THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS' CREATIVE ...

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENSTUDENTS’ CREATIVE THINKING ABILITY AND

THEIR WRITING RECOUNT TEXT SKILL(A Correlational Study at the Eleventh Grade Students of

MA Khazanah Kebajikan Tangerang SelatanAcademic Year 2015/2016)

BySYAMSUL KHOIR

109014000190

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING

SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITYJAKARTA

2015

ii

ABSTRACT

Syamsul Khoir (NIM: 109014000190). The Relationship between Students’

Creative Thinking Ability and Their Writing Recount Text Skill; A

Correlational Study at the Eleventh Grade Students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan

Academic Year 2015/2016. A Skripsi of Department of English Education at

Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic

University Jakarta, 2015.

Advisor I: Dr. Alek, M.Pd.

Advisor II: Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum.

Keywords: Creativity, Writing Skill, Recount Text

The objective of this study was to know and describe the relationshipbetween students’ creative thinking ability and their writing recount text. Thepopulation of this study encompassed all the eleventh grade students of MAKhazanah Kebajikan, the total of which was 40 students. From the population,only 26 students were taken as the sample of this study by using a purposivesampling technique. Data were collected through tests. The collected data wereanalyzed by using Pearson’s Product Moment correlation. The findings arrive at aconclusion that statistically there is a significant relationship between creativethinking ability and writing recount text skill at value of r = 0.623. The significantrelationship between the creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill isfound at the 99% level of confidence (p < 0.01). Similarly, the t-test reported thatwith the value of t = 3.899, the relationship between the creative thinking abilityand writing recount text skill is significant at the 99% level of confidence (p <

0.01). Moreover, based on the determination coefficient (r2) = 0.388 found, thecreative thinking ability shared 38.8% contributions to writing recount text skill.At last, any suggestions that would help promote the students’ creative thinkingability associated with writing recount text skill was presented.

iii

ABSTRAK

Syamsul Khoir (NIM: 109014000190). The Relationship between Students’

Creative Thinking Ability and Their Writing Recount Text Skill; A

Correlational Study at the Eleventh Grade Students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan

Academic Year 2015/2016. A Skripsi of Department of English Education at

Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic

University Jakarta, 2015.

Advisor I: Dr. Alek, M.Pd.

Advisor II: Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum.

Keywords: Creativity, Writing Skill, Recount Text

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan menjelaskanhubungan antara kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa dengan keterampilan menulisteks recount. Populasi penelitian ini mencakup semua siswa kelas sebelas MAKhazanah Kebajikan yang berjumlah 40 siswa. Dari populasi tersebut, hanya 26siswa yang diambil sebagai sampel dari penelitian ini dengan menerapkan tekniksampling purposif. Data dikumpulkan melalui tes. Data yang terkumpul dianalisisdengan menggunakan korelasi Pearson Product Moment. Temuan penelitian inimencapai pada suatu simpulan bahwa secara statistik ada hubungan yangsignifikan antara kemampuan berpikir kreatif dengan keterampilan menulis teksrecount dengan nilai koefisien korelasi, r = 0.623. Hubungan yang signifikanantara kemampuan berpikir kreatif dengan keterampilan menulis teks recounttersebut ditemukan pada tingkat kepercayaan 99% (p < 0.01). Demikian pula, uji-tmenujukkan bahwa dengan nilai t = 3.899, hubungan antara kemampuan berpkirkreatif dengan keterampilan menulis teks recount signifikan pada tingkatkepercayaan 99% (p < 0.01). Selain itu, berdasarkan nilai koefisien determinasi (r2)= 0.388 yang ditemukan, kemampuan berpikir kreatif berkontribusi sebesar 38.8%terhadap keterampilan menulis teks recount. Pada akhirnya, saran yang dapatmembantu meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa yang dikaitkandengan keterampilan menulis teks recount pun disajikan.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praises be to Allah,

the Lord of the world who has given the mercy and blessing upon the writer

during completing this skripsi. Peace and salutation be upon the prophet

Muhammad, his family and his followers.

In this occasion, the writer would like to address his greatest appreciation,

honor, and gratitude to his beloved parents (H. Ramli, S.H. and Hj. Syarifah) for

their precious supports and moral encouragement in sustaining him to finish his

study. Also, he would like to thank his loving brothers (Akbar and Sarip), and his

aunt and uncle (Sahaya and Dacang) for their supports to him while he was

structuring this skripsi.

In addition, the greatest gratitude is addressed to Dr. Alek, M.Pd. and

Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum. for giving the writer advices, guidance, supports, and

suggestions during this skripsi was structured.

Moreover, the writer would like to express his gratitude to:

1. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Thib Raya, M.A., the Dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah and

Teachers’ Training of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta

2. Dr. Alek, M.Pd., the head of Department of English Education.

3. Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., the secretary of Department of English Education.

4. All the lecturers of Department of English Education who provided him the

priceless knowledge during his study at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

5. Bambang Indarto, S.Ag., the principal of MA Khazanah Kebajikan who gave

the writer the consent to conduct a research in the school.

6. Syarifuddin, Lc., S.Pd., the English teacher of MA Khazanah Kebajikan who

helped the writer assess the students’ responses of the research instruments.

7. All the students at Department of English Education class of 2009, especially

those who are in class E, that cannot be mentioned one by one, for their

greatest, most memorable, and most impressive moments and experiences

during his study.

v

8. His close friends, especially Muslikh, S.Pd., Asep Andriana, S.Pd., Hamdan

Rijali, and Zaki Habibillah who always helped, accompanied and supported

the writer throughout he studied at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

9. Any other persons who cannot be mentioned one by one for their contributions

to him during the finishing process of this skripsi.

At last, the writer wishes, “May Allah provide them the best things as the

return.” Besides, he thinks that it will be pleasing to know any criticisms and

suggestions to make this skripsi better.

Tangerang, December 2015

The Writer

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENDORSEMENT SHEET .............................................................................. i

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... x

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................ xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... xii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................... 1

A. Background of the Study....................................................... 1

B. Identification of the Problem ................................................ 4

C. Limitation of the Problem ...................................................... 5

D. Problem Formulation ............................................................ 5

E. Objective of the Study........................................................... 5

F. Significance of the Study ...................................................... 6

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................... 7

A. The Concept of Creative Thinking Ability .......................... 7

1. Nature of Creativity ................................................... 7

2. Assisting Techniques to Get Creativity ...................... 9

3. Cycles of Creativity .................................................... 11

4. Assessing Creative Thinking Ability ........................... 13

B. The Concept of Writing Skill ............................................ 15

1. Definition of Writing ................................................. 15

2. Cycles of Writing ........................................................ 17

3. Purposes of Writing ................................................... 19

4. Writing Recount Text ................................................. 21

a. Definition of Recount Text..................................... 21

vii

b. Structural Features of Recount Text ...................... 22

c. Language Features of Recount Text....................... 23

5. Assessing the Writing Skill ......................................... 24

C. Relevant Studies ................................................................ 26

D. Conceptual Framework ..................................................... 30

E. Theoretical Hypothesis ...................................................... 30

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................... 31

A. Place and Time of the Study ............................................. 31

B. Research Design ................................................................ 31

C. Population and Sample ...................................................... 32

D. Research Instrument .......................................................... 32

F. Data Analysis Technique .................................................. 34

G. Statistical Hypotheses ....................................................... 40

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION ..................... 42

A. Research Finding ............................................................. 42

1. Data Description of Creative Thinking Ability ............ 42

2. Data Description of Writing Recount Text Skill .......... 62

3. Hypotheses Testing....................................................... 71

B. Discussions ...................................................................... 76

C. Limitations ....................................................................... 79

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ................................. 80

A. Conclusion .......................................................................... 80

B. Suggestion ........................................................................... 80

REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 82

APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 85

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Test Matrix of Creative Thinking Ability ................................... 33

Table 3.2 Test Matrix of Writing Skill........................................................ 34

Table 3.3 Creativity Performance Level ..................................................... 36

Table 3.4 Table of Correlation Coefficient Interpretation .......................... 40

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Creative Thinking (CT) Ability

Data Section 1 of the Two Raters .............................................. 43

Table 4.2 ANOVAb of CT Test Section 1 between the two Raters ............ 47

Table 4.3 Shaphiro-Wilk Test of CT Test Section 1 of the Two Raters .... 49

Table 4.4 Inter-Rater Reliability between the Two Raters of CT

Test Section 1.............................................................................. 49

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Final Score of CT Test Section 1 ........ 50

Table 4.6 Shaphiro-Wilk Test of Final Score of CT Test Section 1 ........... 52

Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics of CT Test Section 2 ................................ 53

Table 4.8 Shapiro-Wilk Test of CT Test Section 2................................... 55

Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics of CT Test Section 3................................. 57

Table 4.10 Shapiro-Wilk Test of CT Test Section 3................................... 59

Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of Final Score of CT Ability Data............ 60

Table 4.12 Shapiro-Wilk Test of CT Final Score of CT Test ..................... 62

Table 4.13 Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Writing Skill Rated

by Two Raters ............................................................................. 63

Table 4.14 ANOVAb of Writing Skill Data between the Two Raters ......... 65

Table 4.15 Shaphiro-Wilk Test of Writing Skill from the Two Raters ........ 67

Table 4.16 Spearman’s rho of Inter-rater Reliability between the Two

Raters........................................................................................... 68

Table 4.17 Descriptive Statistics of Final Score of Writing Recount

Text Skill..................................................................................... 69

Table 4.22 Shapiro-Wilk Test of Final Score of Writing Recount Text

Skill Data..................................................................................... 71

Table 4.19 ANOVAb of CT and Writing Recount Text Skill Data .............. 72

ix

Table 4.20 Parametric Test of Creative Thinking Ability and Writing

Recount Text Skill ...................................................................... 74

Table 4.21 Model Summary of Creative Thinking Ability and

Writing Recount Text Skill ......................................................... 74

Table 4.22 Coefficientsa of Creative Thinking Ability and Writing

Recount Text Skill ...................................................................... 75

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Writing Process .......................................................................... 19

Figure 3.1 Research Paradigm..................................................................... 31

Figure 4.1 Scatter Plot of CT Test Section 1 between Rater 1 and

Rater 2 ........................................................................................ 45

Figure 4.2 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 1 Rater 1 ....... 47

Figure 4.3 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 1 Rater 2 ....... 47

Figure 4.4 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Final Score CT Test

Section 1..................................................................................... 52

Figure 4.5 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 2 .................... 54

Figure 4.6 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 3 .................... 58

Figure 4.7 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Final Score of CT .................... 61

Figure 4.8 Scatter Plot of Writing Skill between the Two Raters ............... 64

Figure 4.9 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Writing Skill of Rater 1 ........... 66

Figure 4.10 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Writing Skill of Rater 2 ........... 66

Figure 4.11 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Final Score of Writing

Skill ............................................................................................ 70

Figure 4.12 Scatter Plot of the Linearity between Creative Thinking

Ability and Writing Recount Text Skill ..................................... 72

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CT: Creative Thinking

AACU: Association of American Colleges and Universities

FFOE: Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration

xi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Tes Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif ................................................ 85

Appendix 2 Tes Mengarang Bahasa Inggris Recount Text ........................... 91

Appendix 3 Creative Thinking Value Rubric ................................................. 92

Appendix 4 Answer Key of Creative Thinking Test Part 3 (Analogy) .......... 94

Appendix 5 Item Analysis of Creative Thinking Test: Part 3 (Analogy) ........ 98

Appendix 6 Reliability of Creative Thinking Test: Analogy (Using KR-20

Equation) ...................................................................................... 99

Appendix 7 Validity of Certain Alternatives of Creative Thinking Test:

Part 3 (Particularly for the Items that are needed revision) ...... 100

Appendix 8 Reliability of Creative Thinking Test: Analogy (Using KR-20

Equation)* ................................................................................... 101

Appendix 9 Tes Analogi (Post-Try-out) ..........................................................102

Appendix 10 List of Participants’ Responses of CT Test Part 2 ...................... 106

Appendix 11 Raw Data of Creative Thinking Test Part 1 ............................... 114

Appendix 12 Frequency Table of Creative Thinking Test Section 1

between the Two Raters .............................................................. 115

Appendix 13 Raw Data of Creative Thinking Test Part 2 ................................ 117

Appendix 14 Raw Data of Creative Thinking Test Part 3 ................................ 118

Appendix 15 Raw Data of Final Score of Students' CT Test ........................... 119

Appendix 16 Frequency Table of Final Score of CT Test................................ 120

Appendix 17 Raw Data of Writing Recount Text Skill .................................... 121

Appendix 18 Surat Keterangan Penelitian....................................................... 122

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The following chapter provides a picture of the grounds and problems

leading this study to be conducted. These are discussed vividly in background of

the study, respectively followed with identification of the problem, problem

formulation, objective of the study, and significance of the study.

A. Background of the Study

Writing is one of the important language skills. Through writing, students

can convey and utter ideas, feelings, or opinions about people or things in the

written form. However, to communicate ideas, feelings, or opinions in the written

form well, instead of acquiring naturally, students are required to attend a number

of learning processes. In terms of the English learning process, the students’

creative thinking ability is considered to have several effects and play important

roles as they are learning English, and it, thus, particularly influences to the way

they learn to write as well.

Firstly, writing constitutes an activity which involves and utilizes some

imagination and creativity.1 It is due to the fact that writing is not only the activity

in which one holds a pen/pencil and writes a series of words down onto a piece of

paper, but it is also deemed as a cognitive activity in which creativity is required;

in this case, one is also required to creatively discover and communicate ideas

through providing specific reasons and details for readers in the written form.2

Providing specific reasons and details or spices supporting the writing

ideas is not an easy matter. It is because there are a number of conditions that

deserve the writers’ attention as they attempt to support their writing ideas with

the spices. In this case, the spices should be reasonable and meaningful.3 Without

the writers’ presence, the details manifested into written words are supposed to be

1Kate Grenville, Writing from Start to Finish: A Six-Step Guide, (Crows Nest: Allen &Uwin, 2001), p. 1.

2John Langan, English Skills, (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001),Seventh Edition, p. 4.

3Ibid.

2

able to tell and express the meaning of their writing. As a result, they are insisted

on thinking outside the box. In this case, they should have some anticipation

toward their readers’ reactions as the readers are reading their writing. They are

required to think creatively in order that the readers cannot only understand about

what being read but also can enjoy their writing. As a consequence, the ability to

think creatively is important for writers because it can assist them to create good

writing, like Heaton points out that one of the necessary components that lead to

good writing is treatment of content which relates to the use of creative thinking

ability as well as the way ideas are developed so that all unrelated information can

be eliminated or sorted out.4

Moreover, through thinking creatively, writers may have more benefit

from the writing that they write. For instance, as their writing is published, it may

have more competitive value in the light of readers. In this case, the readers can

find something that is not provided by other written-products, or there is

something different, new, or unique (e.g., the bizarre and attractive writing plots

or characters, etc.) that is not available in other authors’ products. It is due to the

fact that creativity is associated with the mental process through which unique or

novel solutions, ideas, concepts, artistic forms, theories or products can be

created. 5

Due to the important roles and effects of creative thinking ability in terms

of the craft of writing, a number of researchers have attempted to investigate

creative thinking ability with respect to the craft of writing. For instance, Wang

reports that a significant association is found between creative thinking and

reading and writing skills.6 Likewise, Soleimani and Najafgholian reveal that

4J. B. Heaton, Writing English Language Tests, (New York: Longman, 1995), p. 135.5Philip Carter, Test and Assess Your Brain Quotient, (London: Kogan Page, 2009), p.

155.6Amber Yayin Wang, Exploring the Relationship of Creative Thinking to Reading and

Writing, Elsevier, 7, 2012, pp. 38—47.

3

creativity in thinking is found to have a significant relationship with writing

performance in comparison-and-contrast type of writing.7

Although theoretically the ability to think creatively is deemed important

and associated with writing skill, based on the writers’ observation at a school and

interviews with one of the English teachers and some students there, a number of

problems related to the students’ writing skill, particularly on writing recount text,

and their creative thinking ability were found.

Firstly, most of the students still were not used to writing or they still

lacked practicing their writing skill. This led many of them to not know what to

do and how to develop their ideas into a written form. This becomes problematic

since Langan points out that writing is a skill which requires practices in order

that this skill can be learnt.8 Therefore, the students are supposed to have more

practices if they are willing to learn the writing skill well. The more frequent they

practice, the better their writing will be.

Moreover, some of students still had low understanding of writing English

text learnt, i.e., recount text. Some of them still did not know what a recount text

meant and its function as well as what the generic structure of this kind of text

was. This is crucial if they did not have adequate understanding of certain kind of

writing text they learnt because Dean asserts that one of the good writers’

characteristics is the ability to frame writing into a recognizable text-types or

genres.9

In addition, writing, in the light of the students, was considered as a

difficult subject to learn. It was because in terms of writing recount text there are

some components or aspects that should be followed, e.g., structure and grammar

that mostly employed. It was found that they frequently made errors in terms of

the structure and grammar as well as the word choice used (i.e. mostly in terms of

7Hassan Soleimani and Sara Najafgholian, The Relationship between Creativity inThinking and Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners on Comparison/Contrast,International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 3, 2014, pp. 223—233.

8John Langan, Exploring Writing: Paragraphs and Essays, (New York: McGraw-Hill,2008), p. 8.

9Geoff Dean, Improving Learning in Secondary English, (London: David FultonPublishers Ltd., 2008), p. 108.

4

using the verb II in past tense which became one of the essential features in a

recount text) as they were writing.

Moreover, the English teachers’ method in teaching English seemed

monotonous. In this case, they were used to delivering the English instructions

through giving many lectures, whereas few interactions between teachers and

students almost frequently happened. This made the students felt uninterested in

learning English, and especially in learning writing as well.

Furthermore, the English teachers were less creative as well as lacked to

give the students exercises in terms of learning recount text. They only facilitated

their students’ learning by presenting and discussing the materials as well as

providing the tasks or assignments which are commonly taken from students’

worksheet; also, the English teacher often asked them to translate an English

passage into Indonesian language. The passage usually is taken from the students’

handbook. Due to this condition, some students did not have much opportunity to

increase their creative thinking ability, and as a result many of them still had low

ability to think creatively as they were writing. These are indicated by most of

them who were still confused of what to write and how to generate, organize, and

develop ideas into a good writing.

To sum up, the creative thinking ability that belongs to students has some

influences toward their English learning, and particularly their writing skill. By

identifying their creative thinking ability, they may figure the solutions out of the

problems found in learning writing, particularly on a recount text.

Based on the rationale above, this study was conducted to investigate

students’ creative thinking ability with respect to their writing recount text skill.

Specifically, this study sought to investigate the empirical evidence about whether

or not there is any significant relationship between students’ creative thinking

ability and their writing recount text skill.

B. Identification of the Problem

Based on the background of the study above, the problems were identified

as follows:

5

1. Students still had lack of practicing their writing skill.

2. Many students still had low understanding in terms of recount text learning.

3. Many students considered that writing recount text is a difficult subject to

learn.

4. The method employed by the teachers in teaching and learning process

seemed monotonous and was not interesting.

5. English teachers were less creative to give the students exercises in terms of

learning recount text.

6. Many students still had low ability to think creatively as they were writing.

7. It was assumed that students with a high creative thinking ability will be more

successful to write a recount text than those who had a low creative thinking

ability.

C. Limitation of the Problem

Based on the problems that were identified above, the problems of this

research were limited on:

1. Students’ writing recount text skill

2. Students’ creative thinking ability.

3. Students’ creative thinking ability associated with their writing recount text

skill.

D. Problem Formulation

In line with the limitation of the problem above, the problem of this study

was formulated as follows: Was there a significant relationship between students’

creative thinking ability and their writing recount text skill?

E. Objective of the Study

By considering the problems that were formulated above, the objective of

this study was to investigate whether or not there was a significant relationship

between students’ creative thinking ability and their writing recount text skill.

6

F. Significance of the Study

The results of this study were expected to give significances not only

theoretically but also practically that went to:

1. Students

Theoretically, it can provide students of the school in which this research was

conducted more understanding about the importance of creative thinking

ability in recount text learning. Meanwhile, practically, identifying the role

and effect of students’ creative thinking ability in relation to their writing skill

gives a great chance to learn writing recount text successfully, i.e., they can

figure out problems encountered as they are learning writing recount text.

2. English teachers

Theoretically, it can provide the English teachers of the school where this

research was conducted more understanding about the importance of creative

thinking ability in recount text learning. Also, it can serve as the information

about their attainment related to the teaching and learning process of recount

text. Meanwhile, practically, based on the information gathered as a result of

this research, the creative thinking ability can be considered as a gateway

through which teachers can enhance the students’ writing skill, particularly on

recount text; besides, it can provide them better directions in designing the

students’ curriculum or lesson plan associated with recount text learning.

3. Other researchers

Theoretically, it can give a better understanding of the role of creative thinking

ability, particularly in writing. Meanwhile, practically it might serve as a

related study for other researchers who will conduct any future research

dealing with creative thinking ability with respect to writing skill that had

been delimited in this study; also, it can serve as the source of inspiration for

further replication, expansion, or evaluation to examine more definite view of

the investigated domain.

7

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter discusses and elaborates the concepts of the variables with

respect to this study, i.e. creative thinking ability in relation to writing skill.

Besides, this chapter presents the relevant studies investigating creative thinking

ability and writing skill. Moreover, it reveals the synthesized concepts elaborated

in a conceptual framework leading to the research hypotheses.

A. The Concept of Creative Thinking Ability

1. Nature of Creativity

Creativity is believed important for people in dealing with matters

encountered in daily life. A number of new inventions have been produced

through creativity. However, before discussing more about the importance of

creativity, this section tries to uncover the nature as well as definitions in the light

of several experts.

Adair points out that creativity refers to the ability associated with using

mind and spirit that leads to things exist and have some use, beauty and

significance.1 From this notion, creativity is deemed as the craft (as a result of

employing mind and spirit) through which something unique and new appears.

Also, through creativity something can be made to be useful, and have aesthetics,

and significance. In daily life, there are numerous discoveries as a result of

creativity, and one of the instances is mobile phones that continuously develop. In

terms of usefulness and significance, the mobile phones provide a number of

benefits, for instance, making information be easily accessed because each mobile

phone now is equipped with the internet access; in addition, in terms of aesthetics,

the recent mobile phones have several unique and nice forms, such as a slim form

and even in the form of watch.

Similarly, Carter and Russel asserts, “Creativity refers to mental process

that lead to solutions, ideas, concepts, artistic expression, theories or products that

1John Adair, The Art of Creative Thinking: How to Be Innovative and Develop GreatIdeas, (London: Kogan Page, 2007), p. 8.

8

are unique and novel.”2 From Carter and Russel’s definition above, creativity is

important in life because there are a number of benefits that can be obtained

through the implementation of creativity, that is, novel and unique things

comprising solutions, ideas, concepts, artistic expression, theories or products. For

instance, as creativity is employed by English teachers in classroom, the teachers

may have a new insight related to a new way that facilitates the learning and

teaching process (e.g. attractive games as the learning apparatus).

In addition, Monahan reveals that creativity has an association with

problem solving, and a problem is, therefore, the essential part of creative

achievement.3 Based on Monahan’s view above, it can be considered that a

problem is the thing that can trigger people to be creative. It is because as they

encounter a problem, their mind works and prods to solve the problem. For

instance, as people lose their only job or being fired by their company in which

they work for, they will work hard to find a way to earn money. In this case, to

survive in life, they may open their own business as entrepreneurs (e.g. cookies

sellers). The act to solve the financial problem according to the instance above can

be considered as an endeavor which constitutes the manifestation of creativity.

Likewise, Lau points out that creativity is not only associated with

scientific discoveries or works of art, and therefore it relates to scientists and

artists, but the terms creativity also refers to the faculty that is needed to solve

problems encountered in workplace or daily life; besides, he also states that better

results of certain tasks can be obtained if creativity is employed.4

To sum up, creativity can be considered as the faculty or the ability

associated with using mind and spirit that can trigger or prod people to work

better in solving problems encountered in daily life. The work of creativity is

2Philip Carter and Ken Rusell, More Psychometric Testing: 1000 New Ways to AssessYour Personality, Creativity, Intelligence, and Lateral Thinking, (Chicester: John Wiley & Sons,2003), p. 147.

3Tom Monahan, The Do-It-Yourself Lobotomy: Open Your Mind to Greater CreativeThinking, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), p. 49.

4Joe Y. F. Lau, An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, ThinkBetter, (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), p. 215.

9

signed with something (such as a solution, idea, concept, artistic expression,

theory or product) new and unique.

2. Assisting Techniques to Get Creativity

Creativity is really helpful and useful in daily life. However, it is not an

easy craft that one can obtain. A number of experts have tried to figure out the

ways to reach creativity. This section aims to discuss several ways that can be

helpful to reach creativity.

Shively points out that in language arts, creative thinking ability can be

facilitated through a number of ways associated with the FFOE (Fluency,

Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration) model advocated by Guilford as follows:

a. Fluency or the ability in which lots of ideas which loosen up the creative

wheels is generated. It is facilitated through make a list of word choice

options, or alternatives.

b. Flexibility or the ability through which question or topic can be viewed from a

different angle. It is facilitated through retelling tales from a different

character’s point of view, debating/advocating from a position that is

disagreed, or make a guess of the key word behind a set of images or terms.

c. Originality or the ability through which unique or unusual products as well as

unexpected ideas are produced. It is facilitated through visualizing poem about

any controversial or problematic topic, such as racism, pollution, or cruelty to

animals.

d. Elaboration or the ability in which details, filling in the gaps, embellishing,

and completing a creative idea are involved. It is facilitated through creating a

pass-along story or paragraph based on the list of words given, or giving

figures of speech for a passage given.5

Moreover, Monahan advocates some aids or stimulus that are used to gain

creativity summarized as follows:

5Candace Hackett Shively, Grow Creativity! Focusing on Fluency, Flexibility,Originality, and Elaboration Skills Gives Teachers and Students an Effective Shortcut toDeveloping Creativity Together, Learning & Leading with Technology, 1, 2011, pp. 10—15.

10

a. Observation

Through observing things or problems encountered, people can find out the

solutions of the problems, and even when they have done a good thing,

through observation they might think of a new way to get the better thing than

the good thing obtained.

b. Listening

This is an activity in which people engage with speakers. This activity can

help them obtain the ideas that they do not know or have beforehand. In this

case, after they have listened and gotten the ideas, it had better to jot them.

Jotting is considered useful because it can make them observe and write down

the gist of ideas that come into their mind.

c. Taking Notes

This is the subsequent activity after observation and listening. It is the same as

jotting in which every idea coming into mind is recorded.6

In addition, Lau reveals that creativity can be obtained through several

habits summarized as follows:

a. SCAMPER

SCAMPER constitutes a mnemonic for a list of ways that are used to get new

ideas. It consists of substitute something, combine it with something else,

adapt something to it, modify or magnify it, put it to some other use, eliminate

something, and reverse or rearrange it. The instances of scamper are as

follows:

1. Substitute: substitute the typical material for making table with unusual

material, such as recycled paper.

2. Combine: a table top that is a computer touch-screen or an aquarium.

3. Adapt: Use an antique door as a table, or the stump of tree as the leg.

4. Modify/magnify: modify it into a table with lots of very thin legs

5. Put to some other use: a table with adjustable height that can double as a

bed.

6Tom Monahan, op. cit., pp. 141—143.

11

6. Eliminate: a table with no legs in this case it can be supported by an

extended arm attached to the wall.

7. Reverse: Change how people sit. Make a big ring-like table with a hole in

the middle so people can sit inside as well.

b. Analogy

The intent of analogy is to make people easy in solving problems encountered;

in this case, it can be done through comparing the problems to similar

problems that the people can solve beforehand.

c. Brute Search

It is an activity done through making a long list of possible solutions of certain

problems found, and then these were tried out one by one until the appropriate

solutions of the problems are obtained.

d. Perspective Shift

It is an activity to solve problems encountered. It is done through contrasting

the problems with some perspectives, for instance, positive versus negative,

fact versus value, people (e.g. teachers versus students), and so on.7

To sum up, creativity is not an easy matter to obtain. It can be obtained

through a number of techniques. The techniques employed may vary due to the

condition or the problems encountered.

3. Cycles of Creativity

To think creatively, there are a number of stages or cycles that must be

followed by a creative thinker. This section aims to uncover the cycles of

creativity based on some experts in details.

The stages of creativity consist of four stages which are briefly described

as follows:

a. Preparation, i.e. a stage in which people try to deal with and solve the

problems encountered through normal means.

7Joe Y. F. Lau, op. cit., pp. 223—227.

12

b. Incubation, i.e. the period when people perceive some frustration because the

methods used in the preparation stage have not worked and then these

eventually lead them to move away to other things.

c. Illumination, i.e. a stage in which people suddenly find the answer in their

subconscious mind.

d. Verification, i.e. a stage where people’s reasoning powers take over when

they analyze the answer of problems, and they assess its feasibility.8

Moreover, Lau reveals some other additional explanations related to the

four stages or cycles of creativity above as follows:

a. Preparation

This stage is started with the process of gathering information about the

problems encountered. This is conducted through a number of ways, such as

going to the library, searching the web, talking to people, or collecting data or

other items. Then, after the information had been collected, these are kept in

some places that may be easily accessed, such as in a notebook, a box, or a

computer. This stage constitutes merely collecting things that might be

relevant without too much have some filtering or analyses. This is not an easy

matter for people because many of them may feel impatient while they do not

have adequate knowledge so that sometimes they meet some failure.

Therefore, broadening mind and thinking about all possible sources that might

help in doing tasks should be considered in this stage.

b. Exploration

This stage cover a number of activities comprising classifying the material,

reorganizing them, looking at them from different perspectives, and trying to

make a connections of the ideas and drawing conclusions. The aim of this

stage is to create and find new and useful ideas. To succeed in this stage, a lot

of concentration, analysis, and patience as well as avoiding distractions and

devoting the attention fully to the task are required.

8Philip Carter and Ken Rusell, loc. cit.

13

c. Incubation

This stage constitutes the time on which people get some rest or put aside their

task, relax, and forget for a while what they have been doing, and just wait the

answer. In this case, a period of inactivity after intensive thinking may be

believed to promote creativity. It is believed that this stage gives a chance for

the unconscious mind work on the problem. In this case, it can be considered

that the answers of the problems are found because some break time assist

people to see the problems with a fresh eye.

d. Verification

It is a stage in which people have found the answers or ideas related to the

problems; they recheck their work and see whether the answers or ideas can be

improved further. It is done to avoid some mistakes that lead to the failure.9

In conclusion, to obtain some creative works, people are required to follow

a number of stages comprising preparation, exploration, incubation, and

verification. Furthermore, one thing that can be drawn from all the stages or

cycles of creativity above is that one stage to other stages connect as well as is

hierarchical one another. For instance, after the data gathered in the preparation

stage, then these are continued to be classified and categorized in the exploration

stage, which then is followed with incubation to get some ideas through putting

aside the problem for a while, and these were rechecked in the verification stage.

4. Assessing Creative Thinking Ability

Some kinds of instruments gauging creative thinking ability have been

proposed by a number of experts. The instruments are various due to the various

notions associated with the nature or definition of creative thinking ability

proposed by the experts. In this section, some of the explanations related to the

instruments that are employed to assess creative thinking ability are discussed.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) developed a

value rubric that is intended to assess creative thinking ability. This rubric follows

the nature or creative thinking ability which constitute as the capacity through

9Joe Y. F. Lau, op. cit., pp. 218—219.

14

which existing ideas, images, or expertise are combined or synthesized in original

ways as well as the ability in which one is employed his/her thought, reaction, and

work imaginatively, and these are indicated by a high degree of innovation,

divergent thinking, and risk taking. The rubric consists of six dimensions such as

acquiring competencies, taking risks, solving problems, embracing contradictions,

innovative thinking, connecting, synthesizing, and transforming (the detail of

creative thinking value rubric, see Appendix III).10

Creative thinking ability encompasses a number of dimensions or

components. These components are commonly used as the indicators to assess the

divergent thinking ability or creative thinking ability. The dimensions comprise:

a. Fluency constitutes the ability to produce the number of different ideas.

b. Flexibility constitutes the ability to produce the various ideas.

c. Originality constitutes the ability to produce unusual ideas.

d. Elaboration constitutes the ability to produce details of ideas.11

Baer and Kaufman points out that the four dimensions above are assessed

through making lists of things as many as possible of in a particular time

constraint, for instance listing uses of bricks, boxes or tin cans.12

In addition, Treffinger et al asserts the four dimensions above work

together with metaphorical thinking ability constituting the personal creativity

characteristics.13 In this case, the explanations and descriptions of the dimensions

above are provided in detail as follows:

a. Fluency refers to the ability in which a large number of ideas in response to an

open-ended question or in reference to one’s thinking process is generated. It

is the stimulus that can create both novel and useful ideas.

b. Flexibility constitutes the ability in which the direction of one’s thinking is

shifted or the ability to make point of view changed. It is indicated through

10Association of American Colleges and Universities, Creative Thinking Value Rubric,http;//www.accu.org, 2015.

11John Baer and James C. Kaufman, Being Creative Inside and Outside the Classroom:How to Boost Your Students’ Creativity—and Your Own, (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2012), p.21.

12Ibid., p. 16.13Donald J. Treffinger et al., Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators, (Sarasota: The

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 2002), p. 11.

15

ideas or experiences in unexpected or varied ways are involved that lead to the

discovery of surprising and promising possibilities.

c. Originality constitutes the ability in which new and unusual ideas are

generated. It involves the ability to generate unusual or statistically infrequent

options or the ideas that might be offered by only few people.

d. Elaboration constitutes the ability in which details are added and expanded. It

deals with the ability to make ideas richer and more interesting or more

complete.

e. Metaphorical thinking refers to ability through which new connections are

made through employing comparisons or analogies.14

Moreover, Treffinger et al also assert that the dimensions of creative

thinking above can be observed through several things as follows:

a. Making a prediction, speculation, and forecast through a question: "What will

happen if . . .?" and so forth.

b. Making new possibilities through combining or changing parts.

c. Considering the metaphors or analogies of things.

d. Looking over ideas produced first before making a judgment or criticism

about them.15

B. The Concept of Writing Skill

1. Definition of Writing

Like other language skills, writing is considered as the important language

skill. It is the skill that can give a space for people to express ideas, feelings, and

opinions, particularly in the written form. Due to its importance, a number of

experts propose some definitions related to writing. The definitions are discussed

and unraveled in details here.

Ploeger points out that writing is the activity in which one tries to discover

things that he/she knows and feels, and it is the activity to have a communication

14Ibid, p. 12.15Ibid, p. 13.

16

to readers about the things.16 Based on Ploeger’s view above, writing can be

considered as an activity which covers two steps, i.e. discovering things, may be

in the form of ideas, feelings, etc., and communicate them to the readers in the

written form. For instance, as one wants to write about the Javanese culture,

he/she must recall anything that he/she knows or feels about Javanese culture, for

instance from its language or the way the Javanese people behave; then when

he/she writes those knowledge related to Javanese culture down into a piece of

paper to be read by his/her readers.

In addition, Broughton et al reveal that writing is considered as an activity

which is both private and public.17 This notion can be interpreted that writing is

private due to the fact that it is done by the writer alone, whereas it is considered

public activity because it involves others or audience/readers, i.e. the writers try to

communicate their ideas to readers, and sometimes the piece of writing is

determined by the readers’ needs.

Moreover, Langan states that writing is a skill that can be learned as well

as it is a process of discovery entailing a number of steps.18 This definition gives a

description of writing that writing is a skill that can be learnt by anyone, certainly

through continuous practices, whereas it is considered as a process of discovery

due to the fact that to have a good final draft of writing, one should follow a

number of steps through editing or revising until he/she finds that the writing has

served its needs.

To sum up, based on the definitions of writing above, writing can be

considered as a complex activity which is done alone by the writer through a

number of steps started from searching the existing knowledge to publicizing the

composition to readers. The more people practice to write the more skillful they

create a composition.

16Katherine Ploeger, Simplified Paragraph Skills, (Lincolnwood: NTC Publishing Group,2000), p. 5.

17Geoffrey Broughton et al., Teaching English as a Foreign Language Second Edition,(New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 116.

18John Langan, Exploring Writing: Paragraphs and Essays, op. cit., pp. 7—9.

17

2. Cycles of Writing

To obtain a good composition, there are a number of steps or cycles that

must be followed by any writers. A number of experts have their own views

related to the cycles of the writing. This section discusses the cycles of writing

based on some experts in details.

Ruetten and Pavlik reveal that there are some processes of writing which

consist of:

a. Prewriting

The process where one considers audience or the readers, discovers ideas,

narrows the topic through brainstorming, determines a controlling idea, selects

the supporting ideas, and organizes the idea in a logical way.

b. Drafting

This is the process where one starts to write the ideas down into a piece of

paper to form a paragraph.

c. Revising

This is the process where one revises the composition in order that the ideas

are conveyed logically and can be understood by readers.

d. Editing

This is the process where one checks the composition again whether it has

used correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.19

Besides, Seow reveals that the writing process consists of four basic stages

as what Ruetten and Pavlik mention above (i.e. planning/prewriting,

drafting/writing, revising/redrafting, and editing), but in the classroom context he

adds three additional stages which derive from teachers’ forces to students as

follows:

a. Responding

It is the stage in which teachers have some interventions or reactions to

students’ first draft. It is commonly conducted by the teachers as the students

19Mary K. Ruetten and Cheryl Pavlik, Developing Composition Skills: Academic Writingand Grammar, (Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning, 2012), Third Edition, pp. 20—25.

18

are between the process drafting and revising. It can be in the form of oral or

written response/comments.

b. Evaluating

It is the stage in which teachers evaluate students’ writing. The students’

writing are evaluated through analytical scoring (i.e. the scoring conducted

based on the specific aspect of writing) or holistic scoring (i.e. the scoring

conducted based on the global interpretation of the aspect of writing). The

aspect of writing encompasses grammar and structure, relevance, development

and organization of ideas, spelling and punctuation, the word choice, and so

on. Moreover, this stage can be conducted by the students themselves as well;

in this case, they are encouraged to evaluate their (peers’) writing based on the

scoring criteria above.

c. Post writing

It is the stage referring to any kinds of activity in which students and teachers

can do to the students’ final writing. This is conducted as a reward or

motivation that the students’ writings are important and worthwhile.

Publishing, sharing, reading aloud, transforming text for stage performance, or

adhering them to the notice-board are the instances of any activities that they

can do.20

In addition, Brown and Hood assert that the writing process theoretically

encompasses some activities such as preparing, drafting, and revising, but in fact

the writing process practically may run flexibly among one process and the others

as represented in Figure 2.1 as follows:

20Anthony Seow, “The Writing Process and Process Writing,” in Jack C. Richards andWilly A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of CurrentPractice, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 316—319.

19

Figure 2.1Writing Process21

Based on Figure 2.2 represented above, the writing process consists of a

number of steps. The steps are interdependent and interrelated. In this case,

preparing, drafting, and revising connect one another. As people make a

preparation to write, they can continue to have some draft and revise the

composition. Also, the drafting process can be followed revising and so does the

revising. Besides, having a preparing process can be preceded by revising or

drafting process.

In conclusion, the cycles or processes of writing consist of some activities,

and these are unpredictable and flexible. These are unpredictable and flexible

because the completed piece of writings depend and are in accordance with the

writers’ conditions and view whether or not their final draft of writings have met

the writing purpose and the readers’ needs.

3. Purposes of Writing

Writing is not merely an activity in which writers holds pen/pencil and

communicate their ideas, feelings, or opinions to a piece of paper but there a

number of reasons or purposes which underlie the writers to do it. This section

will try to discuss and elaborate the reasons or purposes of writing in the light of

several experts.

21Kristine Brown and Susan Hood, Writing Matters: Writing Skills and Strategies forStudents of English, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 6.

preparing

drafting

revising

revising

drafting

preparing

20

Grenville points out that there a number of writing purposes that are

summarized as follows:

a. Writing to entertain

The intent of this kind of writing is to engage the readers’ feeling through the

writing’s plot or the emotion conveyed in the writing. The writing to entertain

can be in the forms of writing novels, stories, poems, song lyrics, plays, and

screenplays;

b. Writing to inform

This kind of writing aims to inform or tell readers about something. The

writing to inform can be in the forms of writing newspaper, articles, scientific

or business reports, instructions or procedures, and essay for school and

university;

c. Writing to persuade

This kind of writing is intended to convince readers about something.

Providing relevant and logical evidence is considered important and entailed

in this kind of writing. The writing to persuade can be in the forms of writing

for advertisements, articles, newspaper, and magazine.22

Similarly, Browne reveals the same thing as Grenville that the purposes of

writing consist of writing to entertain, writing to inform, and writing to persuade,

but she also mentions several other notions related to the writing purposes

comprising writing to express feeling, to request, to instruct, to record, and to

express opinions and ideas.23

To sum up, the kinds of writing purposes constitute the grounds that

underlie the writers do the writing activity that fit together with the readers’ needs.

Besides, the product of the writing will depend on the purpose of the writing

itself.

22Kate Grenville, op. cit., pp. 1—2.23Ann Browne, Teaching and Learning Communication, Language and Literacy,

(London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2007), pp. 81—82.

21

4. Writing Recount Text

a. Definition of Recount Text

Many kinds of writing text are learnt by students at school, and a

recount text is one of the texts that are importantly learnt by them. This

section tries to discuss the definition related to recount text. First, Grenville

reveals that recount constitutes a text of which purpose is to tell a series of

events that occur in order.24 Based on this definition, a recount text can be

considered as the text in which a series of events become the essential part

of a recount text; in this case, the events are told chronologically to readers.

In addition, recount constitutes a text that is intended to relate

experiences or retell events for a number of purposes, such as giving

information, entertainment, or reflection.25 Moreover, a recount text can take

several forms summarized as follows:

1) Personal recount, i.e. a kind of recount text in which writers retells a

personal activity as well as it may have an intention to build the

relationship between the writers and readers. This kind of recount can

take several forms, such as anecdote, diary journal, and personal letter.

2) Factual recount, i.e. a kind of recount text which aims to report a

particular incident through some factual information reconstructed. The

instances of this kind of recount text can be police reconstruction of an

accident, historical recount, biographical and autobiographical recounts.

3) Imaginative recount, i.e. a kind of recount text in which a factual

knowledge to an imaginary role is applied to interpret and recount

events. A Day in the Life of Roman Slave and How I Discovered Radium

are some of the writing works that constitute the instances of imaginative

recount.

4) Procedural recount, i.e. a kind of recount text in which the steps in an

investigation or experiment are recorded as well as it is used as the basis

24Kate Grenville, op. cit., p. 194.25Government of South Australia/Department for Education and Child Development,

Engaging in and Exploring Recount Writing, Numeracy+Literacy, 2012, p. 1.

22

for reported results or findings. The instances of this recount text may

take in the form of retelling data collecting in a research.

5) Literary recount, i.e. a kind of recount text which is intended to retell a

series of events for entertaining the readers. The instances of this recount

type may be similar to imaginative recount or personal recount texts

above.26

In conclusion, a recount text is a text retells a number of past

events or experiences chronologically based on time and place. Besides, it

can be in several forms, such as personal, factual, imaginative, procedural,

and literary recounts.

b. Structural Features of Recount Text

Knapp and Watkins reveal that a recount text has structural features

comprising orientation in which characters are set up in a particular time and

place, followed with sequence of events, and evaluation (optional)

discussing the writer’s interpretation of the events told.27

Similarly, the structural features or generic structures of a recount

text are described as follows:

1) Orientation, i.e. a part in which the background information needed

to understand the text is provided. It comprises who were involved in

the story (the characters), when did the event happen (time), and

where did the event happen (place).

2) Sequence of events, i.e. a part which describes the events happened

and it is commonly ordered chronologically.

3) Re-orientation, i.e. a part which provides a summary statement/an

evaluative comment/a return to the starting point.28.

26Ibid.27Peter Knapp and Megan Watkins, Genre, Text, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching

and Assessing Writing, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2005), p. 234.28Government of South Australia/Department for Education and Child Development, op.

cit., p. 2.

23

The three structural features of a recount text above can be described

in the following example:

Title : My Vacation

Orientation : Last month, my friends and I went to Pari Island. We

stayed in a hotel there.

Sequence of

Events

: During the vacation, we went to a marvelous beach of

which name was Pasir Perawan beach. In fact, there

were many foreigners who also visited the beach. It

was so nice then. We decided to rent a banana boat

there. After trying the banana boat, we came to other

spots near the beach to go snorkeling. Numerous

panoramic and dazzling views, such as the clown fish

as well as beautiful rocks, can be seen under the

water.

Re-orientation : On the last day of vacation, we did not forget to buy

some typical souvenirs of Pari island sold by some of

the local inhabitants. Although we seemed tired, but

we all still looked happy then.

c. Language Features of Recount Text

Like other kinds of texts, the recount text has a particular language

features used. This section attempts to reveals the particular language features

of a recount text in details. First, Knapp and Watkins point out that the

language features of a recount text consist of action verbs (commonly used in

past tense verbs, e.g. held, did, performed), and temporal connectives (e.g.

first, then, and so on).29

In addition, the language features of a recount text may use present

tense, for instance in informal anecdotal storytelling (e.g. Just imagine—I’m

in the park and I suddenly see a giant bat flying towards me!), the subject of a

recount text has a tendency to focus on individual or group participants (e.g.

29Peter Knapp and Megan Watkins, op. cit., p. 228.

24

third person: They all ate it; She ran away), and the first person (e.g. I was on

my way to your house; We went to school together) in terms of personal

recount text.30

To sum up, language features of recount text consist of using past

tense action verb (e.g. performed, did, etc.), temporal connectives (e.g. first,

then, next, and so on), the subject focusing on individual or group

participants (e.g. third person: They, She, and so on), and the first person

(e.g. I and we).

5. Assessing the Writing Skill

Assessing the writing skill is not an easy matter. There are several

considerations as raters would like to assess one’s composition. A number of

experts have revealed that there are some kinds of scoring method that can be

used to assess the writing skill. This section tries to discuss those kinds of scoring

methods in detail.

Hughes asserts that there are two kinds of scoring to assess the writing

skill summarized as follows:

a. Holistic Scoring

This is sometimes called as the impressionistic scoring. It is a kind of scoring

in which a piece of writing is assessed with a single score based on a general

impression of the piece of writing.

b. Analytic Scoring

This is a method in which a piece of writing is assessed analytically, i.e. the

aspects of writing are scored separately.31

Likewise, Heaton also reveals similar methods of scoring with one

additional kind of scoring as follows:

a. Impression method

30South Gloucestershire Council, Revised Framework for Literacy, Support for Writing:Text Types Guidance and Progression Papers, 2015.

31Arthur Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers, (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2008), Second Edition, pp. 94—100.

25

This is a scoring method, in which a single mark is valued as multiple

marking; also, it is conducted through noticing the impression of composition

in general. The procedure of this method is the raters are supposed to read a

piece of writing rapidly and then giving a mark on it. This is supposed to be

done based on only impression. This method is considered to be as the faster

method in comparison with other scoring method.

b. Analytic method

It is a method which depends upon a marking scheme (e.g. vocabulary,

mechanics, fluency, and relevance, etc.) that the raters ponder. Also, it is

regarded as a method in which the various features of a composition is

separated.

c. Mechanical Accuracy or Error-Count Method

It is pondered as the most objective of all methods, yet it has less validity and

considered not be used. The procedure is by counting the number of errors of a

piece of composition then deciding the scores based on the number of errors

made. It is not recommended because it actually omits the real purpose of

writing, that is, communication; it simply concentrates on the students’

negative aspects of writing as well as position the students to the place in

which they must simply write by minimizing mistakes.32

In addition, Weigle also points out three kinds of scoring procedures in

which two of them are similar to Hughes and Heaton’s notions above:

a. Primary Trait Scoring

This scoring is initially advocated by Lloyd-Jones through their work for the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in US. In this case, this

scoring method emphasizes on the success of students in writing a kind of

discourse (for instance, persuasion or explanation). Also, the rating scale is

has an association with the specific writing assignment. Besides, several

categories may be included in the scoring guide. The scoring rubric of primary

trait scoring comprises the following things:

32J. B. Heaton, op. cit., pp. 148—149.

26

1) The writing task

2) A statement of the primary of rhetorical trait (e.g. persuasive essay,

congratulation letter, etc.)

3) A hypothesis about the expected performance on the task

4) A statement of the relationship between the task and the primary trait

5) A rating scale which articulates levels of performance

6) Sample scripts at each level

7) Explanation of the causes of each script was scored as it is.

b. Holistic Scoring

It is a method in which a single score that is given to a piece of writing based

on the overall impression of the script. The procedures comprise reading

quickly the piece of writing and then evaluating it based on a rating scale or

scoring rubric. Weigle, in this case, asserts that it is different from the its

earlier scoring, i.e., general impression marking which is considered less

reliable because there are no criteria that is explicitly stated.

c. Analytic Scoring

This is a scoring method in which several aspects of writing or criteria are

used to assess a piece of writing separately. The features of criteria being rated

depends on the purpose of the assessment, for instance it may include content,

organization, cohesion, register, vocabulary, grammar, or mechanics.33

In conclusion, there are several methods of scoring in writing assessment.

Each method of scoring has its own criteria and characteristics. Also, each scoring

method has its own strength and weakness.

C. Relevant Studies

A number of studies investigating the creative thinking ability and writing

skill had been conducted by several researchers. All the studies had been carried

out in the context English as a foreign language. This section attempts to discuss

the relevant studies associated with the present study in details.

33Sara Cushing Weigle, Asessing Writing, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002), pp. 110—114.

27

A study which entitles Exploring the Relationship of Creative Thinking to

Reading and Writing was conducted by Wang. This study investigates whether

there is any significant relationship between personal creative thinking and

reading and writing. The sample of this study covered 196 students who studied in

a university in Taiwan. Meanwhile, the instruments used were questionnaire

which measured the personal attitudes toward reading and writing, estimated

hours spent on different reading and writing, and the participants’ background

information, and creativity test (i.e. Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults). This

study arrived at a conclusion that the students spending more time on

reading/writing had a significant better performance on the creativity test.

Therefore, creativity is considered to have a significant association with attitudes

toward reading/writing and the amount of time spent on reading/writing.34

Next, a study under the title The Level of Creativity in English Writing

among Jordanian Secondary School Students was conducted by Rababah et al.

This study aimed to investigate the level of creativity in English writing. The

sample of this study encompassed 100 secondary school students in Irbid and

Amman cities in Jordan. The instrument employed was Torrance Test of Creative

Thinking which was adapted and translated into the Arabic language. The findings

indicated that 65% of the participants had moderate level in terms of their

creativity in English writing, 19% participants were in the low level, and 16%

participants were in the high level. As a result, this study arrived at a conclusion

that most of the students had moderate level of creativity in English writing.35

In addition, Pishghadam conducted a study of which title is Learner

Creativity and Performance in Written Narrative Tasks. This study intended to

investigate the relationship between learner creativity and performance in written

narrative tasks in the context of Iranian EFL students. The sample of this study

covered 222 students of four universities in Mashad, Iran. The instruments used

consisted of a narrative written task and a questionnaire which gauge the

participants’ creativity in terms of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration

34Amber Yayin Wang, loc. cit.35Luqman M. Rababah et al., The Level of Creativity in English Writing among Jordanian

Secondary School Students, Arts and Design Studies, 10, 2013, pp. 25—29.

28

(FFOE). At last, a significant relationship were found between learners’

performance in written narrative tasks and their total creativity and also with some

sub constructs of creativity, i.e. fluency, originality, and flexibility were found.36

Moreover, The Relationship between Creativity in Thinking and Writing

Performance of Iranian EFL Learners on Comparison/Contrast was the next

relevant study which was conducted by Soleimani and Najafgholian. This study

intended to investigate the relationship between creativity in thinking and writing

performance in comparison-and-contrast type of writing. The sample of this study

encompassed 107 students from three universities in Tehran. The instruments

used were the questionnaire and Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and Abedi

Test of Creativity test to measure the participants’ creativity, and writing essay

test. This study arrived at a conclusion that there was a significant positive

relationship between creativity in thinking and writing performance in

comparison-and-contrast.37

Furthermore, another study of which title is Relationship of Creative

Thinking with the Academic Achievements of Secondary School Students was

conducted by Anwar et al. The intent of this study was to investigate whether

there was a significant relationship between creative thinking and academic

achievement of secondary school students. The sample of this study covered 256

students who had passed the Secondary School Examination from Board of

Intermediate and Secondary Education, in Gujranwala city. The instruments used

were Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and documentation of students’

results on school examination. The study reached a conclusion that there is any

significant relationship between creative thinking and students’ academic

achievements.38

Based on the relevant studies discussed above, the present study has some

positions, including similarities and differences, in comparison with the relevant

36Reza Pishghadam, Learners Creativity and Performance in Written Narrative Tasks,World Journal of Education, 1, 2011, pp. 115—125.

37Hassan Soleimani and Sara Najafgholian, loc. cit.38Muhammad Nadeem Anwar et al., Relationship of Creative Thinking with the

Academic Achievements of Secondary School Students, International Interdisciplinary Journal ofEducation, 1, 2012, pp. 44—47.

29

studies above. This section attempts to describe those similarities and differences

in details.

The first similarities and differences are seen in the light of the research

variables investigated. In this case, the present study can be considered as a more

specific study than the study conducted by Wang because the present study only

focuses on creative thinking ability in association with writing ability whereas

Wang employed Reading and Writing as the independent variable which is

associated with creative thinking. Meanwhile, although Rababah et al,

Pishghadam, and Soleimani and Najafgholian’s studies applied the same

independent variable, i.e. writing, the present study is considered different from

their studies because it more specifically focuses on investigating writing recount

text. Moreover, the present study quite different in terms of the independent

variable employed from the study conducted by Anwar et al who investigated

academic achievement as the independent variable which was correlated with

creative thinking.

The next similarities and differences are seen in terms of the research

methods. In this case, the present study is similar to the studies conducted by

Wang, Pishghadam, Soleimani and Najafgholian, and Anwar et al who employed

a correlational research method. However, it is different from the method used by

a study conducted by Rababah et al who applied descriptive method.

The next similarities and differences are seen based on the research

instruments used. In this case, all the previous relevant studies who investigated

writing (i.e. Wang, Rababah et al, Pishghadam, and Soleimani and Najafgholian)

as the independent variable applied the same writing instrument, namely writing

test, whereas in terms of the instrument used to measure creative thinking, the

present study is different from a study cinducted by Pishghadam who used

questionnaire to gauge creative thinking, whereas it is partially similar to the

studies conducted by Wang, Rababah et al, Soleimani and Najafgholian, and

Anwar et al who used test that assessed FFOE of creative thinking ability.

30

D. Conceptual Framework

Writing is the important language skill to be learned. Through writing,

people can communicate, particularly in the written form, their ideas, feelings, or

opinions about things to others. However, to learn this language skill is not easy

because there a number of things that deserve some attention from the writers.

To master and to be proficient in writing is not easy because the writers

are required to generate and organize the ideas as well as make them into a

readable text.39 The readable text can be interpreted as the product of writing

which is considered meaningful as well as entertaining as the readers read it. To

attain the quality of readable text, one of the apparatus that may be useful and

facilitating is the ability to think creatively. Through thinking creatively, more

new and unique ideas and other solutions to figure out the problems as the writers

are writing can be obtained.

As a result, although learning writing is not an easy matter, through

creative thinking ability the writers may have a number of advantages as they are

writing. Therefore, as one is writing, one’s creative thinking ability should be

surely entailed. Consequently, it is supposed that creative thinking ability has a

significant relationship with writing skill. In this case, the better the writer’

creative thinking ability, the better their writing skill will be.

E. Theoretical Hypothesis

Based on the theories discussed and elaborated above, a theoretical

hypothesis is proposed. In this case, it is supposed that there is a significant

relationship between creative thinking ability and students’ writing recount text

skill. Consequently, if the students have poor creative thinking ability, they might

not be able to write a recount text well; in contrast, if they have good creative

thinking ability, they might be able to write a recount text well. Therefore, the

more creative the students are, the more skillful they write a recount text.

39Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching:An Anthology of Current Practice, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 303.

31

YX

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the place and period in and on which this study was

conducted. In addition, it provides the explanation of the research design and

instruments employed as well as the description of the way the data was collected

and analyzed. Also, the synthesized hypotheses of this study are discussed here.

A. Place and Time of the Study

1. Place

This study was carried out at the eleventh grade of MA Khazanah

Kebajikan Tangerang Selatan.

2. Time

This study was conducted in October 2015. This was conducted to

investigate the relationship between students’ creative thinking ability and

their writing recount text skill.

B. Research Design

The design employed in this study was a correlational research which is

included as a quantitative research. It was used to find out the relationship

between two variables encompassed a dependent variable and an independent

variable. Next, the research paradigm—the model depicting the relationship

between the research variables—is presented in Figure 3.1 as follows:

r

Figure 3.1Research Paradigm1

Notes:

X: independent variable (i.e. creative thinking ability)

Y: dependent variable (i.e. writing recount text skill)

r: relationship

1Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D, (Bandung: Alfabeta,2009), p. 42.

32

Based on the Figure 3.1 represented above, this study seeks to find out the

relationship between the independent variable (i.e. creative thinking ability)

indicated by X and the dependent variable (i.e. writing recount text skill) indicated

by Y.

C. Population and Sample

The population of this study encompasses all the students in the eleventh

grade of MA Khazanah Kebajikan Cirendeu, Tangerang Selatan academic year

2015/2016. There were two classes in the eleventh grade, i.e. XI IPA and XI IPS.

Class XI IPA consisted of 18 students, whereas class XI IPS consisted of 22

students. So the total population of this study was 40 students. From the 40

students, only 26 students were taken as the sample of this study. The 26 students

were determined through a purposive sampling technique. In this case, the 26

students were those who did not participate in the instrument try-out (i.e. test of

creative thinking ability, section 3 about making analogies).

D. Research Instrument

The research instruments used in this study were tests. The explanations of

the tests employed are discussed in details as follows:

1. Test of Creative Thinking Ability

The creative thinking test used in this study was structured based on the

components constructing creative thinking ability comprising acquiring

competencies, taking risks, solving problems, embracing contradictions,

innovative thinking, and connecting, synthesizing, transforming, fluency,

flexibility, originality, and elaboration, as well as metaphorical thinking. All the

dimensions or components above are manifested into three sections. The first

section, focusing on the dimensions such as acquiring competencies, taking risks,

solving problems, embracing contradictions, innovative thinking, and connecting,

synthesizing, transforming, asks the participants to take into account of and deal

with a matter provided through making it into an essay based on the available

topic. The second section focuses on the four dimensions comprising fluency,

33

flexibility, originality, and elaboration; in this case, the participants are asked to

use their creative thinking verbally; they are asked to name as many as possible of

new uses (i.e. maximum of 10 uses) for an everyday object given along the time

constraint available. The third section specifically focuses on metaphorical

thinking; in this case they are asked to answer a multiple choice questions

associated with analogy. To facilitate the participants answer the creative thinking

test, the participants’ native language, i.e. Bahasa Indonesia, are employed. Next,

the creative thinking test used is explained and summarized into the test matrix

presented in Table 3.1 below:

Table 3.1

Test Matrix of Creative Thinking Ability

Research

VariableIndicator

Total of

Items

Percentage

DistributionSection

Total of

percentage

for each

section

Creative

Thinking

Ability

Acquiring competencies 1 4%

1 24%

Taking risks 1 4%

Solving problems 1 4%

Embracing contradictions 1 4%

Innovative thinking 1 4%

Connecting, synthesizing,

transforming1

4%

Fluency 1 10%

2 60%Flexibility 1 10%

Originality 1 20%

Elaboration 1 20%

Metaphorical thinking 16 16% 3 16%

Total 100% 3 100%

2. Test of Writing Recount Text Skill

The test of writing recount text skill is intended to find out students’

writing skill on a recount text. There are three topics provided. Then, the

34

participants are freely chosen one of them to be developed into a short

composition. The participants are given 30 minutes to write, edit, and revise their

compositions. The compositions should have at least 200 words in length. Next,

the test specification of writing ability is presented in Table 3.2 as follows:

Table 3.2Test Matrix of Writing Skill

Variable Indicator ItemNumber

Total

WritingRecount

TextSkill

Develop the topic of recount text well.

1 1

Use language features of recount text

correctly, e.g. use past tense, temporal

connectives, etc.

Use appropriate word choice or

vocabulary, e.g. past tense verb, etc.

Use correct structure and grammar of

recount text.

Organize the writing cohesively and

coherently.

Use correct punctuation, spelling,

capitalization and readable handwriting.

E. Data Analysis Technique

After the data from test of creative thinking and writing are obtained, these

continue to be analyzed.

1. Assessing Creative Thinking

The first section is scored based on the creative thinking value rubric

proposed by AACU of which range started from 1 to 4, which measure the

dimensions such as acquiring competencies, taking risks, solving problems,

embracing contradictions, innovative thinking, and connecting, synthesizing,

35

transforming. Furthermore, to get the standard score of 100, the following

formula is applied:2

Standard score= x 100%

Next, the second section is scored based on the four dimensions of creative

thinking comprising fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The four

dimensions are scored separately. The scoring is explained in details as follows:

a) Fluency

The participants’ fluency is scored based on the number of responses they can

produce. Every idea given is counted one point. For instance, if they give ten

responses, then they get ten score on fluency.

b) Flexibility

The participants’ flexibility is scored based on the number of different

categories of their responses (thus, in this case the writer lists first all the

participants’ responses into categories, see Appendix IX). For instance, in the

test the participants are asked to list as many different possible uses for empty

egg cartons, and on their responses they mention four possible uses of the

thing, such as storing eggs, storing a rock collection, homes for cockroaches

and home for honeybees. These responses get two points because the four

responses are categorized into two, i.e. the storing things and places to live.

c) Originality

The participants’ originality is scored based on the frequency of the idea on

the lists of other participants taking the test (the same as flexibility, in this case

all the participants’ responses are listed first, see Appendix X). The more

unusual idea given (or the fewer frequency of the ideas that belong to the

participants) than other participants, the more extra points (i.e. two points) the

participants can get.

d) Elaboration

The participants’ elaboration is scored based on the way they can elaborate the

responses given. The more elaborate and interesting idea given, the more

22Suharsimi Arikunto, Dasar-Dasar Evcluasi Pendidikan, (Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2009),p. 236.

36

points are obtained. For instance, in the test the participants are asked to list as

many different possible uses for empty egg cartons, and on their responses

they mention “home for cockroaches” and “homes for honeybees, who could

use the 12 egg spaces to create 12 small but connected honeycombs”. The

response “homes for honeybees, who could use the 12 egg spaces to create 12

small but connected honeycombs” would obtain two points on elaboration

because it is more elaborate than the home for cockroach.

In addition, the standard score for the second section is calculated by using

the following formula:3


The last section, test of metaphorical thinking or analogy, is scored based

on the correct answers on the multiple choice question given. There are 16 items.

Besides, to obtain the standard score, the same formula as the first and second

sections is employed:4


All the three sections above are summed to get the participants’ score in

creative thinking ability. Moreover, the students’ levels of creative thinking ability

are interpreted based on the score scale of the level performance adapted from

Treffinger et al as represented in Table 3. 3 as follows:

Table 3.3Creativity Performance Level5

Level Scale Description

Excelling 80-100 The student's ratings are above average to excellent (in

relation to local comparisons), on several indicators, in

relation to varied tasks.

Expressing 61-79 The student's ratings are average or better (in relation to

local comparisons) and are above average in some of

the indicators in relation to varied tasks.

3Ibid.4Ibid.5Donald J. Treffinger et. al., op. cit., p. 53.

37

Level Scale Description

Emerging 40-59 The student's ratings are at or near the average (in

relation to local comparisons) and may be above

average for a specific task or project.

Not Yet

Evident

0-39 The student's ratings on specific creative thinking

criteria or behaviors—completed by a qualified rater—

do not reflect evidence of creative thinking proficiency

at the present time or in relation to the task, or the

specific talent area or domain being rated.

2. Assessing Writing Recount Text Skill

The participants’ writing recount text is assessed through an adapted

holistic scoring of which range scale started from 0 to 6.6 The scoring criteria of

the adapted holistic scoring used are discussed in details in follows:

6 A recount writing at this level:- Effectively addresses the writing task- Is well developed and organized.- Consistently displays facility of language features of recount text (e.g. use

past tense and temporal connectives)- Use clearly appropriate details or specific examples to support or illustrate

ideas.- Correctly use structure and grammar of recount text- Demonstrate the appropriate word choice or vocabulary of recount text,

e.g. past tense verb, etc.- Correctly use punctuation, spelling, capitalization and readable

handwriting.

5 A recount writing at this level:- May address effectively some parts of the task more effectively than

others.- Is generally well developed and organized.- Display facility of language features of recount text (e.g. use past tense

and temporal connectives)- Use details or specific examples to support or illustrate an idea.- Correctly use structure and grammar of recount text, though it will

probably have occasional errors- Demonstrate the appropriate word choice or vocabulary of recount text,

6Sara Cushing Weigle, op. cit., p. 113.

38

e.g. past tense verb, etc, though it will probably have occasional errors,but meaning not obscured

- Occasional errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization andreadable handwriting, but meaning not obscured.

4 A recount writing at this level:- Addresses the writing topic adequately but may slight parts of the task- Is adequately organized and developed- Demonstrates adequate but possibly inconsistent facility of language

features of recount text (e.g. use past tense and temporal connectives)- Use some details or specific examples to support or illustrate an idea.- Demonstrates adequate but possibly inconsistent facility with structure

and grammar of recount text though may contain some errors thatoccasionally obscure meaning.

- Occasional errors of word choice or vocabulary of recount text, e.g. pasttense verb, etc, meaning sometimes obscured

- Occasional errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization andreadable handwriting, but meaning not obscured.

3 A recount writing at this level:- Inadequate organization or development- A noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms of past tense,

etc., meaning obscured.- Inappropriate or insufficient details to support or illustrate generalizations- An accumulation of errors in sentence structure or grammar of recount

text.- Frequent errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization and poor

handwriting, and meaning confused or obscured.

2 A recount writing at this level:- Serious disorganization or underdevelopment- Little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics- Serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or grammar of recount

text.- Limited range and a noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word

forms of past tense, etc., meaning obscured.- Frequent errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization and poor

handwriting, and meaning confused or obscured.

1 A recount writing at this level:- May be incoherent- May be undeveloped- May contain severe and persistent writing errors.

39

0 A recount writing is rated 0 if it contains no response, merely copies the topic,is off-topic, is written in a participants’ native language (i.e. bahasaIndonesia), or consists of only keystroke characters.

Also, the score above is converted into standard score by using the

following formula:


3. Assessing the Relationship between Creative Thinking Ability and Writing

Recount Text Skill

In analyzing the data the relationship between two variables, i.e. creative

thinking ability and writing recount text skill, a correlational analysis is used.

However, there are some steps employed before the correlational analysis is

conducted. First, the linearity and normality distribution of each data set of the

two variables are tested. Next, the correlational analysis is conducted by seeing

the result of the linearity and normality distribution tests. These encompass two

possibilities comprising:

a) As the data sets of the two variables are linear and normally distributed, the

parametric statistic can be used in analyzing the correlation. In this case, the

Pearson’s Product Moment is employed. The formula for calculating the

product moment correlation is described as follows:

rxy=∑ (∑ )(∑ )( ∑ (∑ ) )( ∑ (∑ ) )

Notes:

rxy: correlation coefficient

N: the total subjects or samples of the study: the total scores of creative thinking ability

: the total scores of writing recount text skill∑xy: the total of multiple scores of creative thinking ability and writing

recount text skill∑x2: the total of square scores of creative thinking ability∑y2: the total of square scores of writing recount text skill.

40

b) As the data sets of two variables are not linear and not normally distributed,

the non parametric becomes the alternative to analyze the correlation of the

two variables. In this case, Spearman’s rho prefers to be employed. The

formula to calculate the Spearman’s rho is described as follows:

ρ=∑( )

Notes:

ρ: Spearman’s rho coefficient

n: the total subjects or samples of the study

bi: the score of independent variable’s rank which subtracted with dependent

variable’s rank.

In addition, the computer programs, such as Microsoft Excel 2007 and

SPSS 17.0, were utilized to assist the writer in analyzing the data of this study.

Besides, the correlation coefficient obtained was interpreted with the table of

correlation coefficient interpretation presented in Table 3. 4 as follows:

Table 3.4Table of Correlation Coefficient Interpretation7

The r score Interpretation

0.800−1.000 Very High

0.600−0.799 High

0.400−0.599 Moderate

0.200−0.399 Low

0.000−0.199 Very Low

F. Statistical Hypotheses

The statistical hypotheses proposed in this study consist of:

1. If the Pearson’s Product Moment is used, the statistical hypotheses are as

follows:

a. H0 : ρ = 0 or if rcounted< rtable, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected;

7Sugiyono, Statistika untuk Penelitian, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2013), p. 231.

41

b. Ha : ρ ≠ 0 or if rcounted > rtable, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.

2. If the Spearman’s rho is used, the statistical hypotheses are as follows:

a. H0 : ρ = 0 or if ρ counted< ρ table, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected;

b. Ha : ρ ≠ 0 or if ρ counted > ρ table, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.

3. If the SPSS program is applied, the statistical hypotheses are consulted to level

of significance (i.e. 99%), which are described as follows:

a. H0 : ρ = 0 or if p>0.01, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected;

b. Ha : ρ ≠ 0 or if p<0.01, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.

Notes:

H0: Null Hypothesis (i.e. there is no significant relationship between creative

thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill)

Ha: Alternative hypothesis (i.e. there is a significant relationship between

creative thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill).

42

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

The following chapter reveals and discusses the research finding of the

data that had been already gathered. They are explained in data description,

hypotheses testing, discussion, and identified limitations as this study was being

conducted.

A. Research Finding

1. Data Description of Creative Thinking Ability

The data of creative thinking ability of the eleventh grade students at MA

Khazanah Kebajikan in academic year 2015/2016 are obtained through tests

which comprise three sections. Those three sections are described simultaneously,

which then these are totaled up to be the final score of creative thinking ability

data.

a. Section 1

This section constitutes the data obtained from the test which gauges the

students’ creative thinking ability in terms of six dimensions of creative thinking

ability advocated by AACU. The six dimensions comprise acquiring

competencies (AC), taking risks (TR), solving problems (SP), embracing

contradictions (EC), innovative thinking (IT), and connecting, synthesizing,

transforming (CST). In this test, the students are given three optional problems to

deal with. They are to answer or respond one of the problems in the written form.

The students’ responses are assessed based on the creative thinking value rubric

(of which score scale 1 to 4, see Appendix III) advocated by AACU which is

assessed by two raters. The first rater is an English teacher of a school in which

this study is conducted, and the second rater is the researcher himself. The results

(which are already converted into 1-100 scale) of the students’ creative thinking

ability assessed by the two raters are depicted in Descriptive Statistics represented

in Table 4.1 as follows:

43

Table 4.1

Descriptive Statistics of Creative Thinking (CT) Ability Data Section 1 of

the Two Raters

CT_Section1

_Rater1

CT_Section1

_Rater2

N Valid 26 26

Missing 0 0

Mean 50.32 56.73

Std. Error of Mean 3.587 4.530

Median 50.00 56.25

Mode 25a 75

Std. Deviation 18.292 23.096

Variance 334.615 533.439

Skewness .178 -.682

Std. Error of Skewness .456 .456

Kurtosis -.899 .029

Std. Error of Kurtosis .887 .887

Range 63 88

Minimum 21 0

Maximum 83 88

Sum 1308 1475

Percentiles 25 36.46 40.63

50 50.00 56.25

75 66.67 75.00

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Based on Table 4.1 above, the central tendency distribution of creative

thinking ability data of 26 students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan Academic Year

2015/2016 assessed by the two raters is indicated by the mode, mean, and median.

First, the most frequently scores (mode) of the first and second raters found

respectively are 25 (in this case, actually there are two other modes rated by the

first rater of which frequency is similar to the mode of 25, i.e., 54 and 42, though

only the smallest mode is presented in Table 4.1 above; also see Appendix XI and

44

Appendix XII for the further detail results), and 75. Next, it is found that the

middle point (median) and average score (mean) of the first rater is lower than the

second rater (median1 < median2 = 50.00 < 56.25 and mean1 < mean2 = 50.32 <

56.73). By taking account of the statistics above, it can be interpreted that based

on the assessment conducted by the first rater, most of the students’ creative

thinking ability are categorized as not evident or emerging (see the further criteria

in Chapter III) which is indicated by the modes that are under or near the mean;

on the other hand, based on the assessment conducted by the second rater, most of

the students’ creative thinking ability is categorized as expressing because it is

indicated by the mode that is above the mean.

In addition, according to Table 4.1 represented above, the variability of

data distribution between the first and second raters is indicated by the scores of

variance, standard deviation, range, skewness, kurtosis, and percentiles. First, by

comparing the scores of variance and standard deviation found [i.e., variance =

334.615 and standard deviation = 18.292 (the first rater); variance = 533.439 and

standard deviation = 23.096 (the second rater)], the data of the first rater can be

considered more homogenous than the data deriving from the second rater

because the variance and standard deviation scores from data of the first rater is

lower than the data from the second rater. Moreover, the range between the

maximum and minimum scores of data deriving from the first rater is found to be

lower than the data from the second rater. Next, based on the scores of skewness

of data from the first rater and the second rater (0.178 and -0.682) and kurtosis of

data from the first rater and the second rater (-0.899 and 0.029) as well as the

skewness ratio and kurtosis ratio which are obtained by dividing the skewness and

kurtosis scores with their standard error scores (i.e. skewness ratio of the first rater

= 0.39 and skewness ratio of the second rater = -1.50; kurtosis ratio of the first

rater = -1.01 and kurtosis ratio of the second rater= 0.03), both of the data of the

first rater and the second rater can be considered to be normally distributed

because their skewness and kurtosis as well as their ratios scores are included in

the reasonably accepted scores of normal data distribution, i.e., between -2 and 2.

Another indicator of variability which is based on the range of the middle 25, 50,

45

75 percent of the test scores are shown by percentiles scores, i.e., 36.46, 50.00,

and 66.67 for data of the first rater, and 40.63, 56.25 and 75.00 for data of the

second rater.

Next, to see the reliability of the data sets between the two raters, the inter-

rater reliability of the two raters is calculated. However, to determine the kind of

the statistical test used, i.e., whether it is calculated through a parametric test or

non-parametric test, the linearity and normality data distribution are examined

first.

1) Test of Linearity

The linearity of the data between the two raters is examined through the

scatter plot presented in Figure 4.1 as follows:

Figure 4.1Scatter Plot of CT Test Section 1 between Rater 1 and Rater 2

The scatter plot presented in Figure 4.1 above reveals that the data of rater

1 and rater 2 tend to have a fairly high relationship which is indicated by most of

the observed dots that are closely located to the linear assumption line that is

drawn through the dots. Moreover, it may be interpreted that the data from the two

raters are considered to have a positive relationship because the dots in the plots

show an indication from down left side to the up right side. Also, the data can be

46

considered linear because it is indicated by the loess line that is still within the

99% level of confidence.

Moreover, in order to make sure the interpretation of the scatter plot result

presented in Figure 4.1 above, another way of analysis is pondered to be

employed. In this case, it can be confirmed with a numerical analysis method, i.e.,

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the data between the two raters. The result of

ANOVA of the data between the two raters is presented in Table 4.2 as follows:

Table 4.2

ANOVAb of CT Test Section 1 of the two Raters

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 4470.969 1 4470.969 27.553 .000a

Residual 3894.396 24 162.267

Total 8365.365 25

a. Predictors: (Constant), CT_Section1_Rater2

b. Dependent Variable: CT_Section1_Rater1

Table 4.2 above reveals that F-test value obtained is 27.55 with level of

significance or p-value at 0.00. Because the p-value is lower than 99% level of

confidence (p < 0.01 = 0.00 < 0.01), it is interpreted that the regression model

between the two raters are considered linear.

2) Test of Normality Distribution

The normality distribution is discussed as well as tested based on the two

methods as follows:

a) Graphical Method

The Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot is used to examine the normality

distribution of data between the two raters. The following, i.e., Figure 4.2 and

Figure 4.3, provides the Q-Q plots of the two raters:

47

Figure 4.2

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 1 Rater 1

Figure 4.3

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 1 Rater 2

Based on the detrended normal Q-Q Plots represented in Figure 4.2 and

Figure 4.3, there are no significant extreme cases or outliers that move away from

the accepted range, i.e., three standard deviations from the mean, that can be

found. Therefore, the data from the two raters are considered to be normally

distributed.

48

b) Numerical Method

A numerical method constitutes a confirmation of the graphical approach

conducted previously. Through employing the numerical method, the normality

distribution can be tested more precisely and accurately. In this case, actually

Table 4.1 which encompasses the information of skewness and kurtosis scores can

also be used to gain the normality distribution information, but there are also other

numerical methods which are commonly used in terms of normality distribution

testing. Therefore, it might be necessary to use the other numerical methods to test

the data normality distribution in comparison with skewness and kurtosis in order

to gain the precise and accurate calculation and interpretation. In this case,

Saphiro Wilk test is employed.

Before the data normality distribution is tested through Saphiro Wilk test,

the hypotheses associated with the normality distribution of the data sets of the

two raters are proposed. These are described in details as follows:

- Null hypothesis (H0): the data set is normally distributed.

- Alternative hypothesis (Ha): the data set is not normally distributed.

The statements above can be converted into statistical hypotheses as follows:

- H0: F(x)=F0(x), if p>0.01, H0 is accepted.

- Ha: F(x)=F0(x), if p<0.01, H0 is rejected.

The results are presented in Table 4.3 below:

Table 4.3

Shaphiro-Wilk Test of CT Section 1 of the Two Raters

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

CT_Section_1_Rater_1 .962 26 .437

CT_Section_1_Rater_2 .934 26 .096

Based on Table 4.3 represented above, the test shows that the asymptotic

significances of the data sets of the first and second raters obtained are higher than

99% level of confidence (p1 > 0.010 = 0.437 > 0.010 and p2 > 0.010 = 0.096 >

49

0.010), so H0 is accepted. In other words, the two data sets are considered

normally distributed.

By regarding the results of the tests of linearity and normality distribution

of the data sets of the first and second raters above, the parametric, i.e. Pearson’s

Product Moment, can be used to find out the inter-rater reliability between the two

raters. Table 4.4 below provides the result of the inter-rater reliability between the

two raters.

Table 4.4

Inter-Rater Reliability between the Two Raters of CT Test Section 1

CT_Section_1

_Rater_1

CT_Section_1

_Rater_2

CT_Section_1_Rater_1 Pearson Correlation 1 .731**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 26 26

CT_Section_1_Rater_2 Pearson Correlation .731**1


N 26 26

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on Table 4.4 represented above, the Pearson’s correlation (r) for the

inter-rater reliability obtained is 0.731 which is significant at 99% level of

confidence (p < 0.01) and considered to have a high relationship (see Table 3.4 in

Chapter III for the correlation coefficient interpretation). It is, therefore, regarded

that the data of CT test rated by the two raters are interchangeable.

3) The Final Score of CT Test Section 1

The final score of CT test section 1 is obtained through calculating the

average between the two raters. The result of the final score of CT test section 1 is

presented through descriptive statistics in Table 4.5 as follows:

50

Table 4.5

Descriptive Statistics of Final Score of CT Test Section 1

N Valid 26

Missing 0

Mean 53.53

Std. Error of Mean 3.780

Median 55.21

Mode 65

Std. Deviation 19.273

Variance 371.444

Skewness -.377

Std. Error of Skewness .456

Kurtosis -.317

Std. Error of Kurtosis .887

Range 75

Minimum 10

Maximum 85

Sum 1392

Percentiles 25 36.98

50 55.21

75 66.15

Based on Table 4.5 represented above, the central tendency distribution of

CT test section 1 of the 26 eleventh grade students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan

Academic Year 2015/2016 is indicated by the median, mean, and mode. In this

case, it is found that the median obtained is 55.21, and the mean obtained is 53.53

with the mode found is 65; therefore, it can be considered that most of the

students’ creative thinking ability (i.e., particularly based on the test in section 1)

are categorized as expressing because the mode is above the mean.

Moreover, the dispersion or variability distribution of CT test data in

section 1 is shown by the score of range, quartiles, variance, standard deviation,

skewness, and kurtosis. First, the range score between maximum and minimum

51

scores obtained is 75. Next, the range of the middle 25 percent (first quartile), 50

percent (second quartile or also known as median), and 75 percent (third quartile)

obtained respectively are 36.98, 55.21, and 66.15. In addition, the variance and

standard deviation found are 371.444 and 19.273 respectively. Next, the

dispersion shape of the data distribution is indicated by the skewness and kurtosis

scores found; in this case, these skewness and kurtosis scores respectively are -

0.377 and -0.317. Both of these scores indicate that the shape of the data

dispersion is normal since these are still within the reasonably accepted scores of

normal data distribution, i.e., between -2 and 2. These scores are also corroborated

by each of the statistical ratio scores in which the skewness and kurtosis ratios are

within the reasonably accepted scores for normal data distribution as well (i.e., -

0.827 and -0.357 respectively).

To assure whether or not the data of the final CT test section 1 is normally

distributed (regardless seeing the result of normality test of data of CT test section

1 through skewness and kurtosis obtained from the first and second raters), the

test of normality distribution both by using graphical method and numerical

method are preferred to be used.

a) Graphical Method

The same as the graphical method conducted previously, the Q-Q Plot is

employed to investigate the normality distribution of the final score of CT test

section 1. The result is depicted in Figure 4.4 as follows:

Figure 4.4

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Final Score CT Test Section 1

52

Based on the Figure 4.4 presented above, all the observed values are still

within the accepted range, i.e., three standard deviations from the mean.

Therefore, it is considered that the data of the final score of CT test in section 1 is

normally distributed.

b) Numerical Method

The numerical method employed to examine the normality distribution of

the final score of CT test section 1 is Shaphiro-Wilk test. Table 4.6 below presents

the result of the Shapiro wilk for the final score of CT test section.

Table 4.6

Shaphiro-Wilk Test of Final Score of CT Test Section 1

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Final_CT_Section_1 .977 26 .812

Based on the Shaphiro-Wilk test represented in Table 4.6 above, the result

shows that the asymptotic significances of the data of the final score of CT test in

section 1 obtained is higher than 99% level of confidence (p > 0.010 = 0.812 >

0.010). In other words, the data is considered to be normally distributed.

b. Section 2

This section is the result of test assessing the students’ creative thinking

ability in terms of fluency, flexibility, originality, and, elaboration (FFOE). The

result of the creative thinking test in section 2 (which is converted into the

standardized score scale of 1-100) is depicted in the descriptive statistics

presented in Table 4.7 as follows:

53

Table 4.7

Descriptive Statistics of CT Test Section 2

N Valid 26

Missing 0

Mean 49.29


Median 51.67

Mode 53


Variance 44.927

Skewness -.719


Kurtosis -.649


Range 22

Minimum 37

Maximum 58

Sum 1282


50 51.67

75 53.33

Based on Table 4.7 above, the central tendency distribution of CT test in

section 2 reveals that the students’ creative thinking ability in section 2 is

categorized as emerging because most of the students’ score in this test is at or

near the average score which is indicated by the mode of 53 and the mean of

49.29. Besides, in terms of dispersion distribution, with the standard deviation of

6.703 the skewness and kurtosis obtained respectively are -0.719 and -0.649. By

considering the skewness and kurtosis scores obtained which are within the

reasonably accepted scores, i.e., between -2 and 2, the data of CT test in section 2

is considered to be normally distributed. This normality interpretation is assured

by the skewness ratio (-1.577) and kurtosis ratio (-0.732) which are within the

reasonably accepted scores as well.

54

Furthermore, to further investigate the normality distribution of the data of

CT test in section 2, the graphical and numerical methods as conducted in CT test

in section 1 is also employed.

1) Graphical Method

The graphical method to assess the students’ creative thinking ability

through CT test section 2 is examined through normal Q-Q plot represented in

Figure 4.5 as follows:

Figure 4.5

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 2

Figure 4.5 represented above asserts that the data of CT test in section 2 is

considered to be normally distributed because all the observed values are still

within the accepted range or three standard deviations from the mean.

2) Numerical Method

The numerical method assessing the normality distribution of CT test in

section 2 is examined through Shaphiro Wilk test represented in Table 4.8 as

follows:

Table 4.8

Shaphiro-Wilk Test of CT Test Section 2

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

CT_Section_2 .894 26 .011

55

Based on Table 4.8 above, the result of Shaphiro-Wilk test points out that

the asymptotic significances of the data of CT test in section 2 obtained is higher

than 99% level of confidence (p > 0.010 = 0.011 > 0.010). In other words, the

data is considered to have a normal distribution.

c. Section 3

This section constitutes the test that assesses students’ creative thinking

ability associated with using analogy. In this case, the test of analogy used is an

objective test in which there are sixteen items in the form of multiple choices. The

students are to choose one best answer of the five alternatives for each item.

The sixteen items employed in this test constitute the items that had been

sorted out from the forty items. In this case, the sixteen items are determined by

taking account of the item analysis [i.e., the instrument validity encompassing

Determination Index (DI) and Difficulty Level scores as well as the instrument

reliability; see further details of the item analysis of the instrument validity and

reliability in Appendix V and Appendix VI] of the try-out test for the forty items.

Based on the item analysis, there are eight items classified as the excellent

items of which DI score scale is above 0.71 (i.e., items no. 6, 14, 15, 29, 32, 34,

38, and 40), three items classified as the good items of which DI score scale 0.41-

0.70 (i.e., items no. 3. 21, and 25), fourteen items classified as the satisfactory

items of which DI score scale 0.21-0.40 (i.e., 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30,

33, 37, and 39), ten items classified as poor items of which DI score scale 0.00-

0.20 (i.e., items no. 1, 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 24, 28, 31, and 35), and five items

classified as the items which should be dropped because their DI are under 0.00

(i.e., items no. 2, 10, 17, 19, and 36). Meanwhile, in terms of difficulty level, there

are seventeen items classified as easy (i.e., items no. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 24,

25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, and 40), eighteen items classified medium (i.e., items no. 3,

9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, and 39), and five items

classified as difficult (i.e., items no. 2, 13, 20, 22, and 36). All the items classified

as excellent and good are used in this study, which are also added with the five

items randomly taken from the items classified as satisfactory (items no. 5, 10, 22,

56

33, and 39) which had been revised [these satisfactory items are revised by taking

account of the item analysis of certain alternatives of each satisfactory item (See

Appendix VII), as well as by considering its proportion of difficulty level (easy

item: item no. 5; medium items: 10, 33, and 39; difficult item: 22)]. In addition,

the reliability of the analogy test is examined through Kuder-Richardson 21 (KR-

21). In this case, the r11 score obtained for forty items is 0.57 (See Appendix VI).

After the instruments had been sorted out into 16 items that are used in this study,

the r11 score obtained increases to 0.84 (See Appendix VIII).

After the instrument had been considered valid and credible, the sixteen

items of analogy test are distributed to the participants, and the result (which is

already converted into the scale of 1-100) is presented in Table 4.9 as follows:

Table 4.9Descriptive Statistics of CT Test Section 3

N Valid 26

Missing 0

Mean 68.99


Median 75.00

Mode 88


Variance 407.752

Skewness -.916


Kurtosis -.435


Range 56

Minimum 31

Maximum 88

Sum 1794


50 75.00

75 87.50

57

Based on Table 4.9 above, the central tendency distribution of 26 eleventh

grade students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan academic year 2015/2016 is shown by

the median, mode, and mean. In this case, the median obtained is 75.00. Next,

with the mean of 68.99 and mode of 88.00, most of the students’ creative thinking

ability in this test is considered to be excelling because most of the students obtain

the higher score than the average score.

In addition, the dispersion distribution is indicated by the range, quartiles,

standard deviation, variance, skewness, and kurtosis. First, the range between the

maximum and minimum score obtained is 56.00. Then, the quartiles, i.e., the first

quartile, second quartile, and third quartile, are indicated by the range of the

middle 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent, which in this case, these are found

56.25, 75.00, 87.50 respectively. With the variance of 407.752 and standard

deviation of 20.193, the skewness and kurtosis obtained are -0.916 and -0.435

respectively. Because the skewness and kurtosis are still within the reasonably

accepted score, i.e., between -2 and 2, the data of CT test section 3 is considered

to be normally distributed. However, as the skewness ratio and kurtosis ratio are

employed to investigate the assumption of normality distribution, the data fail to

meet the score needed for the normality distribution, i.e., although the kurtosis

ratio of -0.490 is still within the reasonably accepted scores, the skewness ratio of

-2.009 is slightly out of the reasonably accepted scores. Other investigations of

normality distribution through other methods are required.

To make sure the normality distribution of data of CT test section 3, the

graphical method and statistics methods are employed.

1) Graphical Method

The graphical method to assess the students’ creative thinking ability test

section 3 is examined through normal Q-Q plot represented in Table 4.6 below:

58

Figure 4. 6Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT Test Section 3

Figure 4.6 represented above asserts that the data of CT test in section 3 is

considered to be normally distributed because all the observed values are still

within the accepted range, i.e., three standard deviations from the mean.

2) Numerical Method

The numerical method assessing the normality distribution of CT test in

section 3 is examined through Shaphiro Wilk test that is represented in Table 4.10

below:

Table 4.10

Shaphiro-Wilk Test of CT Test Section 3

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

CT_Section_3 .820 26 .000

Even though the graphical method represented in Figure 4.6 has already

asserted that the data of creative thinking ability in section 3 is regarded to be

normally distributed, the numerical method assessing the normality distribution of

CT test section 3 through Saphiro-Wilk has a contradictory result. In this case,

based on Table 4.10 above, the result of Saphiro-Wilk test reveals that the

59

asymptotic significances of the data of CT test in section 3 obtained is lower than

99% level of confidence (p<0.010=0.000<0.010). In other words, the data is not

considered to be distributed normally.

d. Final score of creative thinking ability data

This section reports the final score of creative thinking ability deriving

from the three sections mentioned above. This final score constitutes the sum of

the three sections of creative thinking ability data above. The detail result of the

final score of creative thinking ability data is described in descriptive statistics

represented in Table 4.11 as follows:

Table 4.11

Descriptive Statistics of Final Score of CT Ability Data

N Valid 26

Missing 0

Mean 53.46


Median 53.25

Mode 50a


Variance 41.518

Skewness -.553


Kurtosis -.223


Range 24

Minimum 39

Maximum 63

Sum 1390


50 53.25

75 59.13

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

60

Based on Table 4.11 represented above, the central tendency distribution

of final score of creative thinking ability of the 26 eleventh grade students of MA

Khazanah Kebajikan academic year 2015/2016 is shown by the median, mode,

and mean. First, the middle point or median obtained is 53.25. Next, with the

mean of 53.46 and the mode of 50.00 (in this case, actually there are four other

modes of which frequency is similar to the mode of 50, i.e., 51, 52, 57, and 61,

though only the smallest mode is presented in Table 4.11 above; also see

Appendix XV and Appendix XVI), most of the students’ creative thinking ability

can be categorized as emerging or expressing because the modes can be under or

above the mean.Moreover, the dispersion distribution is shown by the range, quartiles,

standard deviation, variance, skewness, and kurtosis. First, the range between the

maximum and minimum score obtained is 9.00. Then, the quartiles, i.e., the first

quartile, second quartile, and third quartile, are indicated by the range of the

middle 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent, which in this case, these are found

50.25, 53.25, 59.13 respectively. With the variance of 41.518 and standard

deviation of 6.443, the skewness and kurtosis obtained are -0.553 and -0.223

respectively. Because the skewness and kurtosis are still within the reasonably

accepted score, i.e., between -2 and 2, the data of CT test section 3 is considered

to be normally distributed. Besides, the normality distribution is corroborated by

the skewness ratio of -1.213 and kurtosis ratio of -0.251 that are also within the

reasonably accepted score.

In addition, to assure the normality distribution of the final score of

creative thinking ability data, the other methods investigating the normality

distribution is pondered important to be conducted. The same as the previous three

sections of creative thinking ability data, the final score of creative thinking ability

involves the graphical method and numerical method to examine the normality

distribution.

61

1) Graphical Method

The same as the graphical method conducted previously, the Q-Q Plot is

employed to investigate the normality distribution of the final score of CT test.

The result is depicted in Figure 4.7 as follows:

Figure 4.7Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Final Score of CT

Based on Figure 4.7 represented above, it can be interpreted that the data

of Final Score of CT test is considered to be normally distributed because all the

observed values are still within the accepted range or three standard deviations

from the mean.

2) Numerical Method

The numerical method assessing the normality distribution of final score

of CT test in is examined through Shaphiro Wilk test that is represented in Table

4.11 below:

Table 4.12

Shaphiro-Wilk Test of Final Score of CT Test

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Final_Score_CT .952 26 .264

62

Based on Table 4.12 above, the result of Shapiro-Wilk test reveals that the

asymptotic significances of the data of final score of CT test obtained is higher

than 99% level of confidence (p > 0.010 = 0.264 > 0.010). Regardless one of the

sections of CT Test, i.e., section 3: analogy, is not considered to have a normal

distribution based on the shaphiro-wilk test and skewness ratio; in fact, the final

score of CT follows the results of the other two sections of CT test, i.e., section 1

and section 2, which are normally distributed. In other words, the data of final

score of CT test is considered to have a normal distribution.

To sum up, by comparing three results of normality distribution tests

above, comprising the statistics of skewness and kurtosis ratios, a graphical

method through Q-Q Plot, and the numerical method through Shapiro-Wilk test,

the data of the final score of creative thinking ability is considered to be normally

distributed.

2. Data Description of Writing Recount Text Skill

This section discusses the result of the test which assesses students’

writing recount text skill. In this case, the test asks the students to choose one of

the three topics given. They are to write at least 200 words in length around 30

minutes. Then their writing responses are assessed with a holistic scoring of

which scale starts from 0 to 6. There are two raters involved. The first rater is an

English teacher of a school where this study is conducted, and the second rater is

the researcher himself. After the students’ responses have been rated by the two

raters, their scores assessed by using the 6-point scale are converted into

standardized scores with 100-point scale. The detail result of the students’ writing

recount text skill rated by the two raters is described into descriptive statistics

depicted in Table 4.13 as follows:

63

Table 4.13

Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Writing Skill Rated by Two Raters

Writing_Rater1 Writing_Rater2

N Valid 26 26

Missing 0 0

Mean 51.28 54.49

Std. Error of Mean 2.762 2.858

Median 50.00 50.00

Mode 50 50

Std. Deviation 14.082 14.574

Variance 198.293 212.397

Skewness .709 .198

Std. Error of Skewness .456 .456

Kurtosis .429 -.503

Std. Error of Kurtosis .887 .887

Range 50 50

Minimum 33 33

Maximum 83 83

Sum 1333 1417

Percentiles 25 45.83 50.00

50 50.00 50.00

75 54.17 66.67


of writing recount text skill data of 26 students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan

Academic Year 2015/2016 assessed by the two raters is indicated by the median,

mode, and mean. First, it is found that the two raters have the same median, i.e.

50. Similarly, both raters share the same mode, i.e., 50. Meanwhile, the data

deriving from first rater has lower mean than the second rater, i.e., mean1 < mean2

= 51.28 < 54.49.

In addition, based on the statistics in terms of dispersion distribution, the

data stemming from the first rater is considered more homogenous than the

64

second rater which can be indicated by the first rater’s standard deviation which is

lower in comparison with the second rater, i.e., standard deviation1 < standard

deviation2 = 14.082 < 14.574. Next, based on the skewness (first rater = 0.709 and

second rater = 0.198) and kurtosis (first rater = 0.429 and second rater = -0.503),

the data of first rater and the second rater are considered to be normally

distributed because they are still within the reasonably accepted score, i.e.

between -2 and 2. These are also corroborated by each of the two raters’ skewness

ratios (first rater = 1.555 and second rater = 0.434) and kurtosis ratios (first rater =

0.484 and second rater = -0.567) that are still within the reasonably accepted

score.

Furthermore, the inter-rater reliability between the two raters is also

pondered important to be investigated, but before investigating the inter-rater

reliability, linearity and normality distribution (in this case, although the skewness

and kurtosis represented in Table 4.13 above reveal the data has been already

distributed normally, other inspections to more assure the normality distribution

through employing various methods comprising graphical and numerical methods

are required) are tested first, so the way to test the inter-rater reliability can be

determined, i.e., whether by using parametric test or non parametric test.

a. Test of Linearity

The linearity of the data of writing recount text skill rated by the two raters

is examined through the scatter plot depicted in Figure 4.8 below. In this case, The

scatter plot presented in Figure 4.8 reveals that the writing skill data of rater 1 and

rater 2 tend to have a positive relationship because the dots in the plots show an

indication from down left side to the up right side. Besides, the data can be

considered linear because it is indicated by the loess line that is still within the

99% level of confidence.

65

Figure 4.8Scatter Plot of Writing Skill between the Two Raters

Furthermore, the interpretation of the linearity between the two raters

given by scatter plot represented in Figure 4.8 above is corroborated by a

numerical method, i.e. ANOVA of the data between the two raters. The detail

result of ANOVA of the writing skill deriving from the two raters is provided in

Table 4.14 below:

Table 4.14ANOVAb of Writing Skill Data between the Two Raters


1 Regression 2668.597 1 2668.597 27.983 .000a

Residual 2288.738 24 95.364

Total 4957.335 25

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing_Rater_2

b. Dependent Variable: Writing_Rater_1



confidence (p<0.010=0.000<0.010), it is interpreted that the regression model

between the two raters are considered linear.

66

b. Test of Normality Distribution

The normality distribution of writing recount text skill data of the two

raters are investigated through graphical method and numerical method.

1) Graphical Method

In terms of graphical method, the Q-Q plot is employed to examine the

normality distribution of writing recount text skill data between the two raters.

Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 below present the Q-Q plots of the two raters:

Figure 4.9

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Writing Skill of Rater 1

Figure 4.10

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Writing Skill of Rater 2

67

Figure 4.9 indicates that there are two subjects considered as extreme

cases (7 and 8) because they are found to locate more than three standard

deviations from the mean. Nonetheless, through doing some inspections of their

test results with Rater 2 (Figure 4.10 shows that subject 7 and 8 are still within the

accepted standard deviation from the mean) as well as in CT tests, in which they

may be regarded to consistently do well in the tests, they cannot be considered as

outliers and justifiably deleted from the analysis. In this case, idiosyncratic

phenomenon in which Rater 1 tends to give higher scores on the two subjects may

be regarded as the ground causing it occurs.

2) Numerical Method

The numerical method is employed to assure the interpretation of

normality distribution through the graphical method that is previously conducted.

In this case, the result of numerical method by using the Shaphiro-Wilk test is

presented in Table 4.15 below:

Table 4.15

Shaphiro-Wilk Test of Writing Skill from the Two Raters

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Writing_Rater_1 .833 26 .001

Writing_Rater_2 .878 26 .005

Based on Table 4.15 represented above, the test shows that the asymptotic

significances of the writing data sets of the first and second raters obtained are

lower than 99% level of confidence (p1 < 0.010 = 0.001 < 0.010 and p2 < 0.010 =

0.005 < 0.010). In other words, the two data sets are not considered normally

distributed.

By taking account of the results of the test linearity and normality

distribution of writing skill data, the non parametric test, i.e., Spearman’s rho, is

preferred to be employed to investigate the inter-rater reliability. It is because

although the data is considered linear both based on graphical method and

68

numerical method, the normality distribution test seems not to have any

consistency (i.e., in this case, based on the skewness and kurtosis results, the data

are considered to be normally distributed, but as these are investigated through a

graphical method as well as numerical method through saphiro-wilk test, the data

are found to be not normally distributed). Table 4.16 below provides the result of

the inter-rater reliability between the two raters examined through Spearman’s

rho:

Table 4.16

Spearman’s rho of Inter-rater Reliability between the Two Raters

Writing_

Rater_1

Writing_

Rater_2

Spearman's

rho

Writing_Rater_1 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .741**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 26 26

Writing_Rater_2 Correlation Coefficient .741** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 26 26


Based on Table 4.16 represented above, the Spearman’s rho (ρ) for the

inter-rater reliability obtained is 0.741 which is significant at 99% level of

confidence (p < 0.01) and considered to have a high relationship (see Table 3.4 in

Chapter III for the correlation coefficient interpretation). Hence, it is regarded that

the data of writing skill rated by the two raters are considered interchangeable.

c. The Final Score of Writing Recount Text Skill

The final score of writing recount text skill is obtained through calculating

the average between the two raters. The result of the final score of the writing

recount text skill is depicted in descriptive statistics provided in Table 4.17 as

follows:

69

Table 4.17

Descriptive Statistics of Final Score of Writing Recount Text Skill

N Valid 26

Missing 0

Mean 52.88


Median 50.00

Mode 50


Variance 183.012

Skewness .663


Kurtosis .226


Range 50

Minimum 33

Maximum 83

Sum 1375


50 50.00

75 60.42


of final score of writing recount text skill data of the 26 eleventh grade students of

MA Khazanah Kebajikan academic year 2015/2016 is indicated by the median,

mode, and mean. First, the median obtained is 50.00. Meanwhile, with the mean

of 52.88 and the mode of 50, most of the students’ writing recount text skill is

considered to be under the average score.

Moreover, the dispersion distribution of final score of writing recount text

skill data is shown by the range, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. In

this case, the range between the maximum of 83 and minimum of 33 is 50. With

standard deviation of 13.528, the skewness and kurtosis obtained are 0.663 and

0.226 respectively. These skewness and kurtosis are converted to their ratios, i.e.,

70

1.453 and 0.255 respectively. Based on the skewness ratio of 1.453 and kurtosis

ratio of 0.255, the data of writing recount text skill is considered normally

distributed because these two scores are still within the reasonably accepted

scores, i.e., -2 and 2.

To further make sure the normality distribution of the final score of

writing recount text skill data, a graphical method and numerical method are

employed.

1) Graphical Method

The Q-Q plot employed to examine the normality distribution of final

score of writing recount text skill data is presented in Figure 4.11 as follows:

Figure 4.11

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Final Score of Writing Skill

Based on the Q-Q Plot of final score of writing skill represented in Figure

4.11 above, the data can be considered not normally distributed because two

subjects, i.e., 7and 8, are found to be out of the accepted range, i.e., three standard

deviations from the mean. It may occur due to the fact that one of the raters’ data

also reveal, through Q-Q Plot, subject 7 and 8 locate out of the three standard

deviations from the mean (see Figure 4.9).

71

2) Numerical Method

The numerical method through Shapiro-Wilk test presented in Table 4.18

below reveals similar result to the skewness and kurtosis ratios, which indicate

that the data of final score of writing recount text skill are normally distributed.

The Shaphiro-Wilk test reports that that the asymptotic significances of the data of

final score of CT test obtained is higher than 99% level of confidence

(p>0.010=0.049>0.010), so the data can be considered to have a normal

distribution.

Table 4.18

Shapiro-Wilk Test of Final Score of Writing Recount Text Skill Data

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Final_Score_Writing .922 26 .050

Regardless the graphical method represented in Figure 4.11 shows that the

data of final score of writing recount text skill is not normally distributed, the

numerical methods comprising statistics of skewness and kurtosis ratios and

Shapiro-Wilk test points out that the data is normally distributed; therefore, the

data of final score of writing recount text skill can be concluded to have a normal

distribution.

3. Hypotheses Testing

Before the hypotheses of this study are tested, the linearity and normality

distribution of the data of the variables of this study, i.e., creative thinking ability

and writing recount text skill, are tested first. In this case, the normality

distributions of the two data (i.e., final score of creative thinking ability and final

score of writing recount text skill) have already been examined in the previous

sub-chapter, which concluded that both of the data of creative thinking ability and

writing recount text skill are considered to be normally distributed. Therefore,

only a test of linearity that remains to be investigated as the pre-requirement to

72

determine the kind of test used, whether through parametric test or non parametric

test, to examine the hypotheses of this study.

1. Test of Linearity

The linearity between the two data, i.e., creative thinking ability and

writing recount text skill, is tested through a scatter plot that is presented in Figure

4.12 as follows:

Figure 4.12

Scatter Plot of the Linearity between Creative Thinking Ability and

Writing Recount Text Skill

The scatter plot presented in Figure 4.12 above reveals that the creative

thinking ability data and writing recount text skill tend to have a positive

relationship because the dots in the plots show an indication from down left side

to the up right side. Besides, the data can be considered linear because it is

indicated by the loess line that is still within the 99% level of confidence.

In addition, to gain more precise result about the linearity, the

interpretation of the linearity between the two variables through the scatter plot

represented in Figure 4.12 above is corroborated by a numerical method, i.e.,

ANOVA of the data between the two variables. The detail result of ANOVA

between CT and Writing recount text skill data is provided in Table 4.19 as

follows:

73

Table 4.19

ANOVAb of CT and Writing Recount Text Skill Data


1 Regression 1774.221 1 1774.221 15.202 .001a

Residual 2801.083 24 116.712

Total 4575.304 25

a. Predictors: (Constant), CT_Total

b. Dependent Variable: Writing_Total



confidence (p < 0.010 = 0.001 < 0.010), it is interpreted that the regression model

between CT and Writing skill are considered linear.

Because the data of the two variables are considered linear and normally

distributed, the parametric test, i.e., Pearson Product Moment, is employed to test

the hypotheses of this study. The following are the hypotheses of this study that

are tested:

- Null hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between creative

thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill.

- Alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant relationship between

creative thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill.

The statements of the hypotheses above are converted into the statistical

hypotheses are as follows:

- H0: ρ = 0 or if rcounted< rtable, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected.

- Ha: ρ ≠ 0 or if rcounted > rtable, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.

In addition, because the SPSS program is applied, the statistical hypotheses above

are described as follows:

- H0: ρ = 0 or if p > 0.01, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected (at 99% level of

confidence).

- Ha: ρ ≠ 0 or if p < 0.01, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected (at 99% level of

confidence).

74

Based on Parametric test presented in Table 4.20 below, with the Pearson

correlation obtained (r) 0.623 the asymptotic significance of the data of creative

thinking ability and writing recount text skill is lower than 99% level of

confidence (p<0.010=0.001<0.010), so Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected. In other

words, there is a significant relationship between creative thinking ability and

students’ writing recount text skill.

Table 4.20Parametric Test of Creative Thinking Ability and Writing Recount Text Skill

Final_Score_Writing Final_Score_CT

Final_Score_Writing Pearson Correlation 1 .623**


N 26 26

Final_Score_CT Pearson Correlation .623** 1


N 26 26


Beside the hypotheses testing conducted above, it is pondered important to

reveal the determination coefficient, overall testing of the relationship by using t-

test, and simple regression analysis.

1. Determination Coefficient

The contribution of the independent variable (x), i.e., creative thinking

ability, towards the dependent variable (y), i.e., writing recount text skill, is

investigated through determination coefficient (r2). The result of r2 is shown by

the Model Summary of the two variables presented in Table 4. 21 as follows:

Table 4.21

Model Summary of Creative Thinking Ability and

Writing Recount Text Skill

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .623a .388 .362 10.803a. Predictors: (Constant), Final_Score_CT

75

Based on model summary of the two variables shown in Table 4.21 above,

the r2 obtained is 0.388 which means that 38.8% variance of students’ writing

recount text skill is explained by variance of the independent variable, i.e.,

creative thinking ability.

2. Overall Testing of the Relationship between the Two Variables

To generalize the previous result of correlation coefficient (r) obtained to

the population, the significance of r should be tested by employing t-test. The

formulated hypotheses that are tested by t-test are as follows:

- Null hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between creative

thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill.

- Alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant relationship between


The statements of the hypotheses above are converted into the statistical

hypotheses are as follows:

- H0: μ1 = μ2 or if tcounted< ttable, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected.

- Ha: μ1 ≠ μ2 or if tcounted >ttable, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.

When SPSS program is utilized, the statistical hypotheses above are described as

follows:

- H0: β = 0 or if p > 0.01, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected (at 99% level of

confidence).

- Ha: β ≠ 0 or if p < 0.01, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected (at 99% level of

confidence).

The t-test result is presented through ANOVA represented in Table 4.22 below:

Table 4.22Coefficientsa of Creative Thinking Ability and Writing Recount Text Skill

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -17.012 18.052 -.942 .355

CT_Total 1.307 .335 .623 3.899 .001

a. Dependent Variable: Writing_Total

76

Based on Table 4.22 above, with tcounted obtained 3.899 the asymptotic

significance of the data of creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill is

lower than 99% level of confidence (p<0.010=0.001<0.010), so Ha is accepted

and H0 is rejected. In other words, there is a significant relationship between


3. Simple Regression Analysis

The simple regression analysis is conducted to estimate the value of one

variable through the other variable. The simple regression model equation consists

of Ŷ=a+bX. Based on Table 4.22 above, the estimated regression model obtained

are Ŷ=-17.012+1.307X.

B. Discussion

This section discusses the data description comprising the subjects of the

study and the relationship between creative thinking ability and writing recount

text skill explained in the previous sections.

First, in general from the three accumulated sections of creative thinking

ability tests conducted, most of the eleventh grade students’ creative thinking

ability is found to be categorized as emerging or expressing.

In the first section of creative thinking ability test, with the mode of 65 and

mean of 53.53 (see Table 4.5), most of the students are categorized as expressing

because most of their scores are above the average score. In addition, in the

second section, most of the students’ creative thinking ability is categorized as

emerging because most of their scores are at or near the average score which is

indicated by the mode of 53 and the mean of 49.29 (see Table 4.7). In the third

section of creative thinking ability test, most of the students’ creative thinking

ability is categorized as excelling because most of them obtain higher scores than

the average score indicated with the mean of 68.99 and mode of 88.00 (see Table

4.9).

From the three sections of creative thinking ability, the students are

considered to tend to have more strengths on creative problem solving and

metaphorical thinking indicated by their scores as they deal with the test section 1

77

(which assesses their creative thinking ability to solve the problems encountered)

and section 3 (which gauges their creative thinking ability in terms of making

analogies), yet they tend to have weaknesses in terms of section 2 which assesses

their divergent thinking. Their weak result on section 2 may derive from its

proportion in comparison with the other sections of the tests in which section 2

have the most proportion (i.e. 60%) of all the remaining section tests. As further

investigated, most of the students in section 2 have low result in terms of

originality; originality is considered as the difficult part indicated by the mean of

3.76 (raw score) found (see Appendix XIII). Shively points out that originality as

the aspect which is considered as the most difficult to describe, find or achieve in

creativity and she further explains that risk taking is required in terms of

originality.1 Based on Shively’s view above, it is not surprising that most of the

subjects in this study may not be easy to produce ideas which can be considered as

original because it may not only relate to the cognitive aspect that belongs to the

students, e.g., wide insight of things related to the test item, but their also

psychological trait, e.g., dare to take risks or think out of the box without being

fearful that their answers on the test do not make sense or are considered wrong.

In addition, in terms of writing recount text skill, most of the students are

still have low skill indicated by most of the students who obtain score under the

average score; in this case, it is found that the mode obtained 50 is under the mean

obtained 52.88 (see Table 4.17). Furthermore, based on the score KKM (Kriteria

Ketuntasan Minimum) of the English subject (i.e., 78) that prevails in the school,

most of them is not considered to pass in the English subject, particularly in terms

of writing recount text.

Next, the finding reveals that the creative thinking ability has a significant

relationship with the writing recount text skill. This is indicated by the Pearson’s

coefficient correlation obtained (r) 0.623 and the asymptotic significance that is

lower than 99% level of confidence (p < 0.010). Also, based on the r score

obtained, it can be interpreted that the relationship between creative thinking

ability and writing skill is high. Similarly, the overall testing by using t-test

1Candace Hackett Shively, op. cit., p. 12.

78

reports the same result. In this case, with tcounted obtained 3.899 the asymptotic

significance of the data of creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill is

lower than 99% level of confidence (p < 0.010), so it is interpreted that

statistically a significant relationship between creative thinking ability and

students’ writing recount text skill of the eleventh grade students of MA

Khazanah Kebajikan Academic Year 2015/2016. This finding is corroborated by a

study conducted Wang who reports that a significant association is found between

creative thinking and writing skill.2 In addition to the relationship between

creative thinking ability and writing, Grenville asserts that creativity and

imagination are indeed required in writing.3 Therefore, students who are able to

think creatively of what they are writing, they may generate any ideas in their

composition which lead to their good attainment in writing.

Furthermore, based on the determination coefficient (r2)=0.388 obtained,

creative thinking ability can be considered to have contribution of 38.8% towards

writing recount text skill. In other words, the writing recount text skill of the

eleventh grade students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan Academic Year 2015/2016 is

influenced by 38.8% of their creative thinking ability, and it is influenced by

61.2% of other factors, for instance knowledge of grammar, sentence structure,

vocabulary, and so forth. As Hedge points out that one’s effective writing is not

only built with the ideas and information that he/she generates and organizes, but

also it utilizes his/her knowledge of grammatical knowledge, the word choice or

vocabulary, and sentence structure.4

Moreover, in terms of basic regression equation (i.e., Ŷ=a+bX), this study

reveals that the regression equation for the two variables of this study is Ŷ=-

17.012+1.307X. From the equation, writing recount text skill (Ŷ) can be

estimated if there is value of creative thinking ability (X). In this case, the value of

b coefficient in X is positive (1.307), so if X goes up by one, Ŷ is estimated to go

up by 1.307.

2Amber Yayin Wang, loc. cit.3Kate Grenville, loc. cit.4Tricia Hedge, Writing: Resource Books for Teachers, (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1990), p. 5.

79

C. Limitations

During this study was conducted, there were several matters and

challenges that cause this study probably have some limitations. The initial

problem happened during the distribution of research instruments. In this case, as

the researcher would like to distribute the research instruments, most of the

students who became the subjects of this study had been carrying out the Mid

Semester Test, so he (the researcher) put off the distribution of the research

instruments. Similarly, the other days, when he wanted to collect the data, in fact

the students had been carrying out LDKS (Latihan Dasar Kepemimpinan

Siswa/Students’ Basic Leadership Training) for several days at Depok. Likewise,

the other following week, he also had to cancel the distribution of the research

instrument because in fact the authoritative people included the English teacher

of the school in which this study was conducted, unexpectedly, should attended

teachers’ training in Tangerang. To sum up, this initial problem actually may

derive from the minimal coordination and communication between the researcher

and the authoritative people of the school to discuss the appropriate time to

distribute the research instruments.

The next matter relates to the raters that assessed the students’ responses

of the instruments given. The researcher found that it was difficult to look for

some raters who were competent as well as were willing to assess the students’

responses of creative thinking test and writing test.

In addition, the number of participants of this study was small, namely

only 26 students. Therefore, it may not be claimed that the findings of this study

can be generalized for a bigger population. It simply represented the nature of the

eleventh grade students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan.

Another problem that the researcher found was the limited access to look

for the resources needed. Also, the relevant studies that discuss creative thinking

ability and writing skill particularly in terms of the Indonesian educational context

were difficult to be found, it was initially thought that there were also some

similar studies discussing these two variables in the Indonesian educational

context, though.

80

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The following chapter discusses the conclusion drawn from the previous

chapter. Also, a number of suggestions for students, teachers, school policy-

makers, and any future researchers are proposed in connection with writing

English learning and teaching process associated with creative thinking ability.

A. Conclusion

Based on the data analysis and discussion in the preceding chapter, the

relationship between the creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill is

found at the 99% level of confidence (p < 0.01) with the value of r = 0.623.

Similarly, the t-test reported that with the value of t = 3.899, the relationship

between the creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill is significant at

the 99% level of confidence (p < 0.01). Based on these results, it can be concluded

that there is a significant relationship between creative thinking ability and writing

recount text skill of the eleventh grade students of MA Khazanah Kebajikan

academic year 2015/2016. Therefore, the more creative the students are, the more

skillful they write a recount text.

B. Suggestion

Based on the conclusion above, it can be delivered some suggestions that

go to:

1. Students

Not only students’ creative thinking ability has positive associations and

influences to their skill in writing English but also their ability to cope with

problems they encounter in real life; therefore, they should attempt to train

their creative thinking ability in order that they may have any attainment not

only academically in writing but also in other aspects of life.

81

2. Teachers

The students’ creative thinking ability is beneficial for their writing outcomes;

therefore, any supported situation and tactful use of teaching techniques

deserve some attention from English teachers while they are delivering the

English instruction. Besides, they are required to give more opportunities for

the students to have extensive writing practice in the class and give them more

writing assignments.

3. School Policy-Makers

To improve students’ writing skill associated with their creative thinking

ability, there are many people involved and engaged in it. One of them is the

school policy-makers. They are required to create a new way to support the

students’ writing skill such as collaboratively designing the school program

with English teachers that will stimulate them to practice their writing skill in

English. Also, facilities that help the teaching and learning process should be

provided.

4. Other future researchers

The more number of subjects are recommended so that the more accurate and

representative results are obtained. In addition, any training and discussions in

terms of writing scoring are required before the subjects’ writing responses are

rated.

82

REFERENCES

Adair, John. The Art of Creative Thinking: How to Be Innovative and DevelopGreat Ideas. London: Kogan Page, 2007.

Anwar, Muhammad Nadeem, et al. Relationship of Creative Thinking with theAcademic Achievements of Secondary School Students. InternationalInterdisciplinary Journal of Education. 1, 2012.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. Dasar-Dasar Evcluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara,2009.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. “Creative Thinking ValueRubric”. http;//www.accu.org, 2015.

Baer, John and James C. Kaufman. Being Creative Inside and Outside theClassroom: How to Boost Your Students’ Creativity—and Your Own.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2012.

Broughton, Geoffrey, et al. Teaching English as a Foreign Language SecondEdition. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Brown, Kristine and Susan Hood. Writing Matters: Writing Skills and Strategiesfor Students of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Browne, Ann. Teaching and Learning Communication, Language and Literacy.London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2007.

Carter, Philip. Test and Assess Your Brain Quotient. London: Kogan Page, 2009.

Carter, Philip and Ken Rusell. More Psychometric Testing: 1000 New Ways toAssess Your Personality, Creativity, Intelligence, and Lateral Thinking.Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

Dean, Geoff. Improving Learning in Secondary English. London: David FultonPublishers Ltd., 2008.

Grenville, Kate. Writing from Start to Finish: A Six-Step Guide. Crows Nest:Allen & Uwin, 2001.

Government of South Australia/Department for Education and ChildDevelopment, Engaging in and Exploring Recount Writing,Numeracy+Literacy, 2012.

Heaton, J. B. Writing English Language Tests. New York: Longman, 1995.

Hedge, Tricia. Writing: Resource Books for Teachers. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1990.

83

Hughes, Arthur. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, Second Edition, 2008.

Knapp, Peter and Megan Watkins. Genre, Text, Grammar: Technologies forTeaching and Assessing Writing. Sydney: University of New South WalesPress Ltd, 2005.

Langan, John. Exploring Writing: Paragraphs and Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

-------.English Skills. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., SeventhEdition, 2001.

Lau, Joe Y. F. An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More,Think Better. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Monahan, Tom. The Do-It-Yourself Lobotomy: Open Your Mind to GreaterCreative Thinking. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

Pishghadam, Reza. Learners Creativity and Performance in Written NarrativeTasks. World Journal of Education. 1, 2011.

Ploeger, Katherine. Simplified Paragraph Skills. Lincolnwood: NTC PublishingGroup, 2000.

Ruetten, Mary K. and Cheryl Pavlik. Developing Composition Skills: AcademicWriting and Grammar. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning, Third Edition,2012.

Rababah, Luqman M., et al., The Level of Creativity in English Writing amongJordanian Secondary School Students. Arts and Design Studies. 10, 2013.

Richards, Jack C. and Willy A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in LanguageTeaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2002.

Shively, Candace Hackett. Grow Creativity! Focusing on Fluency, Flexibility,Originality, and Elaboration Skills Gives Teachers and Students anEffective Shortcut to Developing Creativity Together. Learning &Leading with Technology. 1, 2011.

Soleimani, Hassan and Sara Najafgholian. The Relationship between Creativity inThinking and Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners onComparison/Contrast, International Journal of English Language andLiterature Studies, 3, 2014.

South Gloucestershire Council. Revised Framework for Literacy, Support forWriting: Text Types Guidance and Progression Papers. 2015.

84

Subkhan, Arif. Top Fresh Kisi-Kisi CPNS. Yogyakarta: Forum Edukasi, 2013.

Sugiyono. Statistika untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2013.

-------. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta,2009.

Treffinger, Donald J. et al. Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators.Sarasota: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 2002.

Wang, Amber Yayin. Exploring the Relationship of Creative Thinking to Readingand Writing, Elsevier, 7, 2012.

Weigle, Sara Cushing. Asessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2002.

APPENDICES

85

APPENDIX I

TES KEMAMPUAN BERPIKIR KREATIF

Nama : ………………………….Kelas : ………………………….Hari/Tanggal Tes : ………………………….

Bagian 1Waktu: 30 Menit1. Pada bagian ini, Anda diminta untuk membuat sebuah essay atau tulisan

mengenai suatu topik yang diberikan.2. Anda diminta memilih satu diantara tiga topik yang diberikan.

Topik pilihan:a. Bila Anda dapat melakukan suatu perubahan di kota tempat dimana Anda

tinggal, hal apa yang akan Anda lakukan, dan bagaimana Andamelakukannya?

b. Bila Anda diminta untuk mewakili negara Anda di pentas internasional,hal apa yang akan Anda kirim sebagai representasi/perwakilan negara, danbagaimana Anda melakukannya?

c. Bila Anda dapat melakukan suatu perubahan di sekolah tempat dimanaAnda belajar, hal apa yang akan Anda lakukan, dan bagaimana Andamelakukannya?

3. Tulislah respon Anda, di lembar yang telah disediakan.

Bagian 2)*Waktu: 10 Menit1. Pada bagian ini, Anda diminta untuk menyebutkan sebanyak mungkin

kegunaan yang baru dari sebuah objek/benda sehari-hari sekreatif mungkin.

2. Objek/benda yang dimaksud adalah sebuah botol susu kosong. Jadi dalam hal

ini, Anda diminta untuk menyebutkan 10 kegunaan baru dari sebuah botol

susu kosong.

3. Kerjakanlah sesuai dengan waktu yang diberikan, jika tidak maka jawaban

Anda akan dieliminasi.

)* diadaptasi dari John Baer and James C. Kaufman, Being Creative Inside and Outside the

Classroom: How to Boost Your Students’ Creativity—and Your Own. Rotterdam: Sense

Publishers. 2012.

86

Bagian 3 (Analogi)1

Waktu: 30 Menit

Petunjuk Pengerjaan:

1. Pada bagian ini masing-masing soal terdiri atas dua kata yang dicetak dengan

huruf kapital dan diikuti lima kemungkinan jawaban.

2. Berilah tanda silang (X) pada salah satu jawaban yang bertanda A, B, C, D

atau E yang mempunyai padanan hubungan kata (analogi) dengan arti kata

yang dicetak dengan huruf kapital.

3. Prinsipnya, ruas kiri [yaitu kata yang dicetak kapital yang terletak di depan

tanda sama dengan (=)] dan ruas kanan [yaitu kata yang menjadi soal yang

terletak setelah tanda sama dengan (=)] harus mempunyai pola atau kesamaan

hubungan. Untuk menyelesaikan soal ini, Anda harus menemukan pola

hubungan yang sepadan.

4. Jika Anda telah menemukan hubungan kata pada soal dengan kata pada

jawaban tetapi Anda belum mengetahui jawaban yang tepat, maka Anda dapat

membuat kata-kata tersebut menjadi sebuah kalimat dengan menggunakan

hubungan kata yang telah Anda temukan.

Contoh:

EARPHONE : SUARA= Stateskop : …A. Detak Jantung

B. Penyakit

C. Diagnosis

D. Telinga

E. Dokter

Jawaban: A. Detak Jantung (Earphone adalah alat untuk mendengar Suara, dan

Stateskop adalah alat untuk mendengar Detak Jantung.)

1Arif Subkhan, Top Fresh Kisi-Kisi CPNS, (Yogyakarta: Forum Edukasi, 2013), pp. 41—42.

87

1. PEMBALAP : SIRKUIT= ... : …

A. Joki : Kuda

B. Petinju : Ring

C. Sapi : Sawah

D. Harimau : Hutan

E. TV : Rak

2. SINGA : RUSA = ANTISEPTIK : …

A. Kuman

B. Sakit

C. Obat

D. Penyakit

E. Hama

3. SIANG : MALAM = … : …

A. Keras : Batu

B. Pijat : Usap

C. Jauh : Dekat

D. Putih : Keruh

E. Tinggi : Pendek

4. BUTA : WARNA = Tuli : …

A. Telinga

B. Kata

C. Nada

D. Pendengar

E. Mendengar

5. POHON : BERLINDUNG = … : …

A. Rambut : Hitam

B. Telinga : Anting

C. Buku : Pena

D. Kaki : Melangkah

E. Kepala : Kaki

6. BULAN : TAHUN = … : …

A. Jam : Menit

B. Buah : Daun

C. Luluh : Utuh

D. Detik : Menit

E. Waktu : Lama

7. DONGENG : PERISTIWA = Berita : …

A. Fakta

B. Rekaan

C. Dugaan

D. Palsu

E. Estimasi

8. ROKOK : ASBAK = Air : …

A. Ember

B. Pancur

C. Selokan

D. Selang

E. Keran

9. KITA : SAYA = … : …

A. Kami : Kamu

B. Kalian : Beliau

C. Dia : Kalian

D. Beliau : Kami

E. Mereka : Dia

10. MATA : WAJAH

A. Ranjang : Kamar

B. Kayu : Hutan

C. Lampu : Jalan

D. Radio : Tape

E. Pensil : Buku

11. KEMEJA : KANCING = Rumah : …

A. Atap

B. Pintu

C. Kamar

D. Tirai

E. Dapur

12. BUGIL : PAKAIAN = … : …

A. Kepala : Botak

B. Rambut : Cukur

C. Gundul : Rambut

D. Basah : Pakaian

E. Gundul : Kepala

88

13. TINGGI : DALAM = Awan : …

A. Matahari

B. Minyak Tanah

C. Batu-batuan

D. Pohon

E. Tiang Listrik

14. BELAJAR : KELAS = … : …

A. Kuda : Rintangan

B. Ikan : Berenang

C. Balap Motor : Sirkuit

D. Jalan : Hambatan

E. Telur : Lilin

15. CIUM : HIDUNG = … : …

A. Panas : Keringat

B. Dahaga : Haus

C. Kaki : Sepatu

D. Lihat : Mata

E. Raba : Tangan

16. RUMAH : GENTENG = Kepala : …

A. Otak

B. Tubuh

C. Telinga

D. Mata

E. Rambut

17. KOSONG : HAMPA = … : …

A. Cair : Encer

B. Siang : Malam

C. Penuh : Sesak

D. Rinut : Sorak

E. Ubi : Akar

18. KELAPA : SANTAN = … : …

A. Kayu : Bakar

B. Daging : Kambing

C. Beras : Kenyang

D. Sepi : Sawah

E. Kayu : Lemari

19. KAYU : POHON = Emas : …

A. Mahal

B. Perhiasan

C. Logam

D. Cincin

E. Perak

20. RAMALAN : ASTROLOGI = Penyakit : …

A. Psikologi

B. Patologi

C. Kardiologi

D. Teologi

E. Bakteriologi

21. ARGENTINA : PESO = … : …

A. Brunei

Darussalam

: Sultan

B. Turki : Ankara

C. Italia : Euro

D. Jerman : Dutch

E. Inggris : Irlandia

22. PAYUNG : HUJAN = … : …

A. Lari : Kaki

B. Pohon : Teduh

C. Gunting : Potong

D. Lampu : Terang

E. Gunting : Kuku

23. FEBRUARI : JULI = Selasa : …

A. Rabu

B. Kamis

C. Jumat

D. Sabtu

E. Minggu

24. JATUH : SAKIT = Mengantuk : …

A. Berjalan

B. Kalori

C. Teriakan

D. Tersenyum

E. Tidur

25. SAPI : HERBIVOR = … : …

89

A. Hiu : Plankton

B. Elang : Predator

C. Kera : Omnivor

D. Singa : Karnivor

E. Manusia : Vegetarian

26. PROLOG : EPILOG = … : …

A. Senin : Kamis

B. Januari : Agustus

C. Januari : Desember

D. Minggu : Senin

E. Juni : Desember

27. ULAR : TIKUS = Singa : …

A. Sapi

B. Rusa

C. Hyena

D. Macan

E. Kera

28. KERAK : NASI= Arang : …

A. Kayu

B. Rayap

C. Besi

D. Pohon

E. Plastik

29. SUARA : TELEPON = Gambar : …

A. Telegraf

B. Radio

C. Video

D. Kamera

E. Televisi

30. SEISMOGRAF : GEMPA = Speedometer :

A. Kendaraan

B. Roda

C. Kecepatan

D. Perputaran

E. Arah

31. SENTER : GELAP = Minum :

A. Haus

B. Lapar

C. Lelah

D. Letih

E. Air

32. SUARA : GAMBAR : FILM

A. Sepakbola : Lapangan : Wasit

B. Tulis : Catat : Ketik

C. Kertas : Komputer : Printer

D. Bola : Sepatu : Raket

E. Kertas : Tulisan : Buku

33. PADI : BERAS : NASI

A. Kacang : Hijau : Bubur

B. Kedelai : Tempe : Goreng

C. Gandum : Tepung : Kue

D. Pohon : Kelapa : Santan

E. Bawang : Seledri : Sayur

34. API : BAKAR : PANAS

A. Air : Lembab : Dingin

B. Udara : Segar : Hangat

C. Es : Beku : Dingin

D. Kayu : Keras : Panjang

E. Besi : Panas : Memuai

35. KUDA : KAMBING : KUCING

A. Laptop : Notebook : Handphone

B. Monitor : Kalkulator : Motor

C. Cuci : Setrika : Bersih

D. Presiden : Taksi : Komisaris

E. Mesin Tik : Komputer : ATM

36. PENA : TINTA : KERTAS

A. Kuras : Palet : Kanvas

B. Mobil : Bensin : Jalan

C. Kapur : Penghapus : Papan Tulis

D. Kuas : Cat : Dinding

E. Cat : Kaleng : Rumah

37. PENGACARA : HAKIM : HUKUM

A. Guru : Murid : Sekolah

90

B. Petenis : Perenang : Petinju

C. Nakhoda : Pilot : Supir

D. Guru : Dosen : Pendidikan

E. Pelukis : Penyanyi : Aktor

38. BINTANG : GALAKSI : ALAM SEMESTA

A. Buah : Kilo : Karung

B. Saya : Kita : Mereka

C. Lapar : Makan : Minum

D. Huruf : Kata : Cerita

E. Jarang : Sering : Selalu

39. GURU : SEKOLAH : MURID

A. Perenang : Air : Kolam

B. Petani : Sawah : Sapi

C. Dosen : Mahasiswa : Kampus

D. Pengarang : Buku : Penerbit

E. Gembala : Ladang : Domba

40. LISTRIK : RADIO : TELEVISI

A. Air : Dingin : Panas

B. Ban : Mobil : Motor

C. Bunga : Mawar : Melati

D. Tubuh : Otak : Usus

E. Asia : Malaysia : Filipina

91

APPENDIX II

TES MENGARANG BAHASA INGGRIS RECOUNT TEXT

Waktu: 30 Menit

Petunjuk Umum:

1. Isilah dengan lengkap: Nama, Topik, dan Tanggal/Hari tes.

2. Pada tes ini, Anda diminta untuk membuat sebuah karangan berbentuk

Recount Text.

3. Ada 3 topik yang tersedia, Anda bebas memilih satu dari tiga topik tersebut.

4. Anda diberikan waktu 30 menit untuk menulis, mengedit, dan merevisi

karangan/tulisan Anda.

5. Panjang karangan/tulisan Anda minimal 200 kata atau 20 baris.

6. Topik:

- My experience during my school holiday

- My unforgettable experience in junior high school

- My unforgettable experience in elementary school

7. Tulislah dengan menggunakan past tense.

8. Tulisan yang tidak menggunakan past tense dan kurang dari 200 kata/20 baris

akan dieleminasi dari scoring.

92

APPENDIX III

Creative Thinking Value Rubric1

Capstone Milestone Benchmark*

4 3 2 1

Acquiring

competencies

Reflect: Evaluates creative

process and product using

domain-appropriate criteria

Create: Creates an entirely new

object, solution, or idea that is

appropriate to the domain.

Adapt: Successfully

adapts an appropriate

exemplar to his/her own

specification.

Model: Successfully

reproduces an

appropriate exemplar.

Taking Risks Actively seeks and follow

through untested and

potentially risky directions or

approaches to the assignment

in the final product.

Incorporates new directions or

approaches to the assignment in

the final product.

Considers new directions

or approaches without

going beyond the

guidelines of the

assignment.

Stays strictly within the

guidelines of the

assignment.

Solving

Problems

Not only develops a logical,

consistent plan to solve

problem, but recognizes

consequences of solution and

can articulate reason for

choosing solution.

Having selected from among

alternatives develops a logical,

consistent plant to solve the

problem.

Considers and rejects less

acceptable approaches to

solving problem.

Only a single approach

is considered to solve

the problem.

1Association of American Collges and Universities, loc. cit.

93

Embracing

Contradictions

Integrate alternate, divergent,

or contradictory perspectives

or ideas fully.

Incorporates alternate, divergent,

or contradictory perspectives or

ideas in a exploratory way.

Includes (reorganizes the

values of) alternate,

divergent, or

contradictory

perspectives or ideas in a

small way.

Acknowledges

(mentions in passing)

alternate, divergent, or

contradictory

perspectives or ideas.

Innovative

thinking

Extends a novel or unique

idea, question, format, or

product to create new

knowledge or knowledge that

crosses boundaries.

Creates a novel or unique idea,

question, format, or product.

Experiments with

creating a novel or unique

idea, question, format, or

product.

Reformulates a

collection of available

ideas.

Connecting,

Synthesizing,

transforming

Transform ideas or solutions

into entirely new forms.

Synthesize ideas or solutions into

coherent whole.

Connects ideas or

solutions in novel ways.

Recognizes existing

connections among

ideas or solutions.

*If a work does not meet benchmark, evaluators should award it 0 mark.

94

APPENDIX IV

ANSWER KEY OF CREATIVE THINKING TEST PART 3 (ANALOGY)1

1. B. Petinju : Ring

Pembalap ada di Sirkuit. Petinju ada di Ring.

2. A. Kuman

Singa membunuh atau memakan Rusa, sedangkan Antiseptik membunuh

Kuman.

3. C. Jauh : Dekat

Siang lawannya Malam. Jauh lawannya Dekat.

4. C. Nada

Buta tak dapat melihat Warna. Tuli tak dapat mendengar Nada.

5. D. Kaki : Melangkah

Pohon untuk Berlindung. Kaki untuk Melangkah

6. D. Detik : Menit

Beberapa Bulan membentuk Tahun. Beberapa Detik membentuk membentuk

Menit

7. A. Fakta

Dongeng menceritakan Peristiwa. Berita menceritakan tentang Fakta.

8. A. Ember

Asbak adalah tempat Rokok. Ember adalah tempat Air.

9. E. Mereka : Dia

Kita dan Saya adalah kata ganti yang memiliki kesamaan, yaitu sama-sama

meliputi orang yang berkata. Mereka dan Dia adalah kata ganti yang

memilki kesamaan, yaitu sama-sama meliputi orang yang berkata.

10. A. Ranjang : Kamar

Mata ada di Wajah. Ranjang ada di Kamar.

11. B. Pintu

Kemeja yang ditutup adalah Kancingnya. Rumah yang ditutup adalah

1Arif Subkhan, op. cit., pp. 69—70.

95

Pintunya.

12. C. Gundul:Rambut

Bugil artinya tanpa Pakaian. Gundul artinya tanpa Rambut.

13. B. Minyak Tanah

Kalau ke atas itu berkaitan dengan Tinggi, kalau ke bawah itu berkaitan

dengan Dalam. Kalau ke atas ada awan, kalau ke bawah ada Minyak

Tanah.

14. C. Balap Motor: Sirkuit

Belajar tempatnya di Kelas. Balap Motor tempatnya di Sirkuit.

15. D. Lihat : Mata

Hidung fungsinya untuk mencium. Mata fungsinya untuk Melihat.

16. E. Rambut

Rumah bagian atas namanya Genteng. Kepala bagian atas namanya

Rambut.

17. A. Cair : Encer

Kosong punya kesamaan makna dengan Hampa. Cair punya kesamaan

makna dengan Encer.

18. E. Kayu : Lemari

Kelapa untuk dibuat Santan. Kayu untuk dibuat Lemari.

19. C. Logam

Kayu adalah hasil dari olahan Pohon. Emas adalah hasil dari olahan

Logam.

20. B. Patologi

Ramalan subjek yang dipelajari dalam Astrologi. Penyakit adalah subjek

dipelajari dalam Patologi.

21. C. Italia : Euro

Argentina mata uangnya Peso. Italia mata uangnya Euro.

22. C. Gunting : Potong

Payung digunakan saat Hujan. Gunting digunakan saat memotong.

23. E. Minggu

96

5 hari setelah Februari adalah Juli. 5 hari setelah Selasa adalah Minggu.

24. E. Tidur

Jatuh menyebabkan Sakit. Mengantuk menyebabkan Tidur.

25. D. Singa : Karnivor

Hewan (Sapi) pemakan tumbuhan disebut dengan Herbivor. Hewan (Singa)

pemakan daging disebut dengan Karnivor.

26. C. Januari : Desember

Prolog adalah bagian awal dan Epilog adalah bagian akhir dari sebuah

karya tulis. Januari adalah bulan awal dan Desember adalah bulan akhir

dalam satu tahun.

27. B. Rusa

Ular adalah predator dari Tikus. Singa adalah predator dari Rusa.

28. A. Kayu

Kerak nasi adalah limbah Nasi yang ditanak terlalu lama, seperti Arang

kayu adalah limbah Kayu yang terbakar oleh api.

29. E. Televisi

Telepon adalah pesawat yang berfungsi mengirim Suara. Televisi adalah

pesawat yang berfungsi mengirim gambar.

30. C. Kecepatan

Seismograf adalah alat pengukur gempa. Speedometer adalah pengukur

kecepatan.

31. A. Haus

Untuk mengatasi ruang yang Gelap digunakan Senter, seperti Minum untuk

mengatasi rasa Haus.

32. E. Kertas : Tulisan : Buku

Suara berGambar dinamakan Film. Kertas berTuliskan dinamakan Buku.

33. C. Gandum : Tepung : Kue

Padi menjadi Beras, Beras menjadi nasi. Gandum menjadi Tepung, Tepung

menjadi Kue.

34. C. Es : Beku : Dingin

97

Api bisa memBakar dan rasanya Panas. Es bisa memBeku dan rasanya

Dingin.

35. A. Laptop : Notebook : Handphone

Kuda, Kambing, dan Kucing sama-sama termasuk jenis hewan berkaki

empat. Laptop, Notebook, dan Handphone sama-sama termasuk jenis

gadget yang mempunyai layar.

36. D. Kuas : Cat : Dinding

Pena untuk menggoreskan Tinta di Kertas. Kuat untuk menggoreskan Cat

di Dinding.

37. D. Guru : Dosen : Pendidikan

Ada Pengacara dan Hakim dalam dunia Hukum. Ada Guru dan Dosen

dalam dunia Pendidikan.

38. D. Huruf : Kata : Cerita

Kumpulan Bintang membentuk Galaksi, dan kumpulan Galaksi membentuk

Alam Semesta. Kumpulan Huruf membentuk Kata, dan kumpulan Kata

membentuk Cerita.

39. E. Gembala : Ladang : Domba

Guru ada di Sekolah, di sana juga ada Murid. Gembala ada di Ladang, di

sana juga ada Domba.

40. B. Ban : Mobil : Motor

Listrik digunakan untuk Radio dan Televisi. Ban digunakan untuk Mobil dan

Motor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 401 Anis Fadila A. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 302 Dimas 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 283 Rabi'ah A. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 274 Nabila Yanuar 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 275 Ade Yulian F. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 266 Devi Martini P. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 267 Agung S. 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 258 Reni Khotimah 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 239 Meygea S. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 22

10 M. Iqbal F. 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2011 Lia Putri 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2012 Hepi N. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1913 Rika Rapita 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1814 Ana Triani 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 18

14 1 9 12 11 10 13 14 5 8 6 10 0 9 8 13 6 12 6 0 7 2 9 14 11 5 11 14 5 10 8 7 7 10 11 3 6 6 5 11 32914 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

1,00 0,07 0,64 0,86 0,79 0,71 0,93 1,00 0,36 0,57 0,43 0,71 0,00 0,64 0,57 0,93 0,43 0,86 0,43 0,00 0,50 0,14 0,64 1,00 0,79 0,36 0,79 1,00 0,36 0,71 0,57 0,50 0,50 0,71 0,79 0,21 0,43 0,43 0,36 0,794 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 1 3 0 4 4 4 0 3 2 0 3 1 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 0 2 4 2 44 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 0 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 1 0 2 4 2 1 2 4 0 3 3 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 1

0,00 -0,25 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 -0,50 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,25 -0,75 0,00 -0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,75 0,00 -0,25 0,25 1,00 0,25 0,75E D M E E E E E M M M E D M M E M E M D M D M E E M E E M E M M M E E D M M M EP Dr G S S E S P S S Dr P P E E S Dr P Dr P G S S P G S S P E S P E S E P Dr S E S E

Notes:Ʃx: the total of participants who can choose the right answer E: easyp: the difficulty level (p=Ʃx/total of participants) M: medium No. No.Interpretation

Difficult (D)

Ʃx lower groupDI

Classification based on p

Classification based on DI

Classification of p*DI Scale

<0.00

Ʃx upper group

APPENDIX V

Item No.No. Participants Total

Item Analysis of Creative Thinking Instrument: Part 3 (Analogy)

ƩxTotal of participants

p

Ʃ upper groupƩ lower group

P scale0.00-030

InterpretationClassification of DI**

Dropped (Dr)p: the difficulty level (p=Ʃx/total of participants) M: medium No. No.Ʃ upper group: the total of participants in the upper group (27% upper group) D: difficult 1 1Ʃ lower group: the total of participants in the lower group (27% lower group) Dr: Dropped 2 2Ʃx upper group: the total of participants from the upper group who can choose the right answer P: Poor 3 3Ʃx lower group: the total of participants from the lower group who can choose the right answer S: Satisfactory 4DI: Discrimanation Index (DI=( Ʃx upper group/Ʃ upper group) - (Ʃx lower group/Ʃ lower group)) G: Good 5

E: Excellent)* Suharsimi Arikunto, op. cit. , p. 210.)**Ibid ., p. 218.

98

InterpretationDifficult (D)Medium (M)

DI Scale<0.00

0.00-0.20Easy (E)

P scale0.00-0300.31-0.700.71-1.00 0.21-0.40

0.41-0.700.71-1.00

InterpretationDropped (Dr)

Poor (P)Satisfactory (S)

Good (G)Excellent (E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 401 Anis Fadila A. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 30 6,5 42,252 Dimas 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 28 4,5 20,253 Rabi'ah A. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 27 3,5 12,254 Nabila Yanuar 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 27 3,5 12,255 Ade Yulian F. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 26 2,5 6,256 Devi Martini P. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 26 2,5 6,257 Agung S. 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 25 1,5 2,258 Reni Khotimah 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 23 -0,5 0,259 Meygea S. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 22 -1,5 2,25

10 M. Iqbal F. 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 20 -3,5 12,2511 Lia Putri 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 20 -3,5 12,2512 Hepi N. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 19 -4,5 20,2513 Rika Rapita 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 -5,5 30,2514 Ana Triani 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 18 -5,5 30,25

14 1 9 12 11 10 13 14 5 8 6 10 0 9 8 13 6 12 6 0 7 2 9 14 11 5 11 14 5 10 8 7 7 10 11 3 6 6 5 11 329 0 209,51,00 0,07 0,64 0,86 0,79 0,71 0,93 1,00 0,36 0,57 0,43 0,71 0,00 0,64 0,57 0,93 0,43 0,86 0,43 0,00 0,50 0,14 0,64 1,00 0,79 0,36 0,79 1,00 0,36 0,71 0,57 0,50 0,50 0,71 0,79 0,21 0,43 0,43 0,36 0,790,00 0,93 0,36 0,14 0,21 0,29 0,07 0,00 0,64 0,43 0,57 0,29 1,00 0,36 0,43 0,07 0,57 0,14 0,57 1,00 0,50 0,86 0,36 0,00 0,21 0,64 0,21 0,00 0,64 0,29 0,43 0,50 0,50 0,29 0,21 0,79 0,57 0,57 0,64 0,210,00 0,07 0,23 0,12 0,17 0,20 0,07 0,00 0,23 0,24 0,24 0,20 0,00 0,23 0,24 0,07 0,24 0,12 0,24 0,00 0,25 0,12 0,23 0,00 0,17 0,23 0,17 0,00 0,23 0,20 0,24 0,25 0,25 0,20 0,17 0,17 0,24 0,24 0,23 0,176,7123,5040

14,960,57

Notes:p: the proportion of participants who choose the right answerq: the proportion of participants who choose the wrong answer (q=1-p)

r11

Ʃpq

Dev

k

Dev^2

pqpq

M

No. Participants Item No. Total

Total

APPENDIX VIReliability of Creative Thinking Test: Analogy (Using KR-20 Equation)

S^2

q: the proportion of participants who choose the wrong answer (q=1-p)Ʃpq: the total of multiplication between p and qk: the total of itemsM: the mean score of the right answer (M=total of the right answer/total of participants)S^2: variance score (S^2=total of Dev^2/total of participants)Dev: deviation score from mean score (Dev=total of the right answer of each participant-Mean)Dev^2: deviation score from square mean scorer11: the instrument realibility using KR-21 (r11=(k/k-1)(S^2-Ʃpq/S^2))

99

A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E1 Anis Fadila A. C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 B C 0 1 0 0 02 Dimas C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 D C 0 0 0 1 03 Rabi'ah A. C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 B A 0 1 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 C C 0 0 1 0 04 Nabila Yanuar C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 B C 0 1 0 0 05 Ade Yulian F. C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 B C 0 1 0 0 06 Devi Martini P. C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 C C 0 0 1 0 07 Agung S. C C 0 0 1 0 0 E D 0 0 0 0 1 A A 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 B A 0 1 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 E C 0 0 0 0 18 Reni Khotimah C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 E A 0 0 0 0 1 E E 0 0 0 0 1 D C 0 0 0 1 09 Meygea S. C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 C A 0 0 1 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 B C 0 1 0 0 0

10 M. Iqbal F. E C 0 0 0 0 1 A D 1 0 0 0 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 C E 0 0 1 0 0 C A 0 0 1 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 E C 0 0 0 0 111 Lia Putri D C 0 0 0 1 0 C D 0 0 1 0 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 E A 0 0 0 0 1 E E 0 0 0 0 1 D C 0 0 0 1 012 Hepi N. C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 B C 0 1 0 0 013 Rika Rapita C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 A A 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1 A C 1 0 0 0 014 Ana Triani C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 B A 0 1 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 0 E A 0 0 0 0 1 A E 1 0 0 0 0 A C 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 1 00 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 04 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0,5 0 0 0 0,5 0,75 0,25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0,5 0,25 0,3 00 0 0,8 0,25 0 0 0 0,25 0,8 0 0,8 0,25 0 0 0 0,75 0 0 0 0,3 0,5 0 0 0 0,5 0,25 0 0 0 0,75 0,5 0,25 0 0,3 0

0,00 0,00 0,25 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00 -0,50 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 -0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00NS NS S S NS NS NS S S NS S S NS NS NS S NS NS NS S S NS NS NS S S NS NS NS S S NS S NS NS

Notes:Ʃx upper group: the total participants who can choose the right answer from the upper groupƩx lower group: the total participants who can choose the right answer from the lower groupƩ upper group: the total participants in the upper groupƩ lower group: the total participants in the lower groupP upper group: the difficulty level gained from the upper groupP lower group: the difficulty level gained from the lower groupDI: discrimination indexS: significantNS: not significant (should be revised)

100

Validity of Certain Alternatives of Creative Thinking Test: Part 3 (Particularly for the Items that are needed revision)

ParticipantsNo.Item no. 4

AlternativesKeyResponse

Item no. 5

Response KeyAlternatives

Item no. 7


Item no. 9


Item no. 16


DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group P lower group

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

P upper group

Item no. 22


Ʃx upper group

Item no. 10


APPENDIX VII

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

APPENDIX VII Continued

A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E1 Anis Fadila A. D E 0 0 0 1 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 E E 0 0 0 0 12 Dimas E E 0 0 0 0 1 D C 0 0 0 1 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 A D 1 0 0 0 0 B E 0 1 0 0 03 Rabi'ah A. E E 0 0 0 0 1 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C B 0 0 1 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 A D 1 0 0 0 0 B E 0 1 0 0 04 Nabila Yanuar E E 0 0 0 0 1 D C 0 0 0 1 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 E E 0 0 0 0 15 Ade Yulian F. A E 1 0 0 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 E E 0 0 0 0 16 Devi Martini P. E E 0 0 0 0 1 C C 0 0 1 0 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 A C 1 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 A D 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 17 Agung S. E E 0 0 0 0 1 D C 0 0 0 1 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 E E 0 0 0 0 18 Reni Khotimah E E 0 0 0 0 1 C C 0 0 1 0 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 A D 1 0 0 0 0 B E 0 1 0 0 09 Meygea S. D E 0 0 0 1 0 A C 1 0 0 0 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 B C 0 1 0 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 A D 1 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 1

10 M. Iqbal F. E E 0 0 0 0 1 E C 0 0 0 0 1 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 C E 0 0 0 1 011 Lia Putri E E 0 0 0 0 1 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 A D 1 0 0 0 0 A E 1 0 0 0 012 Hepi N. B E 0 1 0 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 B B 0 1 0 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 A C 1 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 1 0 A E 1 0 0 0 013 Rika Rapita D E 0 0 0 1 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C B 0 0 1 0 0 D C 0 0 0 1 0 E C 0 0 0 0 1 A D 1 0 0 0 0 C E 0 0 1 0 014 Ana Triani E E 0 0 0 0 1 B C 0 1 0 0 0 D B 0 0 0 1 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 C C 0 0 1 0 0 E D 0 0 0 0 1 E E 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 20 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 0 0 0,25 0,8 0 0 0,5 0,5 0 0 0,8 0,25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0,5 0,5 0 0,5 0 0 0,5 0 0 0,5 0 0 0,50 0,25 0 0,25 0,5 0 0,25 0,3 0,25 0 0 0,5 0,25 0,25 0 0 0 0,75 0,25 0 0,25 0 0,3 0,25 0,25 0,5 0 0 0,3 0,25 0,5 0 0,25 0 0,25

0,00 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 -0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 -0,25 0,00 -0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 -0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 -0,25 -0,50 0,50 -0,25 0,00 0,25NS S NS NS S NS S S NS NS NS S NS S NS NS NS S S NS S NS S NS S NS NS NS S S S NS S NS S

Notes:Ʃx upper group: the total participants who can choose the right answer from the upper groupƩx lower group: the total participants who can choose the right answer from the lower groupƩ upper group: the total participants in the upper groupƩ lower group: the total participants in the lower groupP upper group: the difficulty level gained from the upper groupP lower group: the difficulty level gained from the lower groupDI: discrimination indexS: significantNS: not significant (should be revised)

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

P lower group

DI

Intepretation

Ʃx upper group

Ʃx lower group

Ʃ upper group

Ʃ lower group

P upper group

No. ParticipantsItem no. 23 Item no. 26 Item no. 27

KeyAlternatives

Item no. 33 Item no. 37 Item no. 39



Response

Item no. 30


Response KeyAlternativesAlternatives


Response Key

APPENDIX V

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 201 Anis Fadila A. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 02 Dimas 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 03 Rabi'ah A. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 04 Nabila Yanuar 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 05 Ade Yulian F. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 06 Devi Martini P. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 07 Agung S. 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 08 Reni Khotimah 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 09 Meygea S. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

10 M. Iqbal F. 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 011 Lia Putri 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 012 Hepi N. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 013 Rika Rapita 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 014 Ana Triani 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

14 1 9 12 11 10 13 14 5 8 6 10 0 9 8 13 6 12 6 0

Item No.No. Participants

Item Analysis of Creative Thinking Instrument: Analogy


14 1 9 12 11 10 13 14 5 8 6 10 0 9 8 13 6 12 6 014 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

1,00 0,07 0,64 0,86 0,79 0,71 0,93 1,00 0,36 0,57 0,43 0,71 0,00 0,64 0,57 0,93 0,43 0,86 0,43 0,004 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 1 3 0 4 4 4 0 3 2 04 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 0 1 1 3 3 3 3 0

0,00 -0,25 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 -0,50 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,25 -0,75 0,00 -0,25 0,00E D M E E E E E M M M E D M M E M E M DP Dr G S S E S P S S Dr P P E E S Dr P Dr P

Notes:

Ʃx: the total of participants who can choose the right answer E: easy

p: the difficulty level (p=Ʃx/total of participants) M: medium No.Ʃ upper group: the total of participants in the upper group (27% upper group) D: difficult 1

Ʃx lower groupDI

Classification based on p

Classification based on DI


p

Ʃ upper groupƩ lower group

Ʃx upper group

Classification of p*P scale

0.00-030

Ʃ lower group: the total of participants in the lower group (27% lower group) Dr: Dropped 2Ʃx upper group: the total of participants from the upper group who can choose the right answer P: Poor 3Ʃx lower group: the total of participants from the lower group who can choose the right answer S: Satisfactory

DI: Discrimanation Index (DI=(Ʃx upper group/Ʃ upper group) - (Ʃx lower group/Ʃ lower group)) G: Good

E: Excellent)* Suharsimi Arikunto, Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan , (Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2009), p. 210.

)**Ibid ., p. 218.

0.31-0.700.71-1.00

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 401 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 301 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 281 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 270 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 270 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 261 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 261 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 250 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 230 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 221 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 201 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 190 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 187 2 9 14 11 5 11 14 5 10 8 7 7 10 11 3 6 6 5 11 329

Item No. Total

Item Analysis of Creative Thinking Instrument: Analogy

7 2 9 14 11 5 11 14 5 10 8 7 7 10 11 3 6 6 5 11 32914 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

0,50 0,14 0,64 1,00 0,79 0,36 0,79 1,00 0,36 0,71 0,57 0,50 0,50 0,71 0,79 0,21 0,43 0,43 0,36 0,794 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 1 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 0 2 4 2 41 0 2 4 2 1 2 4 0 3 3 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 1

0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,75 0,00 -0,25 0,25 1,00 0,25 0,75M D M E E M E E M E M M M E E D M M M EG S S P G S S P E S P E S E P Dr S E S E

No.1 <0.00 Dropped (Dr)Difficult (D)

Classification of p* Classification of DI**InterpretationDI ScaleP scale Interpretation

0.00-030

2345 Excellent (E)0.71-1.00

Poor (P)

Good (G)Satisfactory (S)

0.00-0.200.21-0.400.41-0.70

Medium (M)Easy (E)

0.31-0.700.71-1.00

3 5 6 10 14 15 21 22 25 29 32 33 34 38 39 40 Total Dev Dev^21 Anis Fadila A. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 14 5 252 Dimas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 13 4 163 Rabi'ah A. 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 12 3 94 Nabila Yanuar 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 5 255 Ade Yulian F. 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 4 166 Devi Martini P. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 13 4 167 Agung S. 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 7 -2 48 Reni Khotimah 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 -3 99 Meygea S. 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 10 1 1

10 M. Iqbal F. 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 7 -2 411 Lia Putri 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -6 3612 Hepi N. 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -6 3613 Rika Rapita 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 -3 914 Ana Triani 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 -4 16

9 11 10 8 9 8 7 2 11 5 7 7 10 6 5 11 126 0 222

APPENDIX VIII

p

No. Participants

Total

Item No.

Reliability of Creative Thinking Test: Analogy (Using KR-20 Equation)*

9 11 10 8 9 8 7 2 11 5 7 7 10 6 5 11 126 0 2220,64 0,79 0,71 0,57 0,64 0,57 0,50 0,14 0,79 0,36 0,50 0,50 0,71 0,43 0,36 0,790,36 0,21 0,29 0,43 0,36 0,43 0,50 0,86 0,21 0,64 0,50 0,50 0,29 0,57 0,64 0,210,23 0,17 0,20 0,24 0,23 0,24 0,25 0,12 0,17 0,23 0,25 0,25 0,20 0,24 0,23 0,173,449,00

1615,86

0,84

Notes:p: the proportion of participants who choose the right answerq: the proportion of participants who choose the wrong answer (q=1-p)Ʃpq: the total of multiplication between p and q

S^2r11

Ʃpq

k

pq

pq

M

Total

k: the total of itemsM: the mean score of the right answer (M=total of the right answer/total of participants)S^2: variance score (S^2=total of Dev^2/total of participants)Dev: deviation score from mean score (Dev=total of the right answer of each participant-Mean)Dev^2: deviation score from square mean scorer11: the instrument realibility using KR-21 (r11=(k/k-1)(S^2-Ʃpq/S^2))

*This is the reliability for the 16 items used that had been sorted from the 40 items

102

103

APPENDIX IX

TES ANALOGI (Post-Try-out)

Nama : ………………………….

Kelas : ………………………….

Hari/Tanggal Tes : ………………………….

Waktu: 15 Menit

Petunjuk Pengerjaan:

1. Pada bagian ini masing-masing soal terdiri atas dua kata yang dicetak dengan

huruf kapital dan diikuti lima kemungkinan jawaban.

2. Berilah tanda silang (X) pada salah satu jawaban yang bertanda A, B, C, D

atau E yang mempunyai padanan hubungan kata (analogi) dengan arti kata

yang dicetak dengan huruf kapital.

3. Prinsipnya, ruas kiri [yaitu kata yang dicetak kapital yang terletak di depan

tanda sama dengan (=)] dan ruas kanan [yaitu kata yang menjadi soal yang

terletak setelah tanda sama dengan (=)] harus mempunyai pola atau kesamaan

hubungan. Untuk menyelesaikan soal ini, Anda harus menemukan pola

hubungan yang sepadan.

4. Jika Anda telah menemukan hubungan kata pada soal dengan kata pada

jawaban tetapi Anda belum mengetahui jawaban yang tepat, maka Anda dapat

membuat kata-kata tersebut menjadi sebuah kalimat dengan menggunakan

hubungan kata yang telah Anda temukan.

Contoh:

EARPHONE : SUARA= Stateskop : …A. Detak Jantung

B. Penyakit

C. Diagnosis

D. Telinga

E. Dokter

Jawaban: A. Detak Jantung (Earphone adalah alat untuk mendengar Suara, dan

Stateskop adalah alat untuk mendengar Detak Jantung.)

104

1. BULAN : TAHUN = … : …A. Jam : MenitB. Buah : DaunC. Luluh : UtuhD. Detik : MenitE. Waktu : Lama

2. SAPI : HERBIVOR = … : …A. Hiu : PlanktonB. Elang : PredatorC. Kera : OmnivorD. Singa : KarnivorE. Manusia : Vegetarian

3. BELAJAR : KELAS = … : …A. Kuda : RintanganB. Ikan : BerenangC. Balap Motor : SirkuitD. Jalan : HambatanE. Telur : Lilin

4. CIUM : HIDUNG = … : …A. Panas : KeringatB. Dahaga : HausC. Kaki : SepatuD. Lihat : MataE. Raba : Tangan

5. SUARA : TELEPON = Gambar : …A. TelegrafB. RadioC. VideoD. KameraE. Televisi

6. SIANG : MALAM = … : …A. Keras : BatuB. Pijat : UsapC. Jauh : DekatD. Putih : Keruh

105

E. Tinggi : Pendek

7. ARGENTINA : PESO = … : …A. Brunei Darussalam : SultanB. Turki : AnkaraC. Italia : EuroD. Jerman : DutchE. Inggris : Irlandia

8. POHON : BERLINDUNG = … : …A. Rambut : MengkilapB. Telinga : BerantingC. Buku : PenaD. Kaki : MelangkahE. Kepala : Menunduk

9. MATA : WAJAHA. Ranjang : KamarB. Kayu : PohonC. Lampu : TerangD. Radio : SuaraE. Pensil : Buku

10. PADI : BERAS : NASIA. Kacang : Hijau : BuburB. Kedelai : Rebus : GorengC. Gandum : Tepung : KueD. Pohon : Kayu : UangE. Bawang : Seledri : Sayur

11. PAYUNG : HUJAN = … : …A. Lari : KakiB. Pohon : HutanC. Gunting : PotongD. Lampu : Langit-langitE. Gunting : Kertas

12. LISTRIK : RADIO : TELEVISIA. Air : Dingin : PanasB. Ban : Mobil : Motor

106

C. Bunga : Mawar : MelatiD. Tubuh : Otak : UsusE. Asia : Malaysia : Filipina

13. SUARA : GAMBAR : FILMA. Sepakbola : Lapangan : WasitB. Tulis : Catat : KetikC. Kertas : Komputer : PrinterD. Bola : Sepatu : RaketE. Kertas : Tulisan : Buku

14. BINTANG : GALAKSI : ALAM SEMESTAA. Buah : Kilo : KarungB. Saya : Kita : MerekaC. Lapar : Makan : MinumD. Huruf : Kata : CeritaE. Jarang : Sering : Selalu

15. GURU : SEKOLAH : MURIDA. Perenang : Air : KolamB. Petani : Sawah : SapiC. Dosen : Mahasiswa : KampusD. Pengarang : Buku : PenerbitE. Gembala : Ladang : Domba

16. API : BAKAR : PANASA. Air : Lembab : DinginB. Udara : Segar : HangatC. Es : Beku : DinginD. Kayu : Keras : PanjangE. Besi : Panas : Memuai

107

APPENDIX X

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES OF CT TEST PART 2

Kategori: mainan (score for originality=0)untuk membuat mobil (1)untuk menempati benang buat main layangan (1)disusun jadi robot (1)membuat mainan mobil-mobilan (2)membuat robot-robotan (2)dapat dibuat sebagai mainan buat anak-anak seperti mobil-mobilan (5)dapat dijadikan sebagai boneka-boneka kecil dengan cara dijahit (5)dapat dijadikan sebagai sarana telponan zaman dulu dengan cara disambung dengan tali (5)untuk membuat robot-robot (6)bisa membuat telpon-telponan (6)bisa membuat mobil-mobilan (6)bisa membuat main-mainan (6)untuk menaruh benang buat bermain layang-layang (8)membuat robot-robotan (8)membuat roda mobil-mobilan (8)alat untuk merambatkan bunyi dengan cara diikat dengan benang (8)bisa untuk dibuat mobil-mobilan untuk anak-anak kecil (10)bisa juga untuk tali layang-layang (10)bisa dibuat boneka (10)mainan mobilan (11)alat untuk mainan anak-anak/robot (11)buat bikin mobil-mobilan (12)bisa digunakan untuk bikin mainan yaitu robot-robotan (12)buat benang untuk main layang-layang (12)alat permainan untuk anak-anak (12)buat mobil-mobilan (15)buat menjadi boneka (15)buat kapal-kapalan (15)mobil-mobilan (16)disusun untuk membuat robot-robotan (16)tiang rumah mainan (16)digunakan sebagai mainan yang ditambahkan 2 roda dari sendal jepit (19)sebagai kapal-kapalan (19)sebagai boneka (19)sebagai robot-robotan (19)mainan anak kecil/mobil-mobilan (21)menyambungkan suara dari jarak jauh (telpon-telponan) (21)

108

membuat telepon-teleponan (22)dapat dibuat main-mainan (22)untuk membentuk robot-robotan (23)untuk membentuk mobil-mobilan (23)buat ban mobil-mobilan (25)buat robot (25)buat telepon tradisional (25)alat komunikasi jarak dekat (26)roda mobil-mobilan (26)buat robot (26)untuk telpon-telponan (18)untuk mainan (18)mobil-mobilan yang ditambah roda (7)sebagai alat komunikasi telpon mainan (13)sebagai ban mobil-mobilan (13)sebagai robot-robotan (13)bunga-bungaan (3)mobil-mobilan (3)untuk ban mobil-mobilan (4)digunakan sebagai mobil-mobilan (9)dijadikan bunga dengan cara digunting (9)buat robot-robotan (14)jadi telepon-teleponan (14)buat mobil-mobilan (14)alat mainan mobil-mobilan (17)untuk membuat mobil mainan (20)membuat robot (20)membuat kincir angin mainan (20)telepon jarak jauh (24)sebagai tempat gulungan benang (19)buat gulungan benang layang-layang (25)tempat menaruh benagn layangan (7)main layangan benangnya dililitkan di botol susu (3)tempat penggulung benang layangan (17)menaru benang buat narik layangan (4)untuk dijadikan menaruh kenur layang-layangan (9)dapat dijadikan bunga dan dijadikan mainan kerudung (5)

Kategori: Wadah untuk Menyimpan/Menaruh Sesuatu (score for originality=0)untuk membuat vas bunga sederhana (1)bisa menjadi kaleng gula (1)bisa menjadi kaleng garam (1)

109

menyimpan sisa minyak (1)dibuat pot bunga hias (2)tempat pensil (2)dapat dibuat sebagai vas bunga (5)dapat dibuat sebagai tempat pensil dengan dilengkapi dengan aksesoris (5)untuk membuat vas bunga (6)dijadikan asbak (8)dengan botol kosong ini kita bisa membuat pot bunga (10)digunakan untuk menyimpan kelereng (10)bisa juga untuk asbak (10)vas bunga (11)tempat minyak bekas (11)tempat pulpen dan pensil (11)asbak (11)tempat minyak goreng (12)bisa digunakan untuk vas bunga (12)buat menaruh gula/garam (15)dapat dibuat sebagai celengan dengan dilengkapi aksesoris (5)bisa juga untuk celengan (10)buat menyimpan uang/celengan (15)buat menyimpan uang recehan (15)buat membuat wadah teh (15)vas bunga (16)menyimpan sisa minyak (16)digunakan untuk pot bunga (19)sebagai tempat untuk meletakkan pensil, pulpen di atas meja belajar (19)sebagai tempat menaruh garam (19)tempat pensil (21)celengan (21)tempat minum (21)pot bunga (21)sebagai tempat untuk menyimpan makanan (22)dapat dibuat tempat pensil (22)pot bunga (22)celengan (22)vas bunga (22)untuk diisi air buat minum (23)untuk menaruh binatang kecil seperti belalang, kecoa, dll (23)untuk menyimpan aksesoris perempuan (23)untuk membuat tempat spidol, pulpen, dll (23)

110

untuk menaruh minyak goreng/minyak tanah (23)buat vas bunga (25)buat menyimpan sisa minyak (25)buat celengan (25)buat tempat spidol, penghapus, dll (25)buat tempat asbak rokok (25)celengan (26)pot bunga (26)untuk celengan (18)untuk tempat spidol (18)untuk tempat vas bunga (18)untuk tempat minum (18)untuk menyimpan obat-obatan (18)untuk tempat sampah kecil (18)untuk tempat pulpen (18)untuk tempat pernak-pernik (18)sebagai tempat vas bunga (7)tempat menaruh garam, gula (7)tempat akuarium kecil (7)tempat celengan (7)tempat meletakkan pensil, pulpen, penghapus (7)asbak (7)sebagai tempat pot bunga (13)sebagai celengan/tabungan (13)bisa dijadikan pot tanaman (3)menyimpan sisa minyak (3)untuk menaru sisa minyak yang sudah tidak terpakai (4)untuk vas bunga (4)untuk dijadikan pot-pot tanaman (9)untuk menaruh sisa minyak (9)pot bunga (14)tempat pensil (14)celengan (17)buat tempat kelereng (17)bisa digunakan untuk tempat penyimpanan gula (17)sebagai vas bunga (20)dijadikan membuat celengan (20)tempat spidol (24)celengan (24)pot tanaman bunga (24)

111

tempat tisu (24)cetakan adonan tepung (24)tempat naro alat tulis (24)toples/makanan ringan (24)tempat minum (24)asbak tempat rokok (24)dapat dijadikan sebagai wadah tempat minum (5)vas bunga (3)bisa dibuat untuk pot tanaman (4)untuk vas bunga (9)buat tempat kelereng (17)

Kategori: Alat Musik (score for originality=0)Untuk kecrekan buat orang yang mengamen/alat perkusi (1)alat musik (2)bisa untuk membuat barang perkusi (6)alat musik untuk mengamen dan sebagainya (8)bisa juga digunakan untuk perkusi (10)untuk kecrekan (10)botol kosong juga bisa buat bikin perkusi (12)buat kecrekan (15)alat perkusi (16)sebagai kecrekan yang diisi dengan kerikil (19)alat perkusi (21)alat musik (22)untuk dijadikan alat musik yang diisikan oleh beras/pasir (23)buat alat perkusi (25)alat perkusi (26)kecrekan (26)pelengkap alat-alat perkusi (7)kecrekan yang ditambaha batu (7)sebagai alat kecrekan (13)perkusi (3)buat anak jalanan ngamen (3)sebagai tempat pasir untuk kecrekan pengamen (4)buat perkusi (4)digunakan sebagai perkusi (9)alat perkusi (14)bisa buat kesenian musik perkusi (17)buat kecrekan (17)alat musik (20)

112

kesenian musik dari kaleng (17)

Kategori: Scarecrow/orang-orangan sawah (score for originality=1)orang-orangan sawah (1)dirangkai, diletakkan di sawah membantu petani mengusir burung (2)dirangkai/disusun untuk di sawah (6)alat untuk bunyi di orang-orangan di sawah (8)alat untuk petani mengusir burung (11)botol kosong bisa dirangkai panjang buat di sawah (12)orang-orangan sawah (16)buat mengusir burung di tengah sawah (26)disusun secara beruntun sebagai keperluan di sawah (13)aksesoris sawah (14)bisa buat pengusir burung yang ada di sawah (17)

Kategori: Lampu (Penerangan seperti obor dan sejenisnya) (score for originality=1)membantu untuk menyalakan api/kayu bakar (2)membuat lampu tempel (2)untuk menyalakan api (6)membuat tempat lampu canting/tempel (8)untuk membuat obor (8)dibuat untuk menyalakan api (11)bisa digunakan untuk menyalakan api saat di hutan (12)bisa dipakai untuk menyalakan api saat ada di hutan (16)untuk membuat obor, botolnya digunting dan ditaruhkan lilin (23)lampu tempel (26)sebagai lampu tempel/canting (13)dijadikan lampu gantung (9)lampu tempel (14)

Kategori: Barang untuk Dijual (score for originality=2)dijual ke tukang rongsokan, dapat duit (1)bisa dijual sama tukang barang bekas (6)dijual sebagai barang bekas (11)botol kosong juga bisa dijual ke barang bekas (12)dapat uang dengan menjualnya ke tukang rongsokan (16)dijual dapat duit (3)bisa dijual untuk menghasilkan uang (4)dijual sama tukang rongsokan (14)

113

Kategori: Suvenir (score for originality=2)dapat dibuat sebagai suvenir dalam pernikahan seperti papan nama kecil (5)

Kategori: Keperluan untuk peringatan 17 Agustus-an (score for originality=2)dapat dijadikan sebagai bendera 17 Agustus dengan cara dicat (5)bisa dicat untuk memperingati 17 Agustus merah putih (6)disusun dibuat untuk 17 Agustus (11)dirangkai dikasih cat merah putih untuk 17-an (16)dirangkai diberi cat merah putih untuk 17 agustusan (14)

Kategori: Alat untuk Menggosok (Kerokan) (score for originality=2)alat untuk menghilangkan masuk angin (dikerik) (8)

Kategori: Alas kaki (score for originality=2)bisa untuk sandal (10)alas kaki (21)

Kategori: Lonceng dan sejenisnya (score for originality=2)lonceng (21)bell (22)

Kategori: Alat untuk Menyiram Air (score for originality=2)gayung (21)alat penyiram bunga (22)untuk menyirami bunga/tumbuhan (tutup botol dibolongin) (23)sebagai gayung (13)

Kategori: Alat ukur (Takaran beras) (score for originality=2)takaran beras (26)sebagai alat ukur beras (13)

Kategori: Filter (score for originality=2)filter air (29)dibuat untuk filter air (20)

114

Kategori: Hook atau Senggetan untuk Mengambil Sesuatu (score for originality=2)senggetan ngambil buah (3)gala untuk mengambil buah (4)untuk dijadikan senggetan buah di pohon (9)

Kategori: Alat Lempar (score for originality=2)buat melempar kucing yang sedang berkelahi (4)

Kategori: Kesenian baju (score for originality=2)kesenian seperti membuat baju dari kaleng susu (17)

Kategori: Miniatur (score for originality=2)untuk dijadikan miniatur suatu objek (20)

118

Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration1 10 5 3 13 31 51,6672 10 6 4 12 32 53,3333 10 5 4 11 30 50,0004 10 6 6 10 32 53,3335 10 4 4 17 35 58,3336 10 7 6 11 34 56,6677 10 4 2 12 28 46,6678 10 6 4 11 31 51,6679 10 6 5 11 32 53,333

10 10 4 2 10 26 43,33311 10 6 6 10 32 53,33312 10 6 4 11 31 51,66713 10 7 6 11 34 56,66714 10 7 6 11 34 56,66715 9 4 2 9 24 40,00016 10 7 6 11 34 56,66717 10 5 2 10 27 45,00018 10 2 0 10 22 36,66719 9 3 0 11 23 38,33320 10 6 6 10 32 53,33321 10 6 6 10 32 53,33322 10 5 4 10 29 48,33323 10 5 3 11 29 48,33324 10 2 0 10 22 36,66725 10 0 3 10 23 38,33326 10 6 4 10 30 50,000

Total 258 130 98 283 769 1281,667Average 9,923 5,000 3,769 10,885 29,577 49,295

Appendix XIIIRaw Data Creative Thinking Test Part 2

AspectTotal Standardized ScoreParticipants

Average 9,923 5,000 3,769 10,885 29,577 49,295

AC TR SP EC IT CST AC TR SP EC IT CST1 3 2 3 2 3 3 16 66,667 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 50,000 14 58,3332 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 33,333 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 25,000 7 29,1673 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 33,333 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 37,500 8,5 35,4174 2 2 2 1 2 1 10 41,667 3 2 2 2 2 1 12 50,000 11 45,8335 3 2 3 2 3 3 16 66,667 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 17 70,8336 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 20,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,000 2,5 10,4177 3 3 4 3 4 3 20 83,333 3 3 3 4 4 3 20 83,333 20 83,3338 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 18 75,0009 3 2 3 2 2 2 14 58,333 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 37,500 11,5 47,917

10 2 3 3 2 2 1 13 54,167 3 3 3 2 3 2 16 66,667 14,5 60,41711 2 2 2 2 2 1 11 45,833 3 3 2 2 2 2 14 58,333 12,5 52,08312 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 25,000 2 2 2 2 1 2 11 45,833 8,5 35,41713 3 2 2 2 2 2 13 54,167 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 15,5 64,58314 2 3 2 2 2 1 12 50,000 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 50,000 12 50,00015 3 2 3 3 2 2 15 62,500 3 3 3 2 3 2 16 66,667 15,5 64,58316 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 25,000 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 12,500 4,5 18,75017 3 2 2 2 2 2 13 54,167 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 50,000 12,5 52,08318 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 25,000 3 2 2 1 1 1 10 41,667 8 33,33319 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 37,500 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 37,500 9 37,50020 3 3 3 2 3 3 17 70,833 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 17,5 72,91721 3 2 3 3 3 3 17 70,833 3 3 3 3 4 4 20 83,333 18,5 77,08322 3 3 4 4 3 3 20 83,333 3 3 3 4 4 4 21 87,500 20,5 85,41723 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 50,000 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 15 62,50024 3 2 1 1 1 1 9 37,500 3 3 3 2 1 1 13 54,167 11 45,83325 2 2 3 1 1 1 10 41,667 3 3 3 4 4 4 21 87,500 15,5 64,58326 2 2 2 1 2 1 10 41,667 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75,000 14 58,333

Notes:

APPENDIX XI Raw Data of Creative Thinking Test Part 1

Average Standardized Score of AverageAspectTotal

Rater I

Standardized ScoreParticipants

Rater IIAspect

Total Standardized Score

Notes:AC: Acquiring CompetencesTR: Taking RisksSP: Solving ProblemsEC: Embracing ContradictionsIT: Innovative ThinkingCST: Connecting, Synthesizing, Transforming 115

119

Participants Score Standardized Score1 14 87,5002 14 87,5003 13 81,2504 14 87,5005 5 31,2506 5 31,2507 14 87,5008 14 87,5009 14 87,500

10 14 87,50011 5 31,25012 11 68,75013 11 68,75014 5 31,25015 12 75,00016 14 87,50017 14 87,50018 9 56,25019 13 81,25020 11 68,75021 9 56,25022 12 75,00023 12 75,00024 10 62,500

APPENDIX XIVRaw Data of Creative Thinking Test Part 3

23 12 75,00024 10 62,50025 11 68,75026 7 43,750

120

Participants Total of CT (Section 1, 2, and 3) Standardized score1 59 59,0002 53 53,0003 51,5 51,5004 57 57,0005 57 57,0006 41,5 41,5007 62 62,0008 63 63,0009 57,5 57,500

10 54,5 54,50011 49,5 49,50012 50,5 50,50013 60,5 60,50014 51 51,00015 51,5 51,50016 52,5 52,50017 53,5 53,50018 39 39,00019 45 45,00020 60,5 60,50021 59,5 59,50022 61,5 61,50023 56 56,000

APPENDIX XVRaw Data of Final Score of Students' CT Test

23 56 56,00024 43 43,00025 49,5 49,50026 51 51,000

116

APPENDIX XII

Frequency Table of Creative Thinking Test Section 1

between the Two Raters

CT_Section1_Rater1

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 21 1 3.8 3.8 3.8

25 3 11.5 11.5 15.4

33 2 7.7 7.7 23.1

38 2 7.7 7.7 30.8

42 3 11.5 11.5 42.3

46 1 3.8 3.8 46.2

50 2 7.7 7.7 53.8

54 3 11.5 11.5 65.4

58 1 3.8 3.8 69.2

63 1 3.8 3.8 73.1

67 2 7.7 7.7 80.8

71 2 7.7 7.7 88.5

75 1 3.8 3.8 92.3

83 2 7.7 7.7 100.0

Total 26 100.0 100.0

117

CT_Section1_Rater2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 0 1 3.8 3.8 3.8

13 1 3.8 3.8 7.7

25 1 3.8 3.8 11.5

38 3 11.5 11.5 23.1

42 1 3.8 3.8 26.9

46 1 3.8 3.8 30.8

50 4 15.4 15.4 46.2

54 1 3.8 3.8 50.0

58 1 3.8 3.8 53.8

67 2 7.7 7.7 61.5

75 6 23.1 23.1 84.6

83 2 7.7 7.7 92.3

88 2 7.7 7.7 100.0

Total 26 100.0 100.0

121

APPENDIX XVI

Frequency Table of Final Score of CT Test


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 39 1 3.8 3.8 3.8

42 1 3.8 3.8 7.7

43 1 3.8 3.8 11.5

45 1 3.8 3.8 15.4

50 2 7.7 7.7 23.1

51 1 3.8 3.8 26.9

51 2 7.7 7.7 34.6

52 2 7.7 7.7 42.3

53 1 3.8 3.8 46.2

53 1 3.8 3.8 50.0

54 1 3.8 3.8 53.8

55 1 3.8 3.8 57.7

56 1 3.8 3.8 61.5

57 2 7.7 7.7 69.2

58 1 3.8 3.8 73.1

59 1 3.8 3.8 76.9

60 1 3.8 3.8 80.8

61 2 7.7 7.7 88.5

62 1 3.8 3.8 92.3

62 1 3.8 3.8 96.2

63 1 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 26 100.0 100.0

Score Standardized Score Score Standardized Score1 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,0002 4 66,667 4 66,667 4 66,6673 2 33,333 2 33,333 2 33,3334 2 33,333 3 50,000 2,5 41,6675 3 50,000 5 83,333 4 66,6676 2 33,333 2 33,333 2 33,3337 5 83,333 5 83,333 5 83,3338 5 83,333 5 83,333 5 83,3339 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,00010 3 50,000 4 66,667 3,5 58,33311 2 33,333 3 50,000 2,5 41,66712 2 33,333 2 33,333 2 33,33313 4 66,667 4 66,667 4 66,66714 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,00015 2 33,333 3 50,000 2,5 41,66716 4 66,667 4 66,667 4 66,66717 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,00018 3 50,000 2 33,333 2,5 41,66719 3 50,000 4 66,667 3,5 58,333

APPENDIX XVIIRaw Data of Writing Recount Text Skill

Standardized Score of Final ScoreFinal ScoreRater IIRater I

Participants

19 3 50,000 4 66,667 3,5 58,33320 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,00021 3 50,000 4 66,667 3,5 58,33322 4 66,667 4 66,667 4 66,66723 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,00024 3 50,000 2 33,333 2,5 41,66725 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,00026 3 50,000 3 50,000 3 50,000

Total 80 1333,333 86 1433,333 83 1383,333average 3,077 51,282 3,308 55,128 3,192 53,205

122

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS' CREATIVE ...

Documents

Transcript of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS' CREATIVE ...