Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Exploring the relationship of creative thinking to reading and writing

Amber Yayin Wang
Department of English, National Taichung University of Education, 140 MinSheng Road, Taichung 403, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explores if extensive practice in reading or writing is related to high creative
Received 26 November 2010 performance. In total, 196 university students participated in the study by lling out a ques-
Received in revised form 25 July 2011 tionnaire and completing a creativity test. The questionnaire inquires the total courses taken
Accepted 6 September 2011
in the school year, total hours spent on reading, total hours on writing, and background
Available online 13 September 2011
information. The results indicated that students who spent more time on reading/writing
performed signicantly better on the creativity test. This study concludes that creativity
Keywords:
Creativity
scores, especially scores of elaboration, are signicantly correlated with attitudes toward
Creative thinking reading/writing, and the amount of time spent on reading/writing.
Creative performance 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Elaboration
Reading
Writing

1. Introduction

A signicant amount of current research in education (Amabile, 1983, 1985, 1989; Brown, 1989; Guilford, 1981; Plucker,
Beghetto, & Dow, 2004) has recognized that creative abilities are essential in solving complex individual, social, and global
problems. The world now is faced with ever-increasing problems that require solutions form creative talents. Education
around the world aims at developing not only knowledgeable workers but also creative thinkers. With such understanding,
promoting creativity has emerged as a major educational issue in Taiwan (Le Mtais, 2003; Pan, Yang, Chou, & Hong, 2003;
Sharp & Le Mtais, 2000).
International comparisons on test scores of mathematics and science have shown that students in Taiwan perform better
than their counterparts in many other countries (Chen & Stevenson, 1995; PISA, 2006; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; the TIMSS,
1995, 1999, 2003, 2007). However, test scores of creative thinking have not shown similar outstanding results (Wang, 2007;
Wang & Chu, 1975), nor have the test scores of reading literacy (PISA, 2006). After reviewing the test scores, some may wonder
why students who are good at solving math problems are bad at solving creativity problems, and also poor at reading literacy.
Is this because reading literacy and creative thinking require different abilities from solving math problems? Could similar
performances on creative thinking and reading literacy imply that there is a link between the two?
In the above international comparisons, creative performance has been referred to as the results of a creativity test. This
study, using a similar creativity test (the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults, the ATTA), adopts the Torrance research
denition (1965, 1966, 1988): Creative thinking is the ability to sense problems, make guesses, generate new ideas, and
communicate the results. With this view of creativity, Torrance (1988, 2000), and also Taylor and Sacks (1981) have suggested
that creative potential exists among all people and can be improved through learning. Based on this conception, many

Correspondence address: 9 Ln 41 Gongguan Rd., Taichung 403, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 919 444 266; fax: +886 4 2218 3460.
E-mail address: amberyy@mail.ntcu.edu.tw

1871-1871/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2011.09.001
 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847 39

researchers (McVey, 2008; Sak, 2004; Scanlon, 2006; Smith, Paradice, & Smith, 2000; Sturgell, 2008) have advocated the
idea that creativity can be encouraged through learning activities, especially reading and/or writing.
Thinking skills are closely related to language development (Piaget, 2002; Vygotsky, 1986), and it is highly possible that
creative thinking has a certain connection with reading and writing abilities. According to the literature (McVey, 2008; Sak,
2004; Scanlon, 2006; Smith et al., 2000; Sturgell, 2008), creativity is consistently associated with the abilities that are required
for reading and writing. The traits that are encouraged by reading and writing appear to have the same characteristics that cre-
ativity researchers suggest foster creativity, such as the freedom and ability to communicate ideas (Amabile, 1996; Beghetto,
2005; Cropley, 1992, 1997; Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1992), an emphasis on self-discovery (Amabile, 1996), and attention
to the individual (Albert, 1980; Harrington, Block, & Block, 1987). Also, when examining the relationship between creative
abilities and test scores of different subjects, Wang (2007) discovered that the creative ability of elaboration signicantly
and positively correlated with English reading and writing scores, but not with math scores.
A large body of research explores if learning activities in the classrooms can contribute to creative development. Some
studies (Branowsky & Botel, 1974; Messman, 1991; Otto, 1991; Sak, 2004), targeting gifted children or children in general,
endorsed the idea of fostering creativity through classroom reading and writing activities. Other studies (Annis, 1998;
Chen, Bernard, & Hsu, 2005; Zachopoulou, Trevlas, & Konstadinidou, 2006) endeavored to design creativity courses through
different learning activities, including reading and writing for preschool children and college students. The above studies
provided qualitative observation of how structured reading and/or writing activities in the classrooms encouraged students
to generate creative ideas and projects.
However, there seems to be little evidence about fostering creativity through personal learning activities. No empirical-
based evidence has indicated if personal reading or writing habits or practices, especially unstructured and unorganized
activities outside the classroom, are related to the development of creative thinking.

2. Purpose of the study

Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to understand if personal reading or writing practices are related to
personal creative performance. By comparing the creativity test scores of students with their self-reported scales on attitudes,
habits toward reading and writing, and the hours spent on reading and writing activities, this study explores if there is any
correlative link of creative thinking to reading and writing. With statistical evidence, this study attempts to understand if
students who enjoy reading and/or writing, who have the habit of regular reading and/or writing practices, or who spend
more time on reading and/or writing would perform better on a creativity test.

3. Signicance of the research

Even though creative abilities have been viewed as critical in many endeavors, such as art, science, medicine, and business,
research about how education can promote creativity has not been as extensive as expected. Research that aims toward
promoting creativity tends to focus on planning a creative way to teach a certain subject (e.g., Chen et al., 2005), or designing
a special program outside the regular curricula (e.g., Zachopoulou et al., 2006). Whether creativity can be developed through
regular personal practices (extensive reading, habitual writing, regular reading and writing courses within regular curricula)
have not been properly addressed. This study can be benecial for all students, especially those who are not in any gifted
program, or those who cannot afford to take any special program outside the regular curricula, if it can be shown that
any regular practice has value for fostering creative thinking, and also if it provides empirical evidence that veries the
assumption that extensive reading and writing facilitate creative performance.

4. Dening creative thinking

Before discussing in detail creativity research, it is necessary to dene the concept of creativity in this paper. As mentioned
earlier, Torrance (1988) and Taylor and Sacks (1981) advocated everyday creativity. Following this notion, a growing number
of researchers (e.g., Craft, 2001; Duffy, 1998; Feldman, 1999) have viewed creativity as everyday, i.e., a necessary thinking
skill for everyone. Utilizing this conception, Torrance (1965, 1966, 1988) dened creative thinking as the ability to identify
problems, make guesses, produce new ideas, and communicate the results. As Duffy (1998) suggested, creative thinking is
the ability to see things in new and original ways, to learn from experience and relating it to new situations, to think in
unconventional and unique ways, to use non-traditional approaches to solving problems, and creating something unique
and original.
Using the same denition, Goff and Torrance (2002) developed the ATTA, a creativity test. This test assesses creative
thinking ability which includes the ability of uency (the uency of ideas), the ability of originality (the uniqueness of ideas),
the ability of elaboration (the details of an idea), and the ability of exibility (the variety of ideas used to solve problems).
Adopting the ATTA as a measurement tool for creative thinking in this study, creative performance in this paper means the
test results of the ATTA. The detailed description of the ATTA, including the reliability and credibility, appears in the section
of measurement tools.
40 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847

5. Literature review

5.1. Factors that facilitate creativity

According to many researchers (Niu & Sternberg, 2003; Rudowicz, Lok, & Kitto, 1995; Straus & Straus, 1968), cultural
and educational factors inuence different creative performances, and creativity can be fostered through teaching activities
(Neethling, 2000; Torrance, 1987, 1988). Many creativity studies identify the various traits that teachers should value and
encourage in their students. Important aspects include cognitive, motivation, personality, and social factors.
For cognitive factors, creativity can be promoted through thinking, remembering, and reasoning (Campbell, 1960; Cropley,
1992; Pollert, Feldhusen, Van Mondfrans, & Trefnger, 1969). For motivation factors, self-discovery (Amabile, 1996), auton-
omy, courage, curiosity, willingness, and task commitment are encouraged (Beghetto, 2005; Cannatella, 2004; Cropley,
1992, 1997; Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1992). For personality factors, self-condence, self-esteem, determination, persis-
tence, tolerance for ambiguity, and the openness to new experiences are important for creative thinking (Amabile, 1996;
Bean, 1992; Beghetto, 2005; Cannatella, 2004; Cropley, 1992, 1997; Diakidoy & Kanari, 1999; Gardner, 1988; Torrance,
1992; Von Eschenbach & Noland, 1981). The social factors include abundant resources, independence, nonconformity, and
the ability to communicate ideas (Amabile, 1996; Beghetto, 2005; Cropley, 1992, 1997; Gardner, 1988; Torrance, 1992).
As Ogilvie (1974) particularly emphasizes, an environment that fosters creativity provides for both freedom of expres-
sion and good quality association reservoirs (p. 129). In accordance with these suggested factors, the most important
characteristics for a creative individual are determination, curiosity, independence (in judgement and thinking), persis-
tence, self-condence, and a willingness to take risks (Diakidoy & Kanari, 1999; Torrance, 1975; Von Eschenbach & Noland,
1981). In a series of studies, Torrance (1975) and Fryer (1989, 1994, 1996) conrm that teachers who value the characteristics
that facilitate creativity actually help students achieve a high level of creative performance.

5.2. Reading, writing, and creativity

According to the above review, many of the characteristics that facilitate creativity can be developed through reading
or writing practices such as thinking, remembering, reasoning, feeling curious, exploring, and freedom of expression. The
relationship between reading, writing, and thinking has been studied most extensively. Researchers have demonstrated
how reading and writing are related to thinking (Moffett & Wagner, 1983; Pearson & Tierney, 1984; Stanford & Roark, 1974;
Staton, 1984), and how reading and writing instruction can encourage critical thinking (Chapple & Curtis, 2000; Davidson,
1994).
Reading and writing activities have been intuitively connected with creative activities that foster creative thinking. This
is mainly because reading and writing often require critical, analytical, and self-expressive abilities, as well as a sense of self-
discovery. As Sturgell (2008) points out, reading texts provide abundant resources for creative ideas to ourish. In a recent
article, McVey (2008) elaborates that any kind of writing is itself creative, and reading and writing should be promoted for
endless creative possibilities (p. 294). To encourage the characteristics that facilitate creativity, researchers have designed
certain creativity courses through reading and writing activities (Annis, 1998; Chen et al., 2005; Zachopoulou et al., 2006).
In a summary of the related literature, Smith et al. (2000) outlined the essential elements that prepare a creative mind:
knowledge and behavior. According to them, knowledge refers to resources, techniques, and related information. In order
to create something in a certain eld, one needs to have resources, techniques, and information in the eld. On the other hand,
behavior requires habitual acts. To prepare a creative mind means to encourage the habitual act of learning something new,
seeking constructive criticism, thinking and incubating, and putting knowledge to work. These elements are actually part
of the everyday reading and writing experience: reading to accumulate knowledge, and writing that puts knowledge and
personal ideas to work. In addition, by examining the relationship between creative abilities and test scores from different
subjects, Wang (2007) discovered that there was a signicant correlation between creativity scores, especially in elaboration,
and reading and writing scores.
The above review of literature brings indirect evidence to support the conclusion that reading and writing are in some
ways linked with fostering creativity. However, it is still a speculation rather than a conclusion supported by empirical
evidence. In the above studies, researchers observed behavior where creative elements were obvious. Even for the reading
and writing activities designed for gifted children, and the special courses outside the regular curricula, the ndings simply
reported observations on how the participated students generated creative works and ideas. No statistical evidence has
shown how a person, not registered in a gifted program or special program, simply spending more time on reading and/or
writing would score higher on a creativity test, or how a person who likes to read and/or write would be more creative in
solving verbal or gural problems. It is this unexplored area that this study attempts to investigate: it intends to provide
statistical evidence to support that personal reading and writing practices can help fostering creative thinking.

6. Research questions

According to the purpose of the research, this study explores if there is any correlative link of creative performance
to personal reading and writing practices. It intends to answer the following questions: (1) Does personal attitude toward
reading and writing inuence creative performance? (2) Do students with different reading or writing habits, such as reading
 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847 41

books or reading online, perform differently on a creativity test? (3) Do more hours spent on reading and writing in general
improve scores on a creativity test?

7. Methods

7.1. Population and procedure

The sampling subjects in this study were students from 18 to 21 in a university in Taiwan. University students in the
departments of English and Chinese were required to take reading and writing courses; these courses were not required in
the departments of Mathematics and Information Science. Therefore, participants were solicited from the departments of
English, Chinese, Mathematics, and Information Science. Teachers in selected classes in these departments encouraged the
students to voluntarily participate in the project. The students who participated in the project were able to receive their
creativity assessment results for free. As an incentive to make students take the research seriously and make them keep an
accurate record of their reading and writing time, a gift coupon was provided to every student who participated and fullled
the requirements in the research. During regular class time, according to the instruction of the researcher, the participants
lled out a questionnaire and completed a creativity test, the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA).

7.2. Measurement tools

Two measurement tools were employed: a questionnaire and a creativity test (ATTA). The tool used to measure creative
thinking ability was the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA). The ATTA is a shortened version of the Torrance
Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), a widely used and researched creativity test (Cramond, 1998; Rosenthal, DeMers, Stilwell,
Graybeal, & Zins, 1983; Runco & Albert, 1985). The TTCT was developed mainly for children and the ATTA for adults. The
time limit for adults to complete the activities in the creativity test is shorter; it takes about 15 min to complete the ATTA
and about 50 min for the TTCT. The ATTA has been proven to be as reliable and valid as the TTCT (Goff & Torrance, 2000;
Torrance, 1981, 1988, 2000; Torrance & Safter, 1999), and the traditional Chinese version has been extensively tested and
has proven to be valid in Taiwan (Chen, 2006). Since the participants in this study were young adults in Taiwan, the ATTA
was selected as a measurement tool.
The test was employed in this study because of its validity and its problem-solving nature. It contains three activities:
one verbal and two gural tests. Within a set time limit, the students are required to identify problems, make guesses, and
create ideas to solve problems or communicate ideas by writing sentences or phrases and by drawing pictures. The ATTA
assesses how many ideas (uency) can be generated within the set time, how unique (originality) the ideas are, how many
details (elaboration) can be added to an original idea, and how many varieties (exibility) of ideas can be generated to solve
one problem.
Analysis of the activities in the ATTA shows participants uency, originality, elaboration, exibility, and creative indexes.
The result of the ATTA provides the creativity index (CI), a composite of creative indicators plus four sub-scores: (1) uency;
(2) originality; (3) elaboration; (4) exibility. The four creative components are scaled as 1119. The overall creative perfor-
mance, the CI, is ranked with seven levels, with values ranging from one to seven (1 = Minimal; 2 = Low; 3 = Below Average;
4 = Average; 5 = Above Average; 6 = High; 7 = Substantial).
The other measurement tool, the questionnaire, inquired about (1) personal attitudes toward reading and writing; (2) esti-
mated hours spent on different reading and writing activities; and (3) background information. The questionnaire surveyed
student demographic information (age, gender, major, minor), courses taken in the current school year, student attitudes
toward reading and writing, and the hours students spent on different reading and writing activities.
Student attitudes toward reading and writing were surveyed with a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly
disagree). The items in the attitude assessment included positive statements (such as I enjoy reading very much) and
negative statements (such as reading makes me feel bored). If a person scores high on a positive statement, or scores low
on a negative statement, this means that the person holds a positive attitude toward reading or writing. However, if a person
scores low on a positive statement, or scores high on a negative statement, it shows a negative attitude.
On the other hand, the self-evaluated hours spent on various reading and writing activities were rated with a 6-point
Likert scale (6 = more than 15 h a week; 5 = 1115 h a week; 4 = 610 h a week; 3 = 15 h a week; 2 = less than 1 h a week;
1 = never). Different reading activities included reading (1) textbooks or assigned reading texts in class, (2) books for fun and
pleasure, (3) magazines or articles, (4) newspapers, (5) online news, (6) on a BBS (Bulletin Board System) or blog. Writing
activities were writing (1) their essay assignments, (2) articles for fun, (3) personal diaries, (4) personal blogs, and (5) entries
on a BBS or online forum.

8. Results and discussion

The statistical program SPSS was used to organize and compile the collected data. In this study, 196 surveys and creativity
tests were collected. Except for the respondents who did not provide background information, there were 122 female and
69 male students from the departments of English (N = 55), Chinese (N = 56), Information Science (N = 38), and Mathematics
42 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847

Table 1
Summary of participants.

Major Male Female Missing Total (N = 196)

English 6 49 0 55
Chinese 6 48 2 56
Information Science 28 7 3 38
Mathematics 29 18 0 47
Total 69 122 5 196

(N = 47). Table 1 summarizes the background information of the participants. Also, the majority of participants from the
departments of humanities were female, whereas most of those from the departments of science were male.
An analysis of the data from the whole sample revealed that students from different genders performed signicantly
different on the creativity test. However, no signicant gender differences could be identied within each department; also,
evidence regarding gender differences on creative performance in the literature is equivocal (Wang, 2007). Therefore, gender
difference on creative performance was not explored in this paper.
The Pearson correlation tests among variables were tested to explore any signicant relation. The results described
here are organized as follows: (1) the relationship between creativity and attitudes toward reading and writing; (2) the
relationship between creativity and hours spent on different reading and writing activities; (3) the relationship between
creativity and hours spent on reading and writing in general.

8.1. Creativity and attitudes toward reading and writing

According to the results of the Pearson correlation tests, signicant correlations were observed between creative perfor-
mance and student attitudes toward reading and writing. Table 2 presents signicant correlations between creative abilities
and reading attitudes. Obviously, positive reading attitudes were signicantly correlated with high creativity. The signicant
correlation between enjoying discussing books and creativity (elaboration r = 0.172, CI r = 0.143, signicant at the 0.05 level)
indicates that the more one likes to discuss books, the better one performs on the creativity test. Also, the more one enjoys
reading, the higher the creativity test scores are (elaboration r = 0.170, CI r = 0.161, signicant at the 0.05 level).
Moreover, negative reading attitudes signicantly correlated with low creativity. The negative correlation once again sup-
ports the hypothesis that reading fosters creativity. The more a student disagrees that he or she reads only when required,
the higher the student scores on the ATTA (uency r = 0.198, elaboration r = 0.245, CI r = 0.216, signicant at the 0.01
level). The more a student disagrees that reading makes him or her feel bored, the higher the scores are on the creativity
test (uency r = 0.212, elaboration r = 0.294, exibility r = 0.206, CI r = 0.293, signicant at the 0.01 level). Regarding
attitudes toward writing, signicant correlations were also observed. As Table 3 shows, signicant and negative correla-
tions were noted between creative performance and the following two statements: (1) one only writes when required (CI
r = 0.153, signicant at the 0.05 level); and (2) writing makes one feel bored (CI r = 0.255, signicant at the 0.01 level).
Therefore, students who have low creative performance scores tend to write only when required, and tend to feel bored

Table 2
Correlations between creativity and reading attitudes.

Like to discuss books Total sample (N = 196)

Elaboration 0.172*
Creativity index 0.142*

Enjoy reading

Elaboration 0.170*
Creativity index 0.161*

Do not like reading and only read when required

Fluency 0.198**
Elaboration 0.245**
Creativity index 0.216**

Feel bored when reading

Fluency 0.212**
Elaboration 0.294**
Flexibility 0.206**
Creativity index 0.293**
*
Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847 43

Table 3
Correlations between creativity and writing attitudes.

Only write when required Total sample (N = 196)

Fluency 0.173*
Elaboration 0.235**
Creativity index 0.153*

Writing makes one bored

Fluency 0.168*
Originality 0.180*
Elaboration 0.226**
Flexibility 0.156*
Creativity index 0.255**
*
Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

when performing any writing activity. However, keeping a diary, enjoyment of writing, and a preference for discussing
writing did not seem to affect the creative performance

8.2. Creativity and hours on different reading and writing activities

As for hours spent on reading and writing activities, signicant and positive correlations were discovered between creative
ability and the hours spent on the following activities: (1) reading for fun (uency r = 0.165); (2) reading magazines or articles
(uency r = 0.176, elaboration r = 0.150, and CI r = 0.170); (3) reading online news (originality r = 0.145); and (4) writing
assignments (originality r = 0.171). Table 4 indicates the detailed correlations. However, the hours spent on some reading
and writing activities did not inuence creative performance, e.g., reading a textbook, blog, or BBS.

8.3. Creativity and hours on reading and writing in general

Analyses of the data consistently found that the majority of students who rated themselves highest on the amount of time
spent on reading or writing (rated 6: more than 15 h a week; rated 5: 1115 h a week) were students from the departments
of English and Chinese. Thus, courses taken during the school year for each participant were further examined to understand
any differences in the amount of time spent on reading or writing required by the different departments. Students from
the departments of English and Chinese were required to take more credits in reading and/or writing, and they had more
essay-type assignments than those in the departments of science and mathematics. English majors, who were required to
read and write not only in their rst language (L1) but also in a second language (L2), took more credits than Chinese majors
in courses that require extensive reading and writing assignments. However, students from the departments of science and
mathematics took few reading courses, and no writing courses.
According to their self-reported time on reading and writing activities, students of different majors spent a different
amount of time on reading and writing activities. For reading activities, although they spent a similar amount of time
reading textbooks, newspapers, online news, blogs, and reading for fun, on average, English (M = 3.66) majors spent the
most time doing these activities, followed by Science (M = 3.47), Chinese (M = 3.39), and Math majors (M = 3.28). What is
more important is that they spent a signicantly different amount of time reading articles (Table 5). Among them, English

Table 4
Correlations between creativity and hours on different reading or writing activities.

Hours on reading for fun Total sample (N = 196)

Fluency 0.165(* )

Hours on reading magazines or articles

Fluency 0.176 (* )
Elaboration 0.150(* )
Creativity index 0.222(** )

Hours on reading online news

Originality 0.145(* )

Hours on writing assignments

Originality 0.171(* )
*
Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
44 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847

Table 5
Signicant differences in reading and writing time among different majors.

Majors (N = 196) F Sig.

Reading articles 9.880 <0.001

Writing articles for fun 8.526 <0.001
Writing personal blogs 4.243 0.006

Table 6
Signicant differences in creative performance between different majors.

Majors (N = 196) F Sig.

Level of creativity index 6.124 <0.001

Fluency 3.069 0.004
Originality 2.308 0.036
Elaboration 6.535 <0.001
Flexibility 2.166 0.048

majors spent the most time reading articles, approximately 56 h a week (M = 3.75, SD = 1.00), followed by Science majors
(M = 3.29, SD = 1.03) and Chinese majors (M = 3.02, SD = 0.96). Math majors spent the least time, approximately an hour a
week (M = 2.72, SD = 0.97).
For writing activities, all the students spent a relatively similar amount of time writing their school assignments, with
English majors spending the most time (M = 4.06, SD = 0.98), followed by Chinese (M = 4.02, SD = 1.06), Information Science
(M = 3.82, SD = 1.16), and Math majors (M = 3.73, SD = 1.20). However, they spent a signicantly different amount of time
writing articles for fun and on personal blogs (Table 5). Among them, Chinese and English majors spent much more time
on writing for fun (CH: M = 3.58, SD = 1.71; ENG: M = 3.31, SD = 1.63) and on personal blogs (CH: M = 3.73, SD = 1.65; ENG:
M = 3.58, SD = 1.50) than Information Science and Math majors (for fun IS: M = 2.13, SD = 1.48; Math: M = 2.36, SD = 1.77)
(blogs IS: M = 2.84, SD = 1.84; Math: M = 2.76, SD = 1.76).
Therefore, the ANOVA was performed to test if different department groups performed differently on the creativity test.
The results indicate signicant differences. As Table 6 demonstrates, the four department groups performed signicantly
different on the overall creative performance (level of creativity index: F = 6.124, p < 0.001). As for each component of creative
ability, the differences were also obvious (Table 6) while the most prominent difference appeared in the ability of elaboration
(F = 6.535, p < 0.001).
The following paragraphs describe the different performances in the ATTA of the four departments. Obviously, the major-
ity of English majors (32.7%) and Chinese majors (33.9%) demonstrate a high level of creativity (CI = 6), whereas the majority
of Science majors (44.7%) and Math majors (27.7%) show an average level of creativity (CI = 4). Table 7 shows the frequency
distributions of the CI in the four departments.

Table 7
Distribution of the level of the creativity index (CI).

Major CI Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Min. Low Below Avg. Above High Substantial

English 0 0 3 11 7 18 16 55
Chinese 0 2 4 14 11 19 6 56
Science 0 1 4 17 8 7 1 38
Mathematics 3 5 9 13 6 7 4 47

CI: 1 = Minimal; 2 = Low; 3 = Below Average; 4 = Average; 5 = Above Average; 6 = High; 7 = Substantial.

Table 8
Means and standard deviations of the scores on the ATTA.

Major Creativity

Fluency Originality Elaboration Flexibility Creativity index

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

English 15.41 1.42 16.33 1.89 17.24 1.30 15.13 1.80 5.63 1.25
Chinese 14.63 1.64 16.30 1.99 16.64 1.53 15.00 2.03 5.05 1.29
Science 14.24 1.32 16.37 2.16 16.00 1.38 15.08 1.75 4.50 1.09
Math 14.23 1.83 15.32 2.49 15.32 1.92 14.17 2.07 4.09 1.65

Scaled scores: uency, originality, elaboration, and exibility = 1119; creativity Level = 17.
ANOVA shows signicant differences between the groups.
 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847 45

Although science majors demonstrated the highest mean scores on the ability of originality, English majors scored the
highest in almost every other aspect of the test. Table 8 compares the means and standard deviations of the scores of creativity
index and the four sub-scores.
Generally speaking, students who spent more time on reading and writing performed better on the creativity test. English
majors spent the most time reading and writing (in both L1 and L2) and scored the highest on the creativity test, while Math
majors spent the least time and scored the lowest. Although Science majors spent more time on reading activities than
Chinese majors, Chinese majors spent much more time on writing activities. Spending more time on reading may be the
reason why Science majors scored higher than Chinese majors on the component abilities of originality and exibility, though
their overall scores on the creativity index were lower than those of Chinese majors.

9. Conclusion

In the signicant correlations between creativity and reading and writing that are identied in this study (Tables 24),
the ability of elaboration constantly emerges as the most prominent and constant connection. Even in the results of the
ANOVA (Table 6), the most distinct difference in creative performance among the four department groups is the ability of
elaboration. Originality and exibility seem to be less differentiated among the four groups. The above ndings suggest that
habitual reading and writing have a signicant and positive relationship with the ability of elaboration.
According to Goff and Torrance (2002), elaboration is the ability to embellish ideas with details. For example, when given
a triangle gure, a student may come up an original idea to draw a house with the gure, and elaboration scoring measures
the number of details (such as windows or fences) that are added to the house. Adding rich details raises the elaboration
scores, and increases the overall creative performance. According to the above ndings, reading and writing have a positive
relationship with the ability to enrich original ideas with details.
This implication sheds lights on the question at the beginning of this paper: Why do students who perform well on math
tests not perform as well on tests of creativity and reading literacy? Solving a math problem does not necessarily require
rich verbal details. However, performing well on creativity and reading literacy tests requires the ability to provide rich
verbal details. This may explain why students who score high on TIMSS mathematics and science tests do not score as well
on creativity tests or the PISA test of reading literacy.
This does not necessarily mean humanities students are generally more creative than mathematics and science students.
However, it does show that humanities students spent signicantly more time on reading and writing, and also that required
courses in the humanities offered more opportunities for students to develop reading and writing habits. With the signicant
and positive relationship of creativity to reading and writing attitudes, habits, and time spent, it is likely that some component
creative abilities, such as the ability of elaboration, may naturally and more regularly develop from the humanities than from
other subject disciplines.
Another possibility is that a creativity test may not measure creative thinking across all domains; rather, it may be more
of a measure of linguistic ability. In each activity in the ATTA, either verbal or gural, the activity requires linguistic ability.
The respondent of the test needs to write sentences to express ideas (linguistic ability) in the verbally activity, and to write
a title that describes (linguistic ability) each drawing in the gural activities. However, it is not the scope of this study to
determine if the ATTA tends to measure linguistic creative ability better than creative thinking across all domains. Future
research may explore the possibility.
From the above statistical evidence, this study conrms that there is a positive relationship with reading and writing to
creativity, especially in the ability of elaboration. Habitual reading and writing, especially in different languages, is related
to high performance in the ability of elaboration. Obviously, a positive attitude toward reading and writing has an impact
on creative performance, and the number of hours spent on different reading and writing activities inuences creative
thinking. A higher amount of time spent on reading or writing, either within or outside the regular curricula, is related to
higher creative performance. Students from different majors perform differently, though further study may be needed to
interpret the results. For now, educators and parents should be aware that in order to promote creative thinking, it is best to
develop a positive attitude toward reading and writing, and also practice extensive reading and writing, and most probably
in different languages.

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by a research grant from National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan (grant number
NTCU97215).

References

Albert, R. S. (1980). Family positions and the attainment of eminence: A study of special family experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(2), 8795.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1985). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Science, 45(22), 357376.
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York: Crown.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Annis, D. B. (1998). Fostering creativity in philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 29(12), 95106.
46 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847

Bean, R. (1992). Individuality, self-expression and other keys to creativity: Using the four conditions of self-esteem in elementary and middle schools. Santa Cruz,
CA: ETR Associates.
Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(2), 254263.
Branowsky, A. & Botel, M. (1974). Creative thinking, reading and writing in the classroom. Elementary English, 51(5), 653654.
Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 332). New York:
Plenum.
Campbell, D. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380400.
Cannatella, H. (2004). Embedding creativity in teaching and learning. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 38(4), 5970.
Chapple, L. & Curtis, A. (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to lm. System, 28, 419433.
Chen, C. Y. (Revised) (2006). [Abbreviated Torrance Test for adults manual: the Taiwan
Norm]. Revised according to Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002) .
Chen, C., Bernard, J. & Hsu, K. (2005). An empirical study of industrial engineering and management curriculum reform in fostering students creativity.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(2), 191202.
Chen, C. & Stevenson, H. W. (1995, August). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Asian-American. Caucasian-American, and
East Asian high school students. Child Development, 66(4), 12151234.
Craft, A. (2001). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education. London: Continuum.
Cramond, B. (1998). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Going beyond the scores. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating
creativity in youth: Research and methods (pp. 307327). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity in the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp. 83114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Davidson, B. (1994). Critical thinking: A perspective and prescriptions for language teachers. The Language Teacher, 18(4), 2026.
Duffy, B. (1998). Supporting imagination and creativity in the early years. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Diakidoy, I. & Kanari, E. (1999). Student teachers beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225243.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fryer, M. (1989). Teachers views on creativity. (Doctoral dissertation, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds England, 1989) Dissertation Abstracts International,
50(12), 3884A.
Fryer, M. (1994). Management style and views about creativity. In H. Geschka, S. Moger, & T. Rickards (Eds.), Creativity and innovation: The power of synergy
(pp. 259264). Darmstadt, Germany: Geschka & Partner.
Fryer, M. (1996). Creative teaching and learning. London: Sage/Paul Chapman Publishing.
Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creative Research Journal, 1, 826.
Goff, K. & Torrance, E. P. (2000). Brief demonstrator form of the Torrance tests of creative thinking: Training/teaching manual for adults with technical data.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Goff, K. & Torrance, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Test for adults manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Guilford, J. P. (1981). Factors that aid and hinder creativity. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications. Iowa:
Kendall.
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H. & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogerss theory of creative environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative
potential in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851856.
Le Mtais, J. (2003). International trends in curriculum frameworks. The Educational Forum, 67, 235247.
McVey, D. (2008). Why all writing is creative writing. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 45(3), 289294.
Messman, T. R. (1991). From antique books to word processing: A whole-language approach inspires creativity in young gifted authors. Illinois Council for
the Gifted Journal, 10, 3538. Retrieved from. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED335852.pdf
Moffett, J. & Wagner, B. J. (1983). Student-centered language arts and reading: A handbook for teachers (5th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifin.
Neethling, K. (2000). The beyonders. In E. P. Torrance (Ed.), On the edge and keeping on the edge (pp. 153166). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service,
Inc.
Niu, W. & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school inuences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103114.
Ogilvie, E. (1974). Creativity and curriculum structure. Educational Research, 16, 126132.
Otto, B. (1991). Creativity in reading and writing are considered in: Techniques for stimulating story writing among gifted children. Illinois Council for the
Gifted Journal, 10, 3133.
Pan, H. L., Yang, S. K., Chou, Z. Y., & Hong, J. J. (2003). [Introduction:
Veins, ideals, and tasks of education reform] .
Pearson, P. D. & Tierney, R. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In A. Purves, & O. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a
complex society (pp. 144173). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (2002). The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge.
PISA (2006). PISA 2006 results. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004, June). Why isnt creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future
directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 8396.
Pollert, L. H., Feldhusen, J. F., Van Mondfrans, A. P. & Trefnger, D. J. (1969). Role of memory in divergent thinking. Psychological Reports, 25(1),
151156.
Rosenthal, A., DeMers, S. T., Stilwell, W., Graybeal, S. & Zins, J. (1983). Comparison of interrater reliability on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking for gifted
and non-gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 20(1), 3540.
Rudowicz, E., Lok, D. & Kitto, J. (1995). Use of the Torrance tests of creative thinking in an exploratory study of creativity in Hong Kong primary school
children: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 30(4), 417430.
Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483501.
Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), 216.
Scanlon, J. (2006). Reading, writing, and creativity. Business Week Online, 00077135, 2/23/2006, p. 10.
Sharp, C. & Le Mtais, J. (2000). The arts, creativity and cultural education: An international perspective. London, England: Qualication and Curriculum
Authority. Retrieved from. http://www.inca.org.uk
Smith, D. K., Paradice, D. B. & Smith, S. M. (2000). Prepare your mind for creativity. Communications of the ACM, 43(7), 110116.
Stanford, G. & Roark, A. (1974). Human interaction in education. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Staton, J. (1984). Thinking together: Language interaction in childrens reasoning. In C. Thaiss, & C. Suhor (Eds.), Speaking and writing, K-12: Classroom
strategies and the new research (pp. 144187). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Stevenson, H. W. & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Straus, J. H. & Straus, M. A. (1968). Family role and sex differences in creativity of children in Bombay and Minneapolis. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
30(1), 4653.
Sturgell, I. (2008, February). Touchstone texts: Fertile ground for creativity. Reading Teacher, 61(5), 411414.
Taylor, C. W. & Sacks, D. (1981). Facilitating lifetime creative processesA think piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(3), 116118.
 A.Y. Wang / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 3847 47

The TIMSS Study (1995, 1999, 2003, 2007). TIMSS results. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/intl
reports.html.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual (Research ed.). Lexinton, MA: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1975). Assessing children, teachers, and parents against the ideal child criterion. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 130139.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative Child and Adult
Quarterly, 6, 136140.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 189215). Buffalo, NY: Bearly
Limited.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 4375). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1992, January/February). A national climate for creativity and invention. Gifted Child Today, 15(1), 1014.
Torrance, E. P. (Ed.). (2000). On the edge and keeping on the edge. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. & Safter, H. T. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond. . .. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Von Eschenbach, J. F. & Noland, R. E. (1981). Changes in student teachers perception of the creative pupil. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 8, 169177.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wang, A. Y. (2007). Contexts of creative thinking: Teaching, learning and creativity in Taiwan and the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. (UMI No. 3268262)
Wang, S., & Chu, C. P. (1975, January). [A revision of the Torrance
test of creative thinking: The gural form] [Psychological Testing], 22, 8894.
Zachopoulou, E., Trevlas, E. & Konstadinidou, E. (2006). The design and implementation of a physical education program to promote childrens creativity in
the early years. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 279294 (EJ742273).