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
Standard score= x 100%
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
Standard score= x 100%
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:
Standard score= x 100%
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
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
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
Std. Error of Mean 1.315
Median 51.67
Mode 53
Std. Deviation 6.703
Variance 44.927
Skewness -.719
Std. Error of Skewness .456
Kurtosis -.649
Std. Error of Kurtosis .887
Range 22
Minimum 37
Maximum 58
Sum 1282
Percentiles 25 44.58
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
Std. Error of Mean 3.960
Median 75.00
Mode 88
Std. Deviation 20.193
Variance 407.752
Skewness -.916
Std. Error of Skewness .456
Kurtosis -.435
Std. Error of Kurtosis .887
Range 56
Minimum 31
Maximum 88
Sum 1794
Percentiles 25 56.25
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
Std. Error of Mean 1.264
Median 53.25
Mode 50a
Std. Deviation 6.443
Variance 41.518
Skewness -.553
Std. Error of Skewness .456
Kurtosis -.223
Std. Error of Kurtosis .887
Range 24
Minimum 39
Maximum 63
Sum 1390
Percentiles 25 50.25
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
Based on Table 4.13 represented above, the central tendency distribution
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
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
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
Table 4.14 above reveals that F-test value obtained is 27.983 with level of
significance or p-value at 0.000. Because the p-value is lower than 99% level of
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
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
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
Std. Error of Mean 2.653
Median 50.00
Mode 50
Std. Deviation 13.528
Variance 183.012
Skewness .663
Std. Error of Skewness .456
Kurtosis .226
Std. Error of Kurtosis .887
Range 50
Minimum 33
Maximum 83
Sum 1375
Percentiles 25 41.67
50 50.00
75 60.42
Based on Table 4.17 represented above, the central tendency distribution
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
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
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
Table 4.19 above reveals that F-test value obtained is 15.202 with level of
significance or p-value at 0.001. Because the p-value is lower than 99% level of
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**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 26 26
Final_Score_CT Pearson Correlation .623** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 26 26
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
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
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: 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
creative thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill.
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.
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
Response KeyAlternatives
Item no. 9
Response KeyAlternatives
Item no. 16
Response KeyAlternatives
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
Response KeyAlternatives
Ʃx upper group
Item no. 10
Response KeyAlternatives
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 KeyAlternatives
Response KeyAlternatives
Response
Item no. 30
Response KeyAlternatives
Response KeyAlternativesAlternatives
Response KeyAlternatives
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
ƩxTotal of participants
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
ƩxTotal of participants
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
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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
Top Related