See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342734356

A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON THE LEVEL OF CREATIVITY AMONG CHEMISTRY

STUDENTS IN DISTRICT OF MELAKA TENGAH

Article · June 2020

DOI: 10.31838/jcr.07.16.88

CITATIONS READS

2 836

2 authors:

Siti Jamal Nor Hasniza Ibrahim

UTM Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
7 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS 138 PUBLICATIONS 657 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Perbandingan Kurikulum Sains Masa Kini dan Tamadun Islam View project

Integrated STEM Education in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Siti Jamal on 07 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON THE LEVEL OF

CREATIVITY AMONG CHEMISTRY STUDENTS IN
DISTRICT OF MELAKA TENGAH
Siti Najihah Binti Jamal1, Nor Hasniza Binti Ibrahim2, Noor Dayana Binti Abd Halim3, Muhammad
Ikram Bin Alias4
1
Department of Science, Mathematics and Creative Multimedia Education, Faculty of Social Science and
Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru,
[email protected].
2
Department of Science, Mathematics and Creative Multimedia Education, Faculty of Social Science and
Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru,
[email protected]
3
Department of Science, Mathematics and Creative Multimedia Education, Faculty of Social Science and
Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru.
[email protected].
4
Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai,
Johor Bahru., [email protected].
Corresponding author Email: [email protected]

Received: 18 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 19 June 2020

ABSTRACT: Nowadays, 21st-century education emphasizes creative thinking skills among students all over the
world. Creativity is not only limited to art education but can also apply to STEM education inclusive of Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics to solve the real-world problems. However, there are still few
studies in Malaysia that focused on creativity in secondary school. The purpose of this study is to identify the
level of students’ creativity based on four creativity domains including fluency, flexibility, originality and
elaboration. The research used survey design involving 54 students that underwent Chemistry subject in Melaka
Tengah district as the sample. This study used an open-ended question consisting of a Chemistry Creativity Test
to collect data. The data were analyzed using a quantitative and qualitative approach. The study found that
overall levels of chemistry students’ creativity were at the lowest. The result also reported the majority of
chemistry students were unable to solve the real-world problem in many ways, lacking in producing a lot of
ideas, the ideas were less originality and lack of idea elaborations. The implication of this study is to provide
awareness of teachers to improve the student’ creative thinking through effective teaching and learning strategy.

KEYWORDS: (Creativity Level; Elaboration; Flexibility; Fluency; Originality)

I. INTRODUCTION

From the beginning, creative thinking skills among students are indeed very important in Science and
Mathematics education which is now very strongly introduced in STEM education. It aims to help improve
students' ability, for example, their skills and attitudes to solve real-world problems and deepen their
understanding by applying knowledge disciplines from various fields (Phon, Danakorn Nincarean Eh; Ali,
Mohamad Bilal; Halim, 2015; Torlakson, 2014). Students are required to think critically and creatively to meet
the goals of Malaysian Education Blueprint (2013-2025) and to fulfil future workplace needs (Ministry of
Education Malaysia (MoE), 2015). Besides, students need to emphasize their thinking skills in solving problems
because students' achievements in TIMMS and PISA among Malaysia students were found below-average level
(Ali et al., 2015). However, according to (Neo & Neo, 2013) and (Mourtos, 2010), most students in European,
Western, Eastern and Asian countries, in particular, Malaysia are still unable to demonstrate creative open-
ended questions. This is because it requires the students to think creatively about the aspects of fluency,
flexibility, originality and elaboration to solve creative open-ended questions that provide a variety of methods
or solutions to problems (Overton, Potter, & Leng, 2013). Therefore, the Ministry of Education Malaysia
(MOE) recommends that the elements of creativity can be applied in all subjects especially in science and
mathematics so that students can solve more complex problems (Mohamad Hasim & Rosli, 2013). In such a
way that it is also aligned with the objective of STEM education provided in Malaysian Education Blueprint
(2013-2025) (Siti et al., 2017).

752
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

Recognizing that creativity plays a very important role in the educational orientation of the world, identifying
student creativity levels is needed to help teachers and schools to plan learning more effectively and stimulate
students' talent and potential more creatively (Mohamad Hasim & Rosli, 2013). However, according to Newton
& Newton (2010), creativity in schools is often associated with subjects such as art or literature but rarely
associated with science or mathematics subjects. Many previous studies have shown that students' creative
thinking skills scores are still at a weak and moderate level in science (Usta & Akkanat, 2015; Wahyu, Kurnia,
& Eli, 2016; Omar, Harun, Halim, Surif, & Muhammad, 2017). Furthermore, there are still few studies in
Malaysia that focus on creativity in secondary school (Mohamad Hasim & Rosli, 2013), especially in chemistry.
The study focused on four components of creativity such as fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration, yet
there are still a lot of studies that need to be carried out (Mohamad Hasim & Rosli, 2013). Thus, this study is
conducted to identify the level of creativity of chemistry students at two secondary schools in Melaka Tengah by
focusing on each domain of creativity.

II.. Literature Review

Creativity is one of the key skills needed to drive a nation's development, especially in the increasingly complex
social environment (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; James, 2015). The ability to think creatively and to act
creatively is becoming increasingly important in today's generation. The next generation is expected to apply
what they had learned more creatively to ensure that they can maintain productivity and adapt to an increasingly
challenging world (Ott & Pozzi, 2010). Creativity has also become a major focus of the nation in educational
development especially in the field of science (Chelang, 2014). Creativity is often seen as an element
contributing to the subject of art, literature and aesthetics but lately, creativity has also been valued in fields
such as science, technology and mathematics (Nadjafikhah, Yaftian, & Bakhshalizadeh, 2012).
Creativity is often associated with cognitive processes (Runco and Chand, 1995), critical thinking, personality
factors (Alacapinar, 2013), motivation (Steele, McIntosh, & Higgs, 2017) and achievement (Zhang, Ren, &
Deng, 2018). The definition of creativity is based on the study in explaining the creative purpose (Tomasevic &
Trivic, 2014). Torrance (1966) who is the “Father of Creativity” said that creativity is a process of detecting
difficulties, gaps in information and incomplete elements, making assumptions, formulating hypotheses,
reviewing and re-test and communicating the results. Although there is no general agreement on the meaning of
creativity, most definitions have the same emphasis (Chan, Chinese, & Kong, 2011). Torrance (1974) has issued
one indicator of creative thinking in general. According to him, a person who has creative thinking should
master at least four characteristics such as fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. According to
Torrance (1990), the meaning of fluency is the number of ideas produced. Flexibility means the number of
category or method ideas produced. Originality is considered as the unique or rare ideas that are produced by
students. Elaboration is when students can elaborate more ideas from the original question.
Based on previous STEM studies, there have been several studies to assess the level of creativity by using the
Torrance Creative Thinking Test (TTCT) that were adopted and adapted by past researchers. The level of study
is based on four domains of creativity namely fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. However, the
studies of (Nurdyani, Slamet, & Sujadi, 2018; Risnawati, Amir, Lubis, & Syafri, 2018; Saadah, Hobri, & Irvan,
2019) revealed that the level of students' creative thinking was still low. In another study, Sihaloho, Sahyar, &
Ginting (2017) found that the students fall in the moderate level of creativity. That study and previous studies
have also reported differences in levels of creativity based on the components of creativity such as fluency,
flexibility, originality and elaboration. The findings indicated that students scored the highest level of creativity
in the flexibility domain and the lowest in the originality domain (Sihaloho et al., 2017). Meanwhile, the domain
of fluency and elaboration were moderately scored (Sihaloho et al., 2017). A study by Wartono, Diantoro, &
Bartlolona (2018) that examined the level of creativity among the less creative students, quite creative students,
creative students and very creative students found the majority of the students were generally inadequate in
flexibility, except for the very creative students who were found inadequate in originality. These results were
similar to the study of (Ratnaningsih, 2017). On the other hand, Nurdin & Setiawan (2016) stated that the
students scored moderately for each creative thinking skills indicator respectively for fluency and flexibility.
Meanwhile, students scored lower than moderate for originality and elaboration. Although many studies had
been conducted on students' creativity in STEM fields, especially physics and mathematics, only a few studies
focused on students' creativity in chemistry (Eny, Momo, & Wahyu, 2018; R. B. Rudibyani, 2019; Ratnasari,
Supriyanti, & Rosbiono, 2017; W. Wahyu, Kurnia, & Syaadah, 2018; Wawan Wahyu et al., 2016). It is
undeniable that all studies are important but some studies need to be emphasized, such as the study on the
element of creativity in science and students' capability in scientific processing (Shahlan, Kummin, & Ramli,
2017). Therefore, in this study, there is a need to determine the level of creativity of chemistry students in four
domains of creativity inclusive of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration without neglecting the
application of scientific process skills and scientific products.

753
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

III. METHODOLOGY/MATERIALS

This study is a quantitative study in the form of surveys. In this study, students' creativity level was measured
using a questionnaire called the Chemistry Creativity Test (CCT) adapted and adopted from the studies of (Hu
& Adey, 2002; Orozco & Yangco, 2016). According to Chua Yan Piaw (2014), appropriate survey studies are
used if the researcher wants fast data and the results can be generalized. Subtopics 3.1 and 3.2 discuss sampling
and research instruments.

3.1 Sampling
The population of this study is the students of chemistry sciences from two regular daily secondary schools in
Melaka Tengah. Given that the school had a total of 54 chemistry science students at the school, all of them
were directly involved in responding to the contents of the questionnaire distributed. There were 54 sets of
questionnaires that were answered and returned for analysis.

3.2 Instrument
Data collection is through an open-ended questionnaire called the Chemistry Creativity Test (CCT). Students
have 30 minutes to answer this written test question. This CCT question consists of two parts. The first section
deals with the demographic information of the respondents. The second section includes the information on the
student's creativity level questions about acid and base topic. This is due to the difficulty of students to
understand and learn the acid-base compared to other Chemistry topics (Akani, 2017). The student creativity
level questionnaire is based on the domain of creativity to be measured as Table 1 below.

Table 1: Distribution Item of Chemistry Creativity Test (CCT)

No. Item Characteristic Implementation Creativity

Item of Hu dan Adey (2002) Domain or
Trait to be
Measure
1. Aqilah wants to investigate the need for Scientific Process: Thinking. Fluency
water for ammonia to show its basic Scientific Product: Science
properties. Write down as many Knowledge.
hypotheses as Aqilah can build on the
activity of the investigation. The first test item measures the
domain of creativity in fluency
through the training of students'
creative thinking to demonstrate
their scientific knowledge.
2. Asmina wants to provide a standard 1.0 Scientific Process: Thinking and Flexibility
dm3 solution of 0.50 mol dm-3 potassium Imagination. and
hydroxide solution. But he didn't know Scientific Product: Science Elaboration.
what method to use to provide the standard Problem.
solution. State and describe as many steps
as you can take to provide the standard The second test item measures the
solution. domain of flexibility and
elaboration domain through the
training of creative thinking and
student imagination to elaborate on
their science problem-solving
skills.
3. Draw and design as many innovations or Scientific Process: Thinking and Originality
improvements to existing pH meters in Imagination.
schools to make it look more interesting. Scientific Product: Product
technical.

The third test item measures the

domain of originality through the
practice of creative thinking and
student imagination to demonstrate
students' ability to produce unique
pH meter products.

754
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

3.3 Measurement
Scoring for items in section A is determined by frequency and percentage. Meanwhile, scoring for items in
section B is determined based on the scoring criteria set by (Torrance, 2006) as shown in Table 2. Each item in
this section is given a maximum of four marks. The items in this section consist of three items. Therefore,
respondents with a very good level of creativity will achieve a maximum of 16 marks.

Table 2: Scoring Items Based on Fluency, Flexibility, Originality and Elaboration

Creativity Score Description

Domain
Fluency 0 Students cannot provide ideas/answers.
2 Students can come up with one to two ideas/answers.
4 Students can come up with three or more ideas/answers.
Flexibility 0 Students are not able to provide ideas/methods.
2 Students can come up with one to two ideas/methods.
4 Students can come up with three or more ideas/methods.
Originality 0 Students do not answer / general ideas / common ideas and
no originality.
2 Students come up with moderate unique ideas.
4 Students come up with very unique ideas.
Elaboration 0 There is no addition of ideas from students.
2 A simple addition of ideas from students.
4 Extraordinary ideas from students.

Table 3: The Level of Creativity Based on Three Categories

Marks The Level of Creativity

68 - 100 Very Creative (High Level)
34 - 67 Moderate Creative (Moderate Level)
0 - 33 Less Creative (Low Level)
Table 3 shows the meaning of median scores to determine the level of creativity among the chemistry students
based on (Abu Kasim, 2012; Kumari, Pujar, & Naganur, 2014). The score of 0 to 33 shows the lowest level of
creativity. The scores of 34 to 67 indicate a moderate level of creativity. Whereas, the score of 68 to 100 shows
the highest level of creativity. The data was analyzed by using frequency, percentage and median due to the
ordinal data obtained.

IV. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

In this section, the researcher analyzed the data into two parts: the demographic data and the level of creativity
data.

4.1 Part A: Demographic

In this section, there are two main categories related to respondents' background: gender and race. Table 4
shows the distribution of respondents (student) data by category.

Table 4: The Distribution of Respondents by Category

Category Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Gender Male 19 35.2
Female 35 64.8
Total 54 100
Race Malay 53 98.1
Chinese 0 0.0
Indian 0 0.0
Others 1 1.9
Total 54 100

Based on Table 4, the total respondents involved in this questionnaire were 54 students. Majority of the students
involved in this study were 64.8% female students, 35 of them. Meanwhile, only 35.2% of the participants (19)

755
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

were male students. The nationality ratio shows that most respondents were Malay students who represent
98.1% (53 students) and followed by students of other nationality, representing 1.9%, with no direct
involvement from Chinese and Indian students.

4.2 Part A: The Level of Creativity

Table 5 shows the results of a study on the Chemistry Creativity Test that was answered by 54 chemistry
students based on the students' grade level of creativity rating system by (Abu Kasim, 2012; Kumari et al.,
2014). The table is aiming to show the level of creativity among chemistry students in acid-base topics.

Table 5: Results of The Study for The Overall Level of Student Creativity

The Level of Creativity Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

(Marks Score)
Very Creative (High Level) 0 0
(68 – 100)
Moderate Creative (Moderate 25 46.3
Level)
(34 – 67)
Less Creative (Low Level) 29 53.7
(0 – 33)
Number of Students and 54 100
Percentage of Students
Mean Base / Median Value 26.9
Overall Creativity Level Less Creative (Low Level)

Based on the descriptive analysis through SPSS in Table 5 above, the data indicated that the overall level of
creativity of 54 fifth-grade chemistry students is at a less creative or a low level of creativity. This level of
student creativity is based on the median value obtained. According to (Talib, 2015), if there is an extreme score
in the data set it is better to use the median value than the mean value. This is because the mean value does not
accurately represent the individual pattern of the score in the dataset. Extreme scores are scores that are too big
or too small. Such a score would cause the mean score of the study data to deviate far from the normal scores.
To avoid this problem, medians not affected by extreme scores were used (Manikandan, 2011; McCluskey &
Lalkhen, 2007; Yan Piaw, 2014). Therefore, researchers refer to the median value of the student's creativity
level.

Besides, the finding also indicated that the majority of 29 students (53.9%) had low levels of creativity. A small
number of 25 students (46.3%) had a moderate level of creativity. Further discussion of the results of the
detailed study of each creativity domain on fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Results of The Study on Each of Creativity Domain

The Level of Creativity Domain

Creativity (Frequency, f)
(Marks Score) (Percentage, %)
Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration
Very Creative 0 0 0 0
(High Level)
(68 – 100)
Moderate 35 28 19 11
Creative (64.8) (51.9) (35.2) (20.4)
(Moderate Level)
(34 – 67)
Less Creative 19 26 35 43
(Low Level) (35.2) (48.1) (64.8) (79.6)
(0 – 33)
Total Number of 54
Students
Mean Base / 24.3 30.9 23.3 27.5
Median Value

756
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

Creativity Level Low Low Low Low

Referring to the descriptive data through SPSS in Table 6, overall, the creativity level of chemistry students on
fluency domain is at a low level. This can be identified by the median value obtained. The results of the analysis
also show that no student has succeeded at such a high level of creativity. A minority of 19 students (35.2%) had
low levels of creativity in the domain of fluency. However, 35 students (64.8%) still achieved a moderate level
of creativity. Through qualitative analysis, students cannot come up with many ideas or get full marks because
the majority, 35 out 54 of students produced only one and two ideas. Followed by 12 of the students can
produce one and two ideas but the answers were not in line with the questions and misunderstood the concept of
acid. Lastly, only 7 of the students did not provide any answers. Table 7 below has shown the example of some
respondents' answers that produced one and two ideas with the correct answer for fluency dimension.

Table 7: The Example of Respondents’ Answer

Respondent The Number of The Respondents’ Answer

(R) Ideas Produced
R1 1 Ammonia needs water to show their base characteristic.
R7 2 The properties of ammonia can be demonstrated by increasing the quantity of
water.
The higher the quantity of water, the higher the amount of ammonia shows the
properties of the base.
R11 1 Ammonia shows its alkaline properties especially with the presence of water.

Meanwhile, Table 8 below shows the example of some respondents’ answers that produced one or two ideas but
the answers are wrong because of the wrong science concept for fluency dimension.

Table 8: The Example of Respondents’ Answer

Respondent The Number of The Respondents’ Answer

(R) Ideas Produced
R4 1 If the acid reacts then it has a presence of water.
R16 2 Ammonia ionizing was partially complete in the water.
The presence of water with hydroxide ions gives low pH to ammonia.
R17 2 Ammonia has a low concentration of hydroxide ions as it is a weak alkali.
Ammonia has a low pH value.

Furthermore, the overall level of creativity for the chemistry student in the flexibility domain is at a low level. In
detail, 26 students (48.1%) still lack creative thinking skills. Followed by 28 students (51.9%) with moderate
creative thinking skills. Most of the 26 students were less creative or low level in the flexibility domain. Based
on qualitative analysis, this is because 24 students (44.44 %) suggested only one or two answer methods instead
of providing a variety of solution path answers. In other hands, 11 students can produce one or two methods'
ideas but the answer is wrong. 15 students (27.78 %) did not produce any answers. However, only four students
(7.40 %) can produce more than three methods of ideas and science concepts correctly. It revealed that the four
students are very creative in the domain of flexibility. Table 9 below has shown the example of some
respondents' answers that produced more than three methods' ideas with correct answers for the flexibility
dimension.

Table 9: The Example of Respondents’ Answer

Respondent The Number of The Respondents’ Answer
(R) Ideas Produced
R41 3 By using the weighing method.
Calculate the required mass.
Dissolve the materials in a little water.
R43 3 Prepare a potassium hydroxide solution.
Calculate the mass of potassium hydroxide solution.
The solute is dissolved in some distilled water in a beaker.
R44 3 The mass of potassium hydroxide solution needs to be calculated and weighed.
The solution of potassium hydroxide was dissolved in a little distilled water in a
beaker.

757
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

The solution was transferred into a volumetric flask.

R52 4 The mass of solute needed is calculated and weighed.
The solute is dissolved in some distilled water in a beaker.
The solution is transferred into a volumetric flask.
More distilled water is added to obtain the required volume. The flask is stopped and
shaken.

Table 10 below has shown the example of some respondents' answers that produced one or two methods' ideas
with the correct answer for the flexibility dimension.

Table 10: The Example of Respondents’ Answer

Respondent The Number of The Respondents’ Answer
(R) Ideas Produced
R3 1 The mass of potassium hydroxide is calculated and weighed.
R4 2 The mass of potassium hydroxide is calculated and weighed.
The solute is dissolved in some distilled water in a beaker.

In addition, for the originality domain, the results show that the students' overall level of creativity is at a low
level based on the median values obtained. This is because no student can achieve a high level of creativity in
the originality domain. Most of the students (35 students, 64.8%) were at the low level of creativity and 19
students (35.2%) were still able to come up with a genuine idea at a moderate level of creativity. Based on
qualitative analysis, 31 students (57.42 %) were not able to come up with the original idea because they were
simply generating ideas and there was no originality to transform the pH meter into a more attractive and
innovative design. Meanwhile, 20 students (37.03 %) achieved moderate creativity as they provided unique pH
meter design drawings. However, only three students (5.55 %) are more creative than other students because the
ideas have originality. The drawing answer of the very creative student in the originality dimension can be seen
in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Drawing Answer of Very Creative Students

Meanwhile, the descriptive analysis found that the level of creativity of the elaboration domain of students is at
a low level. Nearly half of the students (43 students, 79.6%) failed to properly articulate the ideas and a few
students (11 students, 20.4%) were able to demonstrate that they had a moderate level of creativity in the
domain of elaboration. According to qualitative analysis, 24 students (44.44 %) failed to provide answers for
elaboration dimension. Only seven students (12.96 %) can correctly describe the solving problem method.
Meanwhile, around 22 students who succeeded to give ideas but failed to articulate the answer simply because
they stated the solution method without explaining it. However, only one student has revealed that she is very
creative in the elaboration dimension based on Table 11 below.

758
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

Table 11: The Example of Respondents’ Answer

Respondent The Number of The Respondents’ Answer

(R) Ideas Produced
R51 3 Prepare the substance and materials such as beaker, solid potassium hydroxide and
digital weighing. Calculate the mass of KOH required. Put that beaker on digital
weighing. Then, pour the solid potassium hydroxide into the beaker. After that, read
the reading on the scales stated at digital weighing.

V. CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, this study reported the results of the descriptive demographic of the respondents and the level
of creativity namely fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration among chemistry students in the district of
Melaka Tengah. The sample of the respondents come from 54 secondary school students who are taking
chemistry. The main goal of this study is to determine the level of creativity in each creativity domain including
fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration among chemistry students using Chemistry Creativity Test
(CCT). The overall results of the study indicated that most of the chemistry students are at a low level of
creativity which means that they are less creative in solving real-world problems. In detail, many students lack
fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration dimension. This is a result of them being unable to provide more
ideas, unable to give the different ways of answers, the answers also less originality and they have no ideas to
elaborate more from the answers given. On the other hand, the majority of them just provided one and two ideas
or answers, the answers given by them are wrong because of the wrong science concept and they also did not
answer the question at all. However, based on the findings, the researcher recommends a module placing more
emphasis on scientific creativity in chemistry subject integrating others fields such as STEM, to implement
effective learning strategies such as problem-based learning that enhance each domain of creativity in chemistry
subject and training the school teachers on how to teach creativity in chemistry subject. Those suggestions are
relevant because nowadays, students seek for student-centred approaches compared to teacher-centred
instruction (Jamal, Ibrahim, & Surif, 2019). Furthermore, the researcher also recommends conducting more in-
depth research on the creative thinking process among students. Therefore, we can understand more on the
cognitive process in students' minds and perhaps can improve the students' creative thinking on fluency,
flexibility, originality and elaboration dimension.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for financial funding. This research work is
supported by the Project Q.J130000.2453.09G35 supported by UTM Grant Vote.

VII. REFERENCES

[1] Abu Kasim, R. (2012). Tahap Kreativiti Dan Pencapaian Penyelesaian Masalah Fizik Pelajar Tingkatan
Empat di Daerah Johor Bahru. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
[2] Akani, O. (2017). Identification of the Areas of Students Difficulties in Chemistry Curriculum at the
Secondary School Level. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology, 04(04),
5071–5077. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijetst/v4i4.04
[3] Alacapinar, F. G. (2013). Grade Level and Creativity. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, (50),
247–266.
[4] Ali, M., Ibrahim, N. H., Abdullah, A. H., Surif, J., Abdul Talib, C., & Saim, N. (2015). Web Pro-Mc
Physics as a support tool for improving physics problem-solving skills. 2015 Game Physics and
Mechanics International Conference, GAMEPEC 2015 - Proceeding, 26–30.
https://doi.org/10.1109/GAMEPEC.2015.7331851
[5] Chan, D., Chinese, T., & Kong, H. (2011). The Elements of Creativity and Giftedness in Mathematics.
The Elements of Creativity and Giftedness in Mathematics.
https://doi.org/file:///C:/Users/ACER/Desktop/Artikel/Artikel Kreativiti/new3/the-elements-of-
creativity-and-giftedness-in-mathematics-2011.pdf
[6] Chelang, C. (2014). Effects of practical investigation on scientific creativity amongst secondary school
biology students in Kericho district, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practise, 5(8), 43–51.
[7] Chua Yan Piaw. (2014). Kaedah Penyelidikan. (chua yan piaw, Ed.) (edisi keti). Shah Alam: McGraw-
Hill Education (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

759
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

[8] Eny, F., Momo, R., & Wahyu, S. (2018). Skill Analysis of Students’ Creative Thinking in
Implementation of Problem Based Learning with Plastic Waste Handling Context. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1108(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012051
[9] Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity (2010 Annual Review of Psychology). In
Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 569–598).
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
[10] Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A Scientific Creativity Test Scale (SCTS) Instruction (Vol. 24).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
[11] Jamal, S. N. B., Ibrahim, N. H. B., & Surif, J. Bin. (2019). Concept cartoon in problem-based learning:
A systematic literature review analysis. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(1), 51–58.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.542
[12] James, M. A. (2015). Managing the Classroom for Creativity. Creative Education, 06(10), 1032–1043.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.610102
[13] Kumari, P., Pujar, L., & Naganur, S. (2014). Creative Thinking Ability among High School Children.
IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(1), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-19143032
[14] Manikandan, S. (2011). Measures of central tendency: Median and mode. Journal of Pharmacology and
Pharmacotherapeutics, 2(3), 214–215. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.83300
[15] McCluskey, A., & Lalkhen, A. G. (2007). Statistics II: Central tendency and spread of data. Continuing
Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, 7(4), 127–130.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkm020
[16] Ministry of Education Malaysia (MoE). (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher
Education). Ministry of Education Malaysia (Vol. 2025). https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijis.20120206.05
[17] Mohamad Hasim, S., & Rosli, R. (2013). Tahap kreativiti pelajar tingkatan empat aliran sains di daerah
kuala langat.
[18] Mourtos, N. J. (2010). Challenges Students Face in Solving Open-Ended Problems. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 846–859.
[19] Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: Some definitions
and characteristics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(2011), 285–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.056
[20] Neo, M., & Neo, T. K. (2013). Exploring Students’ Creativity and Design Skills Through A
Multimedia Project: A Constructivist Approach in A Malaysian Classroom. Design and Technology
Education: An International Journal, 18(3), 48–59.
[21] Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2010). What teachers see as creative incidents in elementary science
lessons. International Journal of Science Education (Vol. 32).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903233249
[22] Nurdin, S., & Setiawan, W. (2016). Improving Students’ Cognitive Abilities and Creative Thinking
Skills on Temperature And Heat Concepts Through An Exelearning-Assisted Problem Based Learning.
International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 5(12), 59–63.
[23] Nurdyani, F., Slamet, I., & Sujadi, I. (2018). Creative thinking level of students with high capability in
relations and functions by problem- based learning Creative thinking level of students with high
capability in relations and functions by problem-based learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
983, 1–6.
[24] Omar, S. S., Harun, J., Halim, N. D. A., Surif, J., & Muhammad, S. (2017). Investigating the Level of
Scientific Creativity of Science Students. Advanced Science Letters, 23(9), 8247–8250.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9870
[25] Orozco, J. A., & Yangco, R. T. (2016). Problem-Based Learning: Effects on Critical and Creative
Thinking Skills in Biology. Asian Journal of Biology Education, 9, 1–10.
[26] Ott, M., & Pozzi, F. (2010). Towards a model to evaluate creativity-oriented learning activities.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3532–3536.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.547
[27] Overton, T., Potter, N., & Leng, C. (2013). A study of approaches to solving open-ended problems in
chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 468–475.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00028a
[28] Phon, Danakorn Nincarean Eh; Ali, Mohamad Bilal; Halim, N. D. A. (2015). Learning with
Augmented Reality: Effects Toward Student with Different Spatial Abilities. Advanced Science
Letters, 21(7), 2200–2204. https://doi.org/doi-org.ezproxy.utm.my/10.1166/asl.2015.6307
[29] R. B. Rudibyani. (2019). Improving students’ creative thinking ability through problem-based learning
models on stoichiometric materials. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1155, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012049
[30] Ratnaningsih, N. (2017). The analysis of mathematics creative thinking skils and self-efficacy of high

760
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 16, 2020

students built through implementation of problem-based learning and discovery learning. Jurnul
Pendidikan Matematik Indonesia, 2(2), 42–45.
[31] Ratnasari, D., Supriyanti, T., & Rosbiono, M. (2017). Vocational High School Students’ Creativity in
Food Additives with Problem Based Learning Approach Vocational High School Students’ Creativity
in Food Additives with Problem Based Learning Approach. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895.
[32] Risnawati, Amir, Z., Lubis, M. S., & Syafri, M. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning model
(PBL) towards creative thinking ability and self-efficacy of junior high school students. Journal of
Physics, 1116, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1116/2/022039
[33] Saadah, L. Z. K., Hobri, & Irvan, M. (2019). The application of problem-based learning (PBL) based
on lesson study for learning community (LSLC) to improve students’ creative thinking skill. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 243(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/243/1/012141
[34] Shahlan, S., Kummin, S., & Ramli, S. (2017). Kreativiti Sains, Kemahiran Proses Sains Dan
Pencapaian Akademik Pelajar Sekolah Menengah. Seminar Serantau, (Torrance 1979), 896–903.
Retrieved from https://seminarserantau2017.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/102-shahlan-s.pdf
[35] Sihaloho, R. R., Sahyar, S., & Ginting, E. M. (2017). The Effect of Problem Based Learning (PBL)
Model toward Student’s Creative Thinking and Problem-Solving Ability in Senior High School. IOSR
Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME), 07(04), 11–18.
https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0704011118
[36] Siti, N. J., Norhasniza, I., Johari, S., Nornazira, S., Abdul, H. A., & Nurul, F. J. (2017). Understanding
of stem education among chemistry teachers in district of Melaka Tengah. Man in India, 97(12), 101–
108.
[37] Steele, L. M., McIntosh, T., & Higgs, C. (2017). Intrinsic motivation and creativity: Opening up a
black box. In Handbook of Research on Leadership and Creativity (pp. 100–130).
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715465.00013
[38] Talib, O. (2015). SPSS: Analisis data kuantitatif untuk penyelidik muda (4th Ed.). Kajang: MPWS Rich
Publication Sdn Bhd.
[39] Tomasevic, B., & Trivic, D. (2014). Creativity in teaching chemistry: how much support does the
curriculum provide? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00116D
[40] Torlakson, T. (2014). Innovate A Blueprint for STEM Education - Science (CA Dept of Education).
Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.
[41] Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking– Norms: Technical Manual Research
Edition—Verbal Tests, Forms A and B— Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Personnel Press.
[42] Torrance, E. P. (1974). The torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual research
edition – Verbal tests, form A and B, - figural tests, form A and B. Personnel Press.
[43] Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Figural and Verbal A. Benseville:
Scholastic Testing Service.
[44] Torrance, E. P. (2006). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Ben-senville: Scholastic Testing Service.
[45] Usta, E., & Akkanat, C. (2015). Investigating Scientific Creativity Level of Seventh Grade Students.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1408–1415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.643
[46] Wahyu, W., Kurnia, & Syaadah, R. S. (2018). Implementation of problem-based learning (PBL)
approach to improve student’s academic achievement and creativity on the topic of electrolyte and non-
electrolyte solutions at vocational school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012096
[47] Wahyu, Wawan, Kurnia, & Eli, R. N. (2016). purification Using Problem-based Learning to Improve
Students’ Creative Thinking Skills on Water Purification. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1708(2016), 1–
4. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4941158
[48] Wartono, Diantoro, M., & Bartlolona, J. R. (2018). Influence of problem-based learning model on
student creative thinking on elasticity topics a material. Jurnul Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 14(1), 32–
39. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v14i1.10654
[49] Yan Piaw, C. (2014). Kaedah dan Statistik Penyelidikan: Kaedah Penyelidikan (3rd Ed.). Shah Alam:
McGraw-Hill Education (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
[50] Zhang, W., Ren, P., & Deng, L. (2018). Gender Differences in the Creativity–Academic Achievement
Relationship: A Study from China. Journal of Creative Behavior, 0(1976), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.387

761

View publication stats