonical variates indicated
that girls who liked to elaborate and were fluent, flexi-
ble, and original tended to have higher achievement in
all six academic subject areas. The remaining pairs of
- - -
-
canonical variates were not interpreted because they
were statistically insignificant.
To sum up, when students' creativitywas operation-
alized by teachers' ratings, creativity related to aca-
demic achievement for boys and for girls. However,
boys and girls differed in terms of which aspects of cre-
ativitywere relevant to their academic achievement. For
boys, flexibilityand elaborationrelated more than origi-
nality and flexibilitytotheir academic achievement.For
girls, all four aspects of creativity were related to their
academic achievement, with fluency and elaboration
being most related. Therefore, there existed some dif-
ferences between boys and girls regarding which as-
pects of creativity were related to academic
achievement, although creativity was shown to be re-
lated to academic achievement for both genders.
TTCT,CT, and VAT
Table 3 summarizes results h m creativity mea-
sures of TTCT, CT, and VAT. Canonical correlation
analysis showed that the canonical correlations de-
rived from these three measures fell below the .30
cutoff.
All the first canonical correlations were highly sta-
tistically significant ( p < .0001), and some even had a

Creativity Research Journal

 Table 3. Canonical Correlation Results for Boys and Girls From TTCT.CT. and VAT

Creativity Measures BOYS P GirIs P

TrCT
CC 1 0.16 < ,004 0.18 < ,0001
Overlap Variance (%) 3 3
CT
CC1 0.27 < .0001 0.23 < ,0001
CC2 0.15 < '02 0.18 < ,0001
Overlap Variance (%I 9 8
VAT
CCl 0.29 < .0001 0.27 < .0001
CC2 - 0.11 < .001
Overlap Variance (%) 9 8
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014

-- - ~~p

Note: CCI = the first pair of canonical correlation; CC2 = the second pair of canonical correlation;
TTCT = Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance & Ball, 1984); CT = Abedi-Schumacher
Creativily Test (O'Neil, Abedi, & Spielberger, 1994); VAT = Villa and Auzmendi Creativity Test
(Auzmendi. Villa, & Abedi, 1996).

second significant canonical correlation. However,
none of the corresponding amount of variance overlap
between each pair of significant variates exceeded
10%. Following Tabachnick and Fidell's (1983) sug-
gestion, those canonical correlations were not inter-
preted even though they were significant, because the
statistical significance depends to a large extent on the
number of observations. In this study, the sample was
large enough to make a small number statistically sig-
nificant. It might be concluded, therefore, that there is
little relation between academic achievement and cre-
ativity operationalizedby TTCT, CT, and VAT.
Discussion and Conclusions
The most interesting finding of this study is that
when students' creativity was operationalized by the
teachers' ratings, the results indicated that there ex-
isted some differences between boys and girls regard-
ing which aspects of creativity related to academic
achievement, although creativity was shown to be re-
lated to academic achievement for both genders.
Therefore, difEerent aspecl of creativity and different
academic subject areas do matter for boys and girls
when looking at the relation between creativity and ac-
ademic achievement. This might be one reason past re-
search yielded inconclusive results about the relation
between creativity and academic achievement.
One possible explanation for this gender difference
is that boys and girls excel in different aspects of cre-
ativity. This difference in turn might be caused by
gender identity.
According to Torrance's (1968) definitions,fluency
refers to the ability to think of a large number of ideas
or possible so1utions;flexibility refers to the ability to
t h d i of different approaches or strategies; originaliiy
refers to the ability to think of unusual possibilities, to
get off the beaten track; and elaboration refers to the
ability to work out the details of an idea and implement
it. Some studies (e.g., Mayhon, 1966; Torrance, 1969)
show that boys surpass girls on flexibility and original-
ity, but girls surpass boys on elaboration.Research in-
dicated that Chinese American girls scored higher than
Chinese American boys did on fluency. This study
showed that for boys, flexibility was the predominant
factor that related to all six academic subject areas. For
girls, elaboration related to four of the academic sub-
ject areas (Spanish, Basque, English, and social sci-
ence), whereas fluency related to natural science and
mathematics. These differences, in part, can be ex-
plained by the different identifications of the gender
roles for boys and girls in most cultures. In general,
girls are expected to make things fancy and work out
the details of plans. They are characteristicallyplaced
in detail jobs and a similar role is usually expected at
home. Instead,boys seem to enjoy more fi-eedom than
girls in trying to do unusual things they want to do.
Therefore, it is plausible that the gender differences in
creative ability are determined, in part, by different
identifications of the gender roles. This is also sup-
ported by Burke and Reitzes's (1981) principle of se-

334 Creativity Research Journal


mantic congruence: People with particular role
identities choose role behaviors that have meanings
similar to the meanings of their identities.
Another fmding was that using different batteries to
measure creativity led to different conclusions about
the relation between creativity and academic achieve-
ment. This has important implications. Using different
creativity measures giving rise to inconsistent results
may be one of the reasons previous studies arrived at
different conclusions about the relation between cre-
ativity and academic achievement. This finding also
bears practical implications for research in creativity
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014
and the possible use of these tests to identify creative
people. As Thorndike (1963) pointed out
If we are to comprehend the research done with the [creativ-
ity] tests, or the nature of the groups selected by some combi-
nation of them, it is imperative that we get a better under-
standmg of what the different tests that are offered to us as
"creativity tests" actually measure, and of the degree of
equivalenceamong differenttests and test batteries. @. 424)
This study also showed that students' scores on the
'ITCT were barely related to their academic achieve-
ment at school. The TTCT have long been recognized
as the predominant test battery of divergent thinking or
creativity. The result that it was barely related to school
achievement has important implications for education.
One possible interpretation is that whatever schools
are doing now to foster students' academic achieve-
ment is not developing creativity at the same time. As
shown by many researchers (e.g., Wallach, 1971), the
role of creativity is not emphasized in most schools.
Usually the skills emphasized, practiced, and praised
are such skills as memory, brainstorming, and so forth,
which were out of touch with society. Snow (1986) re-
garded the primary concern of education as human pre-
paredness for later states of life. The current society
requires more creative personnel than ever before;
therefore creativity and academic achievement should
go hand in hand when we design curricula and when
we employ the teaching methodology. Both doing and
book learning should be emphasized.
Of course, this study has some limitations. One is
the operationalization of academic achievement. This
study operationalizes academic achievement in differ-
ent subject areas in terms of students' self-reports of
their last course grades instead of taking their scores on
one standardized achievement test, as most other stud-
ies have done. Most people would doubt the reliability
Creativity Research Journal
Creativity and Academic Achievement
and trustworthiness of students' self-ratings, although
according to Baird's (1976) study, "evidence indicates
that self-reported grades can usually be believed, even
when the student knows that his self-reported grades
will be used as one of the selection criteria" (p. 8).
Another limitation is that teachers' ratings of cre-
ativity might be problematic. Scores of teachers' rat-
ings of creativity were gathered by asking teachers to
rate their students on flexibility, originality, fluency,
and elaboration. These four aspects of creativity were
defined for teachers based on Torrance's definitions. It
is possible that teachers teaching different academic
subjects might perceive creativity differently. It is also
possible that teachers' ratings of creativity might be
contaminated by their preconceptions of students' aca-
demic performance.
To conclude, this study shows that the relation be-
tween creativity and academic achievement is com-
plex. It may vary by gender and by the creativity
measure used. If possible, follow-up research should
look at other issues that are important for a better un-
derstanding of creativity. For instance, what are the
four creativity measures used in this study actually
measuring? Will a student's family background, the
class he or she is in, and so forth, have an effect on his
or her creativity scores? Are there any gender differ-
ences in terms of creativity construct? Do boys and
girls differ with respect to the variability of creativity
construct? How can we foster students' creativity?
References
Auzmendi, E., Villa, A,, & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity
of a newly constructed multiple-choice creativity instrument.
Creativity Research Journal, 9, 89-95.
Anderson, J. E. (1960). The nature of abilities. In E. P. Torrance
(Ed.), Talent and education (pp. P-3 1). Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press.
Asha, C. 9. (1980). Creativity and academic achievement among
secondary school children. Asian Journal of Psychology and
Education, 6. 1-4.
Baird, L. L. (1976). Using sev-reports to predict student perfo-
mance (Research Monograph No. 7). New York: College En-
trance Examination Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 126 116)
Bentley,J. C. (1966). Creativity and academic achievement.Journal
of Educational Research, 59, 269-272.
Blank,S. S., & Parker, D. J. (1986). Training for figural fluency,
flexibility and originality in native Canadian children. Journal
of Special Education, 10, 339-348.
 Burke, P. J., & Reikes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and
role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83-92.
Camevale, A. P., Gainer, L. J., & Meltzer, A. S. (1990). Wor&lace
basics: The essential skills employers want. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1965). Form of relationship between creativity, I.Q.,
and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychol-
OD 56.303-308.
Counts, P. D. (1971). A study of the relationship between academic
achievement and creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Edwards, M. P., & Tyler, L. E. (1965). Intelligence, creativity, and
achievement in a nonselective public junior high school. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 56,9699.
Fennema, E., & Capmter, T.P. (1998). New perspectiveson gender
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014
differences in mathematics: An introduction. EducationaZ Re-
searcher, 27(5), 4-5.
Getzels, J. W., &Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativiv andintelligence.
New York: Wiley.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5,
444454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellat. American Psycholo-
gisr, 14, 469-479.
Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R (1971). The anaijsis of intelligence.
New York:McGraw-Hill.
Haddon, F. A., & Lytton, H. (1968). Teaching approach and the de-
velopment of divergent thinking abilities in primary schools.
Britbh Journal ofEducationa1Psychology, 38, 171-1 80.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of
measurements used in the study of creativity. In I. A. Glover. R.
R Ronning. & C. R Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 53-76). New York: Plenum.
Jaben. T. H. (1985a). Effects of instruction for creativity on learning
disabled students' drawings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61,
895-898.
laben, T. H. (1985b). Effects of instruction on elementary-age stu-
dents' productive thinking. Psychological Reports, 57,
900-902.
Kim,J., & William, B. M. (1993). The relationship of creativity
measures to school achievement and to preferred learning and
thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students.~ d u -
cational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 60-74.
Krause, R (1972). Kreativitat [Creativity]. Munich: Goldmann.
Krause, R (1977). Produktives Denken bei Kindem [Productive
thinking with children]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Marjoribanks, K. (1976). Academic achievement, intelligence, and
creativity: A regression surface analysis. Multivariate Behavior
Research, 11, 105-118.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Cognitive views of creativity: Creative teach-
ing for creative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 14.203-211.
Mayhon, W. G. (1966). The relationship of creativity to achievement
and other student variables. Dissertation Abstracts, 27(6A),
1713.
Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1989). Teachinggiffed and talented learners
in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: tho ma^.
Murphy, R. T. (1973). Relationshipamong a set of creativity, intelli-
gence, and achievement measures in a high school sample of
boys. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention, American
Psychological Association, USA,81, 631-632.
O'Neil, H., Abedi, J., & Spielberger, C. (1994). The measurement
and teaching of creativity. In H. O'Neil & M. Drillings (Eds.),
Motivation: Theoiy and research (pp. 252-253). Hillsdale,NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sanders, D. A., & Sanders, J. A. (1984). Teachingcreativitythrough
metaphor: An integrated brain approach. New York:
Longman.
Shaw, J. M., &Cliatt, M. 1. (1986). A model for training teachers to
encourage divergent thinking in young children. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 20, 8 1-88.
Shin, S. H., &Jacobs, S. S. (1973). An analysis of the interrelation-
ships among intelligence and multilevels of creativity and
achievement. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention,
Americun PsychoZogical Association USA. 81,629-630.
Sierwald, W. (1989). Kreative hochbegabung-ldent~~kation,
entwicklung und fordenng kreativer hochbegabter [Creative
talent: Identification, development, and demand]. Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd Meeting of the Section Educational Psychol-
ogy of the Gennan Psychological Society, Munich.
Smith, I. L. (1971). I.Q., creativity, and achievement: Interactionand
threshold. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 6. 5 1-62.
Snow, R. E. (1986). Individual differences and the design of educa-
tional programs. American Psychologist, 41, 1029-1039.
Stovall, N. C., & Williams, R. H. (1985). A comparativestudy of the
effectiveness of the Williams-Stockmyer creativity system in
promoting the creative thinking of sixth grade children. Cre-
ative Child & Adult Quarterly, 10, 106-1 13.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S.(1983). Usingmultivariatestatis-
tics. New York: Harper & Row.
Tanpraphat, A. (!976). A study of the relationship between creativ-
ity, academic achievement, scholastic aptitude, sex, and voca-
tional interests of tenth grade Thai students. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of North Colorado, Greeley.
Thorndike, R L. (1963). The measurement of creativity. Teachers
CollegeRecord, 64,422-424.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Rentice Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). Education and the creativepotential.Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1969, December). Creativity research and higher
education. Paper presented at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Boston, MA. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 037 160)
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively?
Journal of Creative Behavior, 6. 114-143.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Nonn-technical manual: Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking. Lexington, M A : Pasomel.
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom. Washington,
DC:National Education Association.
Torrance, E. P. (1986). Teaching creative and gifted learners. In M.
C. W i m k (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 630-647). New York: Macmillan.
Torrance, E. P., & Ball, 0. E. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking: Revised manual. Bensenville,IL: ScholasticTesting
Services.
Creativity Research Journal
 Creativity and Academic Achievement

Torrance, E. P., & Goff, K. (1989). A quiet revolution. Journal of b. I may be able to come up with a few approaches.
Creative Behavior. 23. 136145, c. I will be able to come up with a variety of ap-
Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, P. 1. (1973). Is creativiw teachable?
Bloomington. IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
proaches.
Wallach, M. A. (1971). Intelligence tests, academic achievement
and creativity. Impact ofScience on Sociew, 21,333-345.
Yamanmto, K. (1964). A further analysis of the role of creative
thinking in high school achievement. Journal of Psychologv, Example of VAT Flexibility Items
58, 277-283.
Yo Soy: Mucho Bistante Regular Poco Nada

Appendir: Sample Flexibility Subscale Flexible -----

Items from the Abedi-Schumacher
Creativity Test (CT) and the Villa and English Translation
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 14:22 20 December 2014

Auzmendi Creativity Test (VAT)

I am: Much Enough Regular Little None
Example of CT Flexibility Items
Flexible
How do you approach a complex task?
Note: CT (O'Neil, Abedi, & Spielberga, 1994). VAT (Auzmendi,
a. I come up with a single approach. Villa, & Abedi, 1996).

Creativity Research Journal