Exploring the Relationship between
Self-Regulation and Creativity
Dr. Nawal Abdullah
Al-Dhobaiban
1
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship, currently missing in the literature,
between self-regulation and creativity among college students and the association of self-regulation,
creativity, and GPA with demographic characteristics. In order to investigate this relationship, this
study examines modern cognitive theories used in today’s education in correlation with the
biofunctional theory. In short, the reason is to discover how and when creativity exists.
To achieve this goal, two separate studies were performed. In each study, subjects received a
booklet containing three scales and a demographic information section. For Study 1, the researcher
used the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), the Wholetheme Learning Inventory
(WLI), and Test your Creativity Level (TYCL). The first two scales are used to measure selfregulation while the third is used to measure creativity. Study 2 also included the same selfregulation scales. However, a different creativity scale, the Khatena Torrance Creative Perception
Inventory (KTCPI), was used.
Altogether, 219 university students participated in the two studies—119 in Study 1 and 100
in Study 2. The results showed a significant relationship between self-regulation, creativity, and
GPA only when the three sources of self-regulation were addressed in combination in the manner
specified by biofunctional science and wholetheme education. These findings remained the same
for two different creativity measures—TYCL and KTCPI. However, when LASSI was used as a
measure of self-regulation, it only correlated positively with GPA.
Wholetheme education recognizes the roles of creativity and dynamic (or brain-mediated)
self-regulation in learning beyond any contribution from strategic (or mind-mediated) or external
(or stimulus-mediated) self-regulation.
Introduction:
2
There is general agreement that success in life, in general, and in education, in particular, is
based on one’s level of self-regulation, motivation, and creativity (Boekarts, Pintrich, Zeidner,
2000). These aspects of learning are the foundation for academic success and of survival in today’s
competitive world. Education cannot afford to ignore the relevance of these indispensable sources
for actualizing the human potential. The cost of not engaging optimal levels of self-regulation
together with the learner’s creative potential is at best loosing one’s special edge to those who know
how to utilize them (Mayers, 2003; Davis & Rimm, 2004; Boekarts, Pintrich, Zeidner, 2000).
For hundreds of years, educators, philosophers, and scientists have been searching for the
best way to help students learn (Mithaug, 1993). A large number of theories and hypotheses have
been proposed, ranging from a narrow focus on behavior or memorization to a broader reliance on
constructivist teaching (Carven & Scheier, 1998). Nevertheless, Dewey (1914) is one of those
relatively few scientists who looked at education from the student’s point of view, the factors that
make students like the subjects they are taught, or at least how learners become interested on their
own in what they study (Dewey, 1914). Thus, while there is a wealth of theory about selfregulation, motivation, and creativity as well as about causes of their development (Boekarts,
Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Mithaug, 1993; Carven & Scheier, 1998; Bronson, 2000), no studies are
available examining the relationship between self-regulation and creativity.
Self-regulation and Creativity
We can choose what we want to be, trust ourselves, and then work at achieving our highest
personal goals. People can be “free to create any variety of possible selves” (Markus & Nurius,
1986, p. 954). They should learn how to generate selves that represent their hopes and aspirations.
They should strive for the “ideal self,” which is the person’s view of “how I should be” (p. 956).
Perhaps one of our most important qualities as humans is our ability to self-regulate. It has provided
us with an adaptive edge that enabled our ancestors to survive and even flourish when changing
3
conditions led other species to extinction. Our regulatory skill or lack of it is the source of our
perception of personal agency that lies at the core of our sense of self.
Creativity is a quality existing in all persons. The factors of creativity seem to vary from
person to person both in the amount of initial deposit, and in the degree to which this
potential is realized and developed. I say seem because nobody has as yet devised a measure
that even purports to measure the extent of the creativity potential of any person is used very
little. (Allen, 1962, p. 61)
However, creativity will flourish greatly with nurturing, understanding, respect,
opportunities, and freedom. Conceptually, creativity has been defined in terms of imagination,
divergent thinking, fantasy, intuition, curiosity, problem solving (to name a few), and different
combinations of these factors. In addition, the lack of a single reliable method for assessing
creativity made it even harder and more complicated to investigate.
Sternberg (2003) stated that a number of researchers, such as Lubart (1994), Ochse (1990),
Sternberg (2003), and Sternberg and Lubart (1993) agreed on the definition which views creativity
as the ability to produce work that is novel (that is, original and unexpected), high in quality, and
appropriate (that is, useful and meets task constraints). Torrance provided another definition that
views creativity as “the process of sensing problems or gaps in information, forming ideas or
hypotheses, testing and modifying these hypotheses, and communicating results” (Davis, 1985, p.
16). Creativity is more than using one’s imagination. It is a lifestyle, a personality trait, a way of
perceiving the world, and a way of living and growing. Being creative is exploring new ideas, new
places, and new activities. It is also developing a sensitivity to the problems of mankind (Kubie,
1958, pp. 104-136).
Like self-regulation and creativity, learning has received a variety of definitions. However,
no theoretical perspective could be found in the literature to offer a comprehensive account of the
relationships among self-regulation, motivation, and creativity. One possible exception is the
biofunctional perspective. In biofunctional theory, unlike in any previous research, the goal is to
understand the learner’s intrinsic brain processes, not the information and not even direct
4
knowledge structures or knowledge connections. The theory makes the unusual claim that intrinsic
motivation comes when the learner actively resists his or her own routine predictions (Iran-Nejad &
Winsler, 2000). Among the intrinsic sources targeted by the biofunctional theory are learner
intuitions, flexibility, and artistic quality.
Iran-Nejad and Winsler (2000) state that “in biofunctional theory, learning is growth in the
ability to take advantage of internal sources of self-regulation to (re)create ongoing knowledge and
to do so with increasing efficiency, intuitive flexibility, and technical fluency” (p. 31). Taking
advantage of internal sources is essential not only for learning, but also for effective functioning.
Thus, internal sources of self-regulation are pulled to the center stage as are artistic motivation and
creativity. The person recreates knowledge and disposition to facilitate problem solving, or even the
creation of obstacles, in a way that benefits learner motivation, self-regulation, and creativity (IranNejad & Winsler, 2000).
Understanding the relationship between self-regulation, motivation, and creativity gives us
an explanation for how different people with the same amount of knowledge solve problems
differently (Mayers, 2003; Boekarts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Ormrod, 2003). For example,
biofunctional theory describes the brain as having a creative mode. The brain’s mode of functioning
is “energy-mobilizing,” making the physical brain itself a direct source of motivation and giving the
internal world as well as the physical brain of the learner its natural momentum toward change,
exploration, action, and approaching challenge (Iran-Nejad, 2000). This creative mode of
functioning is governed by the unknown side of the indeterminate zone of practice (Schon, 1987).
Therefore, the theory implies a unique kind of relationship among the three internal sources—
motivation, creativity, and self-regulation—has direct implications for understanding how the
nervous system functions and contributes its role, which is necessary, according to the theory, for
understanding how the mind interacts with the world. It is essential “because the mind has no direct
access to the outside world—only the brain does” (Iran-Nejad & Gregg, 2001, p. 874). Therefore,
5
the biofunctional theory takes a major step beyond traditional theories because it recognizes the
active (executive) as well as the dynamic (nonexecutive) sources of internal self-regulation of
learning processes (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992).
To a greater extent than is immediately apparent, success is associated with learners’ level
and nature of their relationships to themselves (Iran-Nejad & Gregg, 2001). An individual who has
a high level of internal self-regulation, motivation, and creativity is more likely to trust
himself/herself, which produces better self-confidence to use personal intuition and create special
products (Pintrich, 2003; Mayers, 2003; Boekarts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Ormrod, 2003).
Therefore, the learner is viewed as an active decision maker who is genuinely responsible for
his/her own success. Such a relationship is characterized by the wholeness of its operation taking
into consideration what happens inside as well as outside in the realm of multiple interdependent
sources. In short, biofunctionalism gives due consideration to both internal and external factors
essential for optimizing self-regulation, motivation, and creativity.
Biofunctional theory is the only one so far in which the nature of the learners’ relationship to
themselves is specified clearly in terms of the theory of the brain-mind cycle of reflection and its
internal way of promoting self-regulation and creativity through the use of the whole person. The
brain-mind cycle of reflection is a theory of self-discovery through critical self-reflection. It implies
internal learning that is based on the person’s intuitive self-awareness and self-regulation in a brainawareness-mind cycle instead of the input-elaboration-output sequence. In other words, learning the
brain-mind cycle of reflection occurs as a wholetheme reorganization of the learner’s intuitive
knowledge base (Iran-Nejad, 2000).
The biofunctional theory of multisource self-regulation assumes that learning is the
reorganization of the individual’s intuitive knowledge base, as controlled by three sources of control
(Iran-Nejad, 2001). Individuals must be active in their learning and continue throughout their lives.
Self-regulation learning, motivation, and creativity skills are the most important facets of learning
6
that students will carry with them as they leave school and venture into the world of work because
they are the most directly related to achievement and learning (Mithaug, 1993).
This study uses the biofunctional theory to explore the relationship between what this article
considers to be the most important three areas of academic and life success. Although there are a
number of perspectives to choose from, scientists have paid little or insufficient attention, for
example, to dynamic self-regulation. The biofunctional theory is, therefore, the only theory
available in the literature to fill this gap. The idea is that the areas of interest outlined here are
intimately integrated and that this organic integration is the most critical factor in the complex
relationship between learners, themselves, and their ability to think and act creatively in the real
world.
This theory views learning not as the internalization of external knowledge but as
"wholetheme" reorganization of the learner’s own intuitive knowledge base. Therefore, intuitive
self-awareness is what makes the Brain-mind cycle of reflection possible (Iran-Nejad & Gregg,
2001). Another reason for using this theory is the fact that dynamic education is absent in today’s
academic systems.
Perhaps more than ever before, today’s most learners rely on external motivation to achieve
their educational goals. Although this type of motivation might get a person to a certain altitude in
the staircase of life, success is contingent on an optimal balance of internal and external motivation
and self-regulation. In 1992, Iran-Nejad and Chissom did a study to measure the contribution of
active and dynamic self-regulation to learning. The authors disputed the inclination to think “that
active control is the only internal source of self-regulation of learning processes” (p. 125). The
relationship between active and dynamic self-regulation promises, according to Iran-Nejad and
Chissom, to be a rich source of individual differences in learning. Therefore, learning can be
considered as a process of multiple-source creation (Iran-Nejad, Mckeachie, & Berliner, 1990).
7
Interest is one of the most important factors that lies at the heart of the internal relationships
among self-regulation, motivation, and creativity. In biofunctional theory, interest is also inherently
tied to dynamic self-regulation. At the same time, many people need encouragement, support, and
evaluation in order to help them attain their objectives. Dewey (1913) warned that interest should
not be viewed as some sort of flavoring that can be sprinkled on an otherwise boring task because
adding interesting details will not improve learning of the text. In 1996, Carol Sansone and
Harackiewicz studied the function of interest in self-regulation and concluded that interest functions
“as a proximal motivator for moment-to-moment action” (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996, p. 220).
This is exactly how interest was defined in Iran-Nejad and Cecil (1992). Interest functions
dynamically to get people to attempt to learn and master all the new things they must learn to
survive. Therefore, students should utilize their own dynamic self-regulation actively for learning.
These two sources of internal self-regulation are very essential for learning, and the nature of their
contributions was clearly spelled out and studied by Iran-Nejad and Chissom (1992).
Meanwhile, it is imperative to note that Amabile (1983) and Gardner (1993) stressed the
existence of the creative spirit in all children, which makes them look at the world creatively until
the third or fourth grade; then all enthusiasm to explore and investigate suddenly drops drastically.
The two researchers believe that schools practice what they call “creativity killers” by using
surveillance, evaluation, rewards, and competition. They complain that many teachers do too much
for their students and do not give them a chance to find out areas in which they are good. It should
be pointed out here that some rewards do enhance creativity (Eisenberger and Shanock 2003).
In short, instead of providing learners with ready answers, students should be involved in
searching for these answers themselves. Teachers should also do their best to connect students’
knowledge to the real world in order to engage the brain as well as the mind in the learning process.
Learners’ interest and emotions must be ignited and respected. In addition, educators should set
high standards and expectations for their students and encourage them to do their best to accomplish
8
them. In other words, during learning, students should be in the creative mode of functioning. The
reason behind this is to engage learner’s attention and interest and to involve the brain in a dynamic
thinking because “learning occurs best when organizing learners’ intuitive knowledge base and
putting learners in the context of real-life experiences in which their interests and their effort are
dynamically involved” (Chen, Rovegno, & Iran-Nejad, 2002, p. 405).
To conclude, it is essential to say that promoting self-regulation and creativity in learners is
very critical. To excel in the workplace, society will demand a different type of worker – a worker
who is intrinsically motivated, self-regulated, and creative (capable of generating new ideas).
According to the predictions of many experts in the field, the near future will demand individuals
who possess such qualities as “resilience and flexibility, a creative and integrative way of thinking,
and a certain psychological sturdiness in the way they face new circumstances” (Kemple, David, &
Wang, 1996, p. 324).
Summary
As it was indicated from this introductory literature review, self-regulation and creativity are
two of the most important aspects in today's education. The literature supports a number of diverse
theories related separately to these two human instincts. As a result, investigating self-regulation
and creativity together in order to examine directly their relationship is an urgent next step. This
paper explores this unexplored dimension of education. In addition, the effect of self-regulation and
creativity on academic achievement, represented by students' GPA is tested. This relationship is
then correlated with student demographics such as age, gender, educational level, and parental
educational level in order to investigate the influence of these variables on self-regulation and
creativity.
9
Study 1
Participants
A convenience sample of 219 students was selected for the two studies. 119 students
participated in Study One while the remaining 100 participated in Study Two. For Study One,
almost all subjects were recruited by distributing study booklets at the university food court. The
majority of the participants (76.5%) were between 18 and 21 years-old. There were 55 females and
64 males. More than 93% of subjects were working on their undergraduate degrees. It is also
noteworthy that the GPAs of the participants were relatively high both at the undergraduate and
graduate levels. More than half of the students surveyed (60.5%) had a GPA of 3.0 or higher. A
large fraction of the participants came from highly educated parents—36% of participants surveyed
reported parents with Masters or Doctoral degrees.
Objective and Procedure
Because this study aimed at exploring the relationship between self-regulation and
creativity, each participant received a booklet consisting of three instruments along with some
additional demographic items. There were two self-regulation scales and one creativity scale.
Demographic items included age, gender, marital status, educational level, parents' educational
level, and GPA. The two self-regulation scales used were: (1) the Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory (LASSI), and (2) a new Wholetheme Learning Inventory (WLI) built, as a modified
version of LASSI, in order to measure self-regulation from a wholetheme learning perception. The
creativity scales used was the Test your Creativity Level Scale (TYCL).
The Self-Regulation Instruments
The LASSI consisted of 10 subscale and 80 items, designed to assess students’ strategic
learning and study skills, habits, and will. The instrument is organized in a five points Likert scale
format that ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The focus of the scale is on both
10
implicit and explicit thoughts, behaviors, attitudes, motivations, and beliefs. It also provides
feedback about areas where students may be weak and need to improve their knowledge, skills,
attitudes, motivations, and beliefs.
The Wholetheme Learning Inventory (WLI) was built to closely parallel LASSI (Iran-Nejad
& Al-Dhobaiban, 2004). Therefore, as a “modified LASSI,” it, too, is hypothesized to consist of 10
subscales and 80 items and also organized in a five points Likert scale format that ranged from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. In other words, the WLI owes its 10 subscales and 80 items by
inheritance, and not by design.
The original LASSI views self-regulation as an active (person-regulated) process. It captures
well intentional, deliberate, strategic, or, in short, mind-regulated self-regulation. However, there is
much more to the capacity for self-regulation than active self-regulation, as just described, can
capture. The nervous and bodily systems themselves contribute vastly to self-regulation, and this
source of self-regulation is not always only mind-mediated or active, but also dynamic.
On the other hand, WLI is based on biofunctional science, which states that learning occurs
best in a creative mode of functioning, where the three sources of self-regulation reach a level of
interaction most suitable for the particular learning context (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). In other
words, LASSI and WLI are different in (a) modes of brain functioning and (b) external and internal
sources of regulation of learning processes.
In order to illustrate the different dimension each scale addresses in the person, an example
will be presented. One of the items in LASSI states, "I stop periodically while reading and mentally
go over or review what was said." Meanwhile, the same item in WLI states, "I stop periodically
while reading to give my thoughts the opportunity to grow and explore a variety of possible angles."
While the LASSI item implies dependence on the teacher (external source) to provide knowledge
and then actively "review what was said" in order to memorize it, the equivalent item on WLI relies
on the learner’s capacity to "explore a variety of possible angles." The critical difference here is that
11
exploring a variety of possibilities is a creative-mode-of-brain-functioning task. In other words, the
WLI item opens to the learner the “wholetheme” world of choices and perspectives, allows them to
be themselves in the process, and gives them the freedom and the opportunity to rely on their own
intuitive knowledge base, rather than being limited to the narrow realm of what the teacher said.
The creativity Instrument
The third instrument used in this study was the “Test Your Creativity Level Scale” (TYCL).
This instrument consisted of 50 items organized in a five points Likert scale format that ranged
from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Hammadi, 1999; Swaidan, 2002). In the past, creativity
among people was differentiated by kind, whereas now, the direction is to measure it by level. This
level is not always fixed because it increases or decreases according to the person’s interest on a
topic. Dr. Hammadi (1999) believes that the level of creativity depends on the creative production.
For example, poetry relies more on imagination while another topic such as physics requires more
effort than imagination.
TYCL is based on the assumption that people are naturally creative in their special area of
interest and that differences in creativity between individuals are a matter of degree (Hammadi,
1999). Finally, the Test Your Creativity Level Scale measures creativity from various aspects at the
same time instead of only one because, according to the authors, creativity has many dimensions
that cannot be limited in one scale. Therefore, TYCL tries to measure the level of people’s readiness
for the creative process (Hammadi, 1999; Swaidan, 2002; Swaidan & Adloni, 2002).
Reliability and Validity of the Instruments
The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) is based on a cognitive framework.
Weinstein (1987) developed LASSI to assess affective and cognitive processes used in learning
academic material. Nine years of research, development, and testing led to the creation of the
statistically valid and reliable tool for the diagnosis of study skills. The development work was part
of the Cognitive Learning Strategies Project at the University of Texas at Austin as a response to
12
the increasing number of academically under-prepared students entering post-secondary educational
and training settings.
Twenty-six years later, the 2nd edition provided a more valid and reliable diagnosis of
students’ learning and study strategies. Balancing both conceptual and psychometric analyses, ten
scales of eight items each were developed to represent and provide the strongest psychometric
properties of the scale. For example, the lowest Coefficient Alpha for LASSI is .73 while the
highest is .89.
As for the Wholetheme Learning Inventory (WLI), this is the first time it has been used.
Therefore, no previous record of its reliability and validity is available. However, the Test Your
Creativity Level Scale (TYCL) was developed in 1999 by Dr. Hammadi and his associates in the
Creativity Center. TYCL is reported to have a strong reliability and validity. A test-retest of the
scale on 119 and 80 subjects provided a strong reliability of alpha between .61 or higher. The
researcher conducted a factor analysis of the instrument on the current data set of (N= 119) using a
Varimax procedure with Kaiser Normalization as the rotation method. The factor structure indicated
that TYCL's 50 items can be described in a four-factor model, which are as follows: (1) Intuitive
Awareness, (2) External Locus of Control, (3) Self-Confidence, and (4) Originality.
Results of Study 1
A calculation of sample reliability Alpha coefficients for the three scales showed the
following results: (1) 0.88 for LASSI. (2) 0.80 for WLI. (3) 0.61 for TYCL. Table 1 shows the
Pearson Product moment correlations among the three scales and GPA. However, both measures of
self-regulation correlated significantly with overall GPA (p<.001). The correlation between
creativity and GPA also reached significance (p<.05). However, as predicted, wholetheme learning
(WLI), correlated significantly with creativity (TYCL). The correlation between strategic selfregulation (LASSI), and creativity was not significant. Moreover, multiple regression analysis
13
revealed that GPA can best predicted by LASSI. However, when LASSI was removed from the
equation, WLI turned out to be a significant predictor of GPA (p≤.01, 2-tailed).
Table 1
Pearson Product Moment Correlation between the three scales and GPA in Study 1
LASSI
WLI
TYCL
GPA
LASSI
.738**
.146
.373**
WLI
.311**
.350** TYCL
.206*
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Predicting Creativity
Using the regression analysis, the findings were also confirmed that creativity (TYCL) was
statistically predicted by wholetheme self-regulation (WLI) but not LASSI. Table 2 presents the
regression analysis for Study One.
Table 2
Multiple Regression analysis for predicting creativity in Study 1
Model 1.
B
S.E.
t
(Constant)
-38.652
12.843
-3.009
WLI
18.349
5.175
3.545
Dependant Variable: TYCL.
Predictors in the Model: WLI.
Excluded Variables: LASSI
Demographics
Sig.
.003
.001
The third purpose of this study was to determine whether students' demographic
characteristics (gender, age, GPA, educational level, parents’ educational level, and marital status)
can be used as reliable predictors of self-regulation and creativity. In Study 1, GPA was a common
predictor in all the other five predictions. Other non-consistent variables such as educational level,
gender and age were also present beside GPA in the models as being significant predictors.
14
Study 2
Participants
100 students participated in Study 2. There were 66 females and 34 males. 88% of the
participants were between 18 and 21 years-old and 96% of them were working on their
undergraduate degrees. Two thirds of the students surveyed (67 %) had a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
Finally, 41% of the participants surveyed in Study 2 reported having parents with Graduate degrees.
Objective and Procedure
As in Study 1, the aim of Study 2 was to explore the relationship between self-regulation
and creativity. The participants received a booklet that consisted of the same two self-regulation
instruments (LASSI & WLI) and demographic items. However, another creativity measurement
scale (The Khatena Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI)).
Instruments
The two self-regulation scales used in Study 2 were explained in Study 1. However, the
third instrument used in Study 2 was the Khatena Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI).
Like the Test Your Creativity Level scale, The KTCPI consists of 50 items that require yes or no
answers. There is no time limit for the scale but most subjects complete the checklist in 10 to 20
minutes. Scoring responses to items is done by counting the number of positive responses, giving a
credit of 1 for each positive response while all blank responses are scored zero.
The Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (1998) is based upon the rationale that
creative functioning is reflected in the personality characteristics of the individual, in the way
he/she thinks or the kind of thinking strategies he/she employs, and in the products that emerge as a
result of his/her creative strivings. The scale presents statements to which subjects are required to
respond. The responses reflect the extent to which the subjects function in creative ways.
Reliability and Validity of the Instruments
15
The reliability and validity LASSI and WLI has already been discussed in Study 1. As for
the Khatena Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI), four approaches were taken for
determining its construct validity. These included investigating the relationship between the level of
self-reported creative characteristics and the propensity for originality, the relationship between
creative self-reports and various personality orientations, the relationship between creative selfreports and hemispheric dominance, and a factor analysis of the measure.
The Khatena Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI) is based on the hypothesis
that subjects who report themselves as High creatives would also produce more original responses
than their less creative peers, the authors tested the responses of 52 and 102 college students. These
subjects were divided into two groups of equal number, namely, high and low creatives according
to their self-reports on KTCPI. The findings showed High creatives when compared to Low
creatives were significantly more original as measured by both Sounds and Images and Omatopoeia
and Images (Torrance, Khatena, & Cunnington, 1973).
In a validity study of KTCPI, Kaltsounis (1975) administered in another study the measure
to 118 college adults who were later categorized as High creatives (N= 59) and Low creatives (N=
59). When their scores on Figural Forms A and B of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were
analyzed, he found that High creatives had significantly higher originality and elaboration means
than Low creatives (p < .01). Following up on this with another study (Kaltsounis, 1975), he used
the same subjects and Verbal Forms A and B of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as criteria,
and found that High creatives obtained significantly higher fluency, flexibility, and originality
means than Low creatives (p < .01).
Further evidence of construct validity (Khatena, 1978) was obtained by comparing the
responses on this checklist to the inventory part of the Runner Studies of Attitude Patterns (Runner
& Runner, 1965) consisting of 118 questions requiring yes or no responses. The instrument used as
the criterion is designed to give information which, on the basis of factor analysis, falls into 12
16
scales or orientations: Experimental, Emphasis on Rules and Tradition, Intuitive, Plan and
Structure, Power, Passive Compliance, Extroversion, Hostility, Resistance to Social Pressure,
Social Anxiety, Pleasure in Hand Tool Skills, and Performance Anxiety. One hundred and twenty
subjects were divided into three groups by the planned comparison method. High, Moderate, and
Low creative groups—according to their self-reports on SAM. Means for the three groups on the 12
scales of the Runner Studies of Attitude Patterns showed High creatives to be significantly superior
to Moderate and Low creatives on Experimental Orientation. On Intuitive Orientation, Moderate
creatives were somewhat superior to the other two groups with High creatives superior to Low
creatives. High creatives were also significantly superior to the other two groups on Power
Orientation with Moderate creatives coming next. These results find support in another study
(Khatena & Torrance, 1973) which reported that High original college adults appear to have
significantly superior Power Orientation.
Other studies on hemispheric dominance made by Torrance (1982, 1988), Reynolds,
Kaltsounis and Torrance (1970), and by Sterling and Taylor (1980) were conducted. These studies
found a positive correlation between creativeness and right hemispheric dominance.
In addition, a factor analysis of the measure Bledsoe & Khatena (1973) provided gave
further evidence of the test's construct validity, as well as finer discriminations of the creative
personality. SAM was administered to 672 men and women attending colleges in West Virginia,
Florida, North Carolina, and Maryland, and boys and girls attending three high schools in West
Virginia. The factor analysis was conducted and produced six variables that when given interpretive
names, translated to the construct of the scale.
Results of Study 2
Before getting into the results, sample reliability coefficients were calculated for the three
scales used in Study 2. The Alpha coefficient for LASSI was .89, for WLI .80, and for KTCPI .87.
Table 3 shows the Pearson Product moment correlations among the measures under investigation.
17
Both LASSI and WLI correlated significantly with students' GPA. The correlation between
LASSI and GPA was significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) whereas the correlation between WLI
and GPA was significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Only Wholetheme Learning Inventory (WLI)
correlated significantly with the creativity scale used in Study 2 KTCPI (p<.05), while the
correlation between creativity and strategic self-regulation, as measured by LASSI, was not
significant. Meanwhile, GPA did not correlate in this study with the creativity scale KTCPI
(Table3).
Table 3
Pearson Product Moment Correlation between the three scales and GPA in Study 2
LASSI
WLI
KTCPI
GPA
LASSI
.766**
.119
.408**
WLI
.275**
.247* KTCPI
.072
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Predicting Creativity
A multiple regression analysis with a stepwise method was conducted to find out if
creativity (as measured by KTCPI) can be predicted by LASSI and WLI. The results pointed out
that creativity can be significantly predicted by the self-regulation scale WLI. The regression
analysis indicated a strong significance with p≤.01 (2-tailed) (Table3).
Table 4
Regression analysis for self-regulation prediction of creativity in Study 2
Model 1.
B
S.E.
t
Sig.
(Constant)
4.410
8.969
.492
.624
WLI
.982
.347
2.828
.000
Dependant Variable: KTCPI.
Predictors in the Model: WLI
Excluded Variables: LASSI
Demographics
Unlike Study 1, students' demographic characteristics were found to be reliable predictors of
self-regulation but not creativity as measured by KTCPI. Again, there were other non-consistent
18
variables such as educational level, gender, and age that were also present beside GPA in the
models as being significant predictors.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings of this study are exciting because they establish a critical role for the
wholetheme approach in determining academic achievement as measured by GPA. As we have
seen, the results highlight the work of researchers who have come to recognize that teaching of
active control strategies alone is not satisfactory for promoting creativity or self-regulated learning
(Iran-Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992; Iran-Nejad & Gregg, 2001; Zimmerman, 1995).
As indicated by Iran-Nejad and Gregg (2001), Iran-Nejad and Chissom (1992), and IranNejad (1990), our studies conducted to explore the relationship between self-regulation and
creativity demonstrate the existence of a relationship between the two characteristics. However, this
correlation exists only if the three sources of self-regulation (external, active, and dynamic) are
addressed in combination in the manner specified by the wholetheme education approach. In both
experiments, wholetheme self-regulation (WLI) correlated with creativity, even though two
different creativity measurements were used—TYCL and KTCPI. Creativity is recognized by the
wholetheme approach because it enables the learner to give more credit and attention to the power
of dynamic (or brain-mediated) self-regulation over strategic (mind-mediated) or external selfregulation in the absence of dynamic self-regulation.
Moreover, wholetheme self-regulation positively correlated with students' GPA signaling
that the use of three sources of self-regulation positively affects students' academic achievements.
Wholetheme approach operates like the strategic and cognitive self-regulation. In addition, it
promotes creativity because creativity requires the whole person using his/her three sources of selfregulation. In both studies, statistical analysis showed the inexistence of correlation between LASSI
and both creativity scales. A possible reason for these results is that creativity needs freedom from
19
strategies, restraints, and rules. Creative people are curious, tolerant of ambiguity, willing to persist
despite obstacles, willing to sustain motivation, and take risks (Steinberg & Lubart, 1993; Kames &
Bean, 2001).
In brief, wholetheme self-regulation correlates positively with both students' GPA and
creativity while strategic self-regulation only promotes GPA. This means that the wholetheme
approach is suitable for the short-term and long-term. It helps students gain the best grades
indicating good academic achievement and encourages creativity which is, besides self-regulation
and motivation, one of the most important and critical characteristics of students' future professional
lives. On the other hand, although strategic learning was proven to promote GPA as well, we have
no evidence that it nurtures creativity.
In addition, it is important to note that the results of the two studies indicated that
demographic variables cannot be used as predictors or promoters of self-regulation (as measured by
LASSI and WLI) and creativity (as measured by TYCL and KTCPI). This means that any person,
regardless of his/her demographic characteristics, can be self-regulated and creative—it only takes a
little effort to use intuitions to go beyond what is directly observed (Iran-Nejad, Marsh, &
Clements, 1992). It also affirms previous research conclusions about the ambiguousness of
creativity characteristics and that creativity characteristics differ according to the topic, subject,
time, place, and environment (Gardner, 1993).
Finally, the results proved that educators do not need to sacrifice creativity or self-regulation
for academic achievement because it is possible to obtain both of them once they know which
teaching and learning approach must be used. Creativity is naturally implemented as part of
students' human attributes. This makes educators' jobs easier because they do not need to produce
students' creative abilities; they only need to maintain them. Besides, the current educational system
needs to develop itself just like everything else around it because the primary goal of education is to
have a generation of students who are independent, creative, and responsible; students who have the
20
critical thinking skills to be productive members and add to the development and progress of
civilization and humanity.
REFERENCES
Allen, M. S. (1962). Morphological creativity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlog.
Bledsoe, J. C., & Khatena, J. (1973). Factor analytic Study of the test, What Kind of
Person Are You? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39,143-146.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of selfregulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Carven, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1998). Attention and self-regulation. A control-theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chen, W., Rovegno, I., & Iran-Nejad, A. (2002). Application of a wholetheme
perspective to the movement approach to teaching physical education in elementary school.
Education, 123(2), 401-415.
Davis. G. (1985). Creative thinking and the problem solving. Buffalo, NY: Bearly
Limited.
Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). New
York: Person.
Dewey, L. H. (1913). Hemp. USDA Yearbook, 283-346.
Dewey, J. (1914). Psychological Doctrine and Philosophical Teaching. Journal of
Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 11, 505-11.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity:
21
A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15,
121-130.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Hammadi, A. (1999). Senaat al-ebdae. (The industry of creativity). Dubai, United
Arab Imarets: Dar Ben Hazm.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes.
Review of Educational Research, 60, 573-602.
Iran-Nejad, A. (2000). Knowledge, self-regulation, and the brain-mind cycle of
reflection. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 21(1&2), 67-88.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Cecil, C. (1992). Interest and learning: A biofunctional perspective.
The role of interest in learning and development pp. 297-332. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Chissom, B. S. (1992). Contributions of active and dynamic self
regulation to learning. Innovative Higher Education, 17, 125-137.
Iran-Nejad, A. & Al-Dhobaiban, N. A. (2004). Wholetheme learning inventory.
Unpublished.
Iran-Nejad, A. & Gregg, M. (2001). The Brain-Mind Cycle of Reflection. Teachers
College Record, 103(5), 868-895.
Iran-Nejad, A., Marsh, G.E., & Clements A.D. (1992). The figure and the ground of
constructive brain functioning: Beyond explicit memory processes. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 473-492.
Iran-Nejad, A., McKeachie, W. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multisource nature
of learning: An interaction. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 509-515.
22
Iran-Nejad, A., & Winsler, A. (2000). Bartlett’s schema theory and modern accounts
of learning and remembering. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 21(1&2), 5-35.
Kaltsounis, B. (1975). Psycholinguistic abilities and their influence on creative
expression. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40: 937-938.
Kames. F. A., & Bean, S. M. (2001). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted
Waco. Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Kemple, K., David, G,. & Wang, Y. (1996). Preschoolers' creativity, shyness, and self-esteem.
Creativity Research Journal, 9 (4), 317-326.
Khatena, J. (1978). The Creatively gifted child: Suggestions for parents and teachers.
New York: Vantage Press.
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1973). Thinking creatively with sounds and words:
Norms-technical manual (rsch ed.). Lexington, Mass.: Personnel Press.
Kubie, L. 1958. Neurotic distortion of the creative process. University of Kansas: The
Noonday Press.
Lubart, T I. (1994). Creative emotion, metaphor, and the process. Creativity Research
Newspaper , 10(4), 285-301.
Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves. American Psychologist, 954-969.
Mayers, R. (2003). Learning and instruction. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mithaug, D. (1993). Self-regulation theory: How optimal adjustment maximizes gain.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinance of creative
genius. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: developing learners (4th ed.) Upper
Saddle River , NJ : Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
23
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667686.
Reynolds, C. E., Kaltsounis, B., & Torrance, E. P. (1970). A children's form of your
style of learning and thinking: Preliminary norms and technical data. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 23, 757-766.
Runner, K., & Runner, H. (1965). Manual of interpretation for the Interview form II
of the Runner studies of attitude patterns. Golden, CO: Runner Associates.
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). "I don't feel like it": The function of interest
in self-regulation. In L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among
goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 203-228). Mahwah, NI: Erlbawn.
Schon, D., (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sterling, S. M., & Tylor, I. A. (1980). Creative self-perception, hemispheric laterality
and sex difference. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14,274-275.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment
approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7-15.
Swaidan, T. (2002). Marren adalat mukhak. (Train your brain muscles). Kuwait: Gulf
Innovation Co.
Swaidan, T., & Adloni, M. (2002). Mabadi Al-Ebdae. (The essences of creativity).
Kuwait: Gulf Innovation Co.
Torrance, E. P. (1982). Creativity. What research says to the teacher, Series. No. 28.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 078435).
24
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative
Education Foundation.
Torrance, E. P., Khatena, J., & Cunnington, B. F. (1973). Thinking Creatively with
sounds and words: Directions manual and scoring guide forms 1A,1B, 2A and 2B.
Lexington, MA,: Personnel Press.
Weinstein, C. (1987). LASSI user's manual for those administering the Learning and
Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Company, Inc.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to
self- efficacy. The City University of New York: Published by APA, Washington, DC.
25