RESULTS

4.1       Introduction

This chapter will briefly summarize the statistical findings of the study in the form of tables and graphs. The descriptive statistics for the first stage of study will be presented in Table 9 and Figure 11. The analysis of the independence variables between the three personality traits of the Big Five personality dimensions and creative styles will be explained in Table 10. The analysis of correlations between facets traits of KAI and the three personality traits investigated will be presented in Table 11. Table 12 will provide a summary of the findings of the first stage of study.

For the second stage of study, Table 13 and Figure 12 will provide the descriptive statistics. Table 14 will provide the analysis of the independence variables between the three personality traits and creative styles. The analysis of correlations between facets traits of the KAI and the three personality traits investigated will be presented in Table 15. Finally, this chapter will also present the findings of the qualitative data on the issues of creativity.

4.2       First Stage Study - Descriptive Statistics

Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations and Reliabilities of the KAI and IPIP Scales – First Stage (1^st Group of ML teachers)

Scales (no. of items)	Mean	S.D.	Reliabilities
KAI Sufficiency of Originality ( 13) Rule/ Group Conformity ( 12) Efficiency ( 7 )	40.6452 40.5484 26.2258	6.45264 5.56680 4.16101	0.7955 0.7871 0.7879
IPIP Extraversion (4) Agreeableness (4) Conscientiousness (4)	14.3226 14.2258 15.5806	2.91418 3.14865 3.47154	0.6790 0.7527 0.7618

From Table 9, we are able to analyze the means, standard deviation and reliabilities of variables. There was a relatively bigger mean value for conscientious and a slightly smaller mean value for Extraversion and Agreeableness in our sample. Except for Extraversion which reported Cronbach alpha 0.6790, all the other scales reported internal reliabilities greater than the recommended limit of 0.7 set by Nullally (1978). Hence, there was high internal consistency in the responses of the participants. Nevertheless, results concerning Extraversion have to be analyzed with caution.

Fig. 11: First Stage Study - Distribution of KAI scores in our Sample of Singapore Malay Language Teachers

Figure 11 reports the mean, standard deviation and distribution of KAI scores for our samples of ML teachers in Singapore. It shows that the KAI scores follow normal distribution.

Based on Kirton’s practice, adaptors and innovators were defined as individuals who scored more than one standard deviation above or below the mean. As the KAI group mean for this sample of Malay Language teachers was 106.4 and the standard deviation was 11.65, and as the KAI scores were calculated such that the higher the overall score the more it reflects an adaption-oriented style, this meant that individuals who scored more that 118.05 were called adaptors, and those scoring below 94.75 were called innovators. There were six innovators and four adaptors in the sample.

4.3       First Stage Study - Personality Differences between Adaptors and

Innovators

            Table 10 shows the mean scores of adaptor- and innovator-teachers with respect to Big Five personality dimensions. We will now examine the statistical significance (p ≤0.05 ) of these differences and how they relate to the hypotheses stated in chapter 2 using t-test for independent groups.

Table 10: First Stage Study - t-test for independent samples of innovators and adaptors (1^st Group of ML teachers)

Big Five Dimension	Means Score		t-value	df	P
	Innovators	Adaptors
Suff	31.6667	47.0000	-8.442	8	0.000
Effic	21.5000	32.0000	-8.774	8	0.000
Grule	38.8333	44.2500	-10.885	8	0.000
Extraversion	16.8333	9.7500	10.026	8	0.000
Agreeableness	12.3333	14.5009	-0.819	8	0.436
Conscientiousness	10.3333	17.7500	-13.176	8	0.000

*significance at p≤0.05 (2-tailed)

Hypothesis 1 states that Innovators would be significantly more Extraverted than adaptors. This is supported as t-test showed that innovator-teachers (M=16.8333) scored higher than the adaptors teachers (M=9.7500) in terms of Extraversion (t = 10.026, p<0.05).

Hypothesis 2 states that neither adaptors nor innovators would be significantly more or less agreeable than other. This hypothesis is supported as Table 10 shows that the difference in mean scores between adaptor-teachers and innovator-teachers in terms of “agreeableness” is slight and statistically non-significant (t = - 0.819, p>0.05).

Hypothesis 3 states that Adaptors would be significantly more conscientious than innovators. This hypothesis is supported by the results of the findings in Table 10. Table 10 shows that there is a significant difference between adaptor- teachers and innovator-teachers on this aspect (t = -13.176, p<0.05) with the adaptors reporting higher levels of conscientiousness.

To summarize, although mean differences between adaptors and innovators were noted on the three personality traits subscales, these differences were significant (p<0.05) for Extraversion and Conscientiousness.  The adaptors showed more conscientiousness whilst the innovators showed more Extraversion. However, there was no significant difference between innovators and adaptors in term of Agreeableness. The findings provide empirical support for the relationship between personality traits investigated in the study and creative style put forward in hypothesis 1 to 3 of Chapter 3. These findings would be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

4.4       First Stage Study - Relationship between Creative Style Preferences

and Personality Traits

            Next, we will investigate the relationship between personality traits and aspects of creative styles preferences by analyzing Table 11. This table reports the correlations coefficient between facet traits of the KAI and the three personality traits of Big Five dimensions.

Table 11: First Stage Study - Correlation between KAI and Personality Scores (1^st Group of ML teachers)

Correlations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		SO	EFF	RULE	EXTRA	AGREE	CONSCIE
SO
Pearson Correlation	1	.428*	.076	-.526	.255**	.553**
Sig. (2-tailed)		.016	.684	.002	.166	.001
EFF
Pearson Correlation	.428*	1	.605**	-.413*	.075	.554**
Sig. (2-tailed)	.016	.	.000	.021	.689	.001
RULE
Pearson Correlation	.076	.605**	1	-.285	.063	.421*
Sig. (2-tailed)	.684	.000	.	.121	.736	.018
EXTRA
Pearson Correlation	-.526**	-.413*	-.285	1	-.237	-.573**
Sig. (2-tailed)	.002	.021	.121	.	.199	.001
AGREE
Pearson Correlation	.255	.075	.063	-.237	1	.354
Sig. (2-tailed)	.166	.689	.736	.199	.	.051
CONSCIE
Pearson Correlation	.553**	.554**	.421*	-.573**	.354	1
Sig. (2-tailed)	.001	.001	.018	.001	.051	.

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis 4 States that there would be a significant and negative correlation between Sufficiency of Originality and Extraversion. Table 11 reveals a significant negative relationship between Sufficiency of Originality and Extraversion (r = -0.526). This results support the hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 5 states that there would be a significant and negative correlation between Efficiency and Extraversion. Table 11 again reveals a significant negative relationship between Efficiency and Extraversion (r = -0.413). This result supports hypothesis 5.

Hypothesis 6 states that there would be a significant and positive association between Rule/group governance and Conscientiousness. The result shown in  Table 11 supports the hypothesis. As predicted, Rule/group subscale of KAI was found to be positively and significantly linked or associated with Conscientiousness (r = 0.421). This supports hypothesis 6.  

Hypothesis 7 states that there would be a significant and positive association between Efficiency and Conscientiousness. As predicted, there was a positive significant correlation between Conscientiousness and Efficiency (r = 0.554).

Hypothesis 8 states that there would be a significant and positive association between conscientiousness and Sufficiency of Originality. Table 11 supports the hypothesis. There was a significant correlation between the two (r = 0.553).

In summary, correlation analysis provides empirical finding and support the hypothesized associations postulated in Chapter 3. All the hypotheses, except hypotheses 5 and 8 mirror the findings of Daphne (2001). It is also interesting to note the correlations among facets traits of the KAI reported in Table 11. While there is a significant positive correlation between Efficiency and Rule Group governance and Efficiency and Sufficiency of Originality, there was non-significant relationship between Sufficiency of Originality and Rule/group governance. These findings do not mirror the finding by Bagozzi and Foxall (1995). Perhaps further investigation could be conducted to verify this.

4.5       First Stage Study - Summary of Hypothesis

Table 12: Summary of Findings Concerning the Various Hypotheses

SN	HYPOTHESIS	RESULTS	CONCLUSION
1	Innovators are significantly more Extraverted than adaptors.	(t=10.026,p<0.05).	Hypothesis is supported
2	Neither adaptors nor innovators will be significantly more or less Agreeable than other.	(t=-0.819, p>0.05).	Hypothesis is supported
3	Adaptors would be significantly more conscientious than innovators.	(t=-13.176, p<0.05)	Hypothesis is supported
4	Sufficiency of Originality is significantly and negatively associated with Extraversion.	( r = -0.526)	Hypothesis is supported
5	Extraversion is significantly and negatively correlated to Efficiency.	(r = -0.413).	Hypothesis is supported
6	There will be a significant and positive association between Rule/group governance and Conscientiousness.	(r = 0.421).	Hypothesis is supported
7	There will be significant and positive association between Efficiency and Conscientiousness.	(r = 0.554).	Hypothesis is supported
8	There will be significant positive association between conscientiousness and Sufficiency of Originality.	(r = 0.553).	Hypothesis is supported

The statistical findings support the hypotheses of the study. The summary of findings is presented in Table 12. Nevertheless, due to the small number of samples involved, a second stage study was conducted to reaffirm the earlier findings. A similar study was conducted in July and August 2005 on a different group of Malay language teachers to reaffirm the earlier findings.

4.6       Second Stage Study - Findings of Similar Study on Second Group of Malay Language Teachers

Although the statistical findings above confirm and support the hypotheses, a further administration of similar questionnaire was conducted on a different group of Malay language teachers who attended a course on ‘Effective use Malay Language Rich Digital Media content’ workshops conducted by MOE on four sessions. The workshops were conducted on 26 July, 27 July, 1 August and 4 August 2005. The purpose of extending the survey questionnaire to different group of Malay Language teachers was to reaffirm the earlier statistical findings.

Being the facilitator of the workshop, I had the access to participants’ email addresses. This provided the opportunity for me to invite Malay language teachers to take part in the survey questionnaires. About one hundred Malay language teachers attended the workshops. Upon completion of the workshop, an email was sent to these teachers inviting them to take part in the survey questionnaires. Due to time constraints, emailing the teachers is considered the best and quickest way of getting the teachers to response to the survey questionnaires. Teachers were promised of access to the findings of the research once it was completed.  Twenty-three Malay language teachers responded to the survey questionnaires.

             The statistical findings of the second stage questionnaire mirror the earlier reports.

Table 13: Second Stage Study - Means, Standard Deviations and Reliabilities of the KAI and IPIP Scales (2^nd Group of ML teachers)

Scales (no. of items	Mean	S.D	Reliabilities
KAI
Sufficiency of Originality (13)	41.3478	3.67558	0.7643
Rule/Group conformity (12)	41.6957	4.12790	0.6799
Efficiency (7)	25.0000	4.88969	0.8224
IPIP (Adapted)
Extraversion (4)	15.0435	1.84584	0.6920
Agreeableness (4)	15.5652	2.72740	0.6093
Conscientiousness (4)	12.5217	3.21742	0.7800

In Table 13, the means, standard deviation and reliabilities of variables are presented. Except for Rule/Group Conformity which reported alpha 0.6799, Extraversion which reported 0.6920 and Agreeableness which reported 0.6093, all the other scales reported internal reliabilities greater than the recommended limit of 0.7 set by Nullally (1978).

Fig. 12: Second Stage Study - Distribution of KAI scores in our Sample of Singapore Malay Language Teachers.

The mean for the KAI score is 109.7 and the standard deviation is 8.49. Individuals who scored more that 118.19 were called adaptors, and those scoring below 101.21 were called innovators. There were four innovators and three adaptors in the samples.

4.7       Second Stage Study - Findings on Personality Differences between Adaptors and Innovator

Table 14: Second Stage Study - t-test for independent samples of innovators and adaptors (2^nd group)

Big Five Dimension	Means Score		t-value	df	P
	Innovators	Adaptors
SO	35.75	46.00	-18.096	5	0.000
EFF	19.00	31.6667	-4.542	5	0.006
Rule/ Group	36.50	48.000	-15.057	5	0.000
Extraversion	16.00	11.6667	4.914	5	0.004
Agreeableness	16.50	15.3333	0.529	5	0.619
Conscientiousness	9.000	19.3333	-18.526	5	0.000

*significance at p≤0.05 (2-tailed)

Table 14 reaffirms the findings made in the earlier survey.  The findings of the questionnaire support Hypothesis 1 which states that innovators would be significantly more Extraverted than adaptors. The mean scores for innovator- teachers is 16.00 while mean scores for adaptor – teachers is 11.6667. Innovator-teacher score higher than adaptor-teacher in term of Extraversion (t = -4.914, p<0.05)

            The findings also support Hypothesis 2 which states that neither adaptors nor innovators would be significantly more or less agreeable than other. The findings reaffirm the hypothesis. In term of agreeableness, the difference in mean score for adaptors and innovators is statistically non-significant (t-0.529, p>0.005.

            The findings also reaffirm Hypothesis 3 which states that adaptor- teachers would be more conscientious than innovators. Table 13 shows that there is a significant difference between adaptor-teachers and innovator-teachers (t = -18.526). Adaptor – teachers mean scores is 19.333 and innovator – teachers mean scores is 9.00.

4.8       Second Stage Study - Relationship between Style Preference and Personality - Second Group of Malay Language Teachers

Table 15: Second Stage Study - Correlation between KAI and Personality Scores

Correlations

Table 15 supports hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The table shows that there is a significant and negative correlation between Sufficiency of Originality and Extraversion (r= - 0.585). The table also indicates that there is a significant and negative correlation between Efficiency and Extraversion (r= -0.534). There is a positive and significant association between Rule/group governance and Conscientiousness (r=0.697). Table 15 also confirms that there is a significant positive association between Efficiency and Conscientiousness (r=0.636). The table also shows that there is a significant and positive association between Conscientiousness and Sufficiency of Originality. Table 15 supports the hypothesis (r= 0.534).

            In summary, the statistical findings of the second stage study support and reaffirm the earlier findings and hypotheses postulated in this study.

4.9       Qualitative Analysis - Results of the Open Ended Questions

            The respondents cited various responses to the open ended questions asked. Respondents highlighted the problems they faced as they tried to be creative in their teaching in schools.  

4.10    Problems Faced by Respondents in Being Creative

Table 16:  First Stage Study – Respondents’ Response to the First Open Ended Question

1    Do you face a lot of problems when you try to be creative in carrying out your professional duties? If yes, what are the problems?

§         No problem. However, some students prefer something concrete such as good results in examination. Therefore, creative approaches are considered a waste of time. §         Too much red tape.  §         Yes, how to explain the ideas clearly to HODs? §         Too much rules and regulation and different views and styles of people in authority. §         There is a need to complete the syllabus, prepare tests and assessments papers. §         Not all new ideas can be accepted by all. §         Teachers lack initiatives. Prefer to do things the usual ways. Not willing to try out new ideas and things. §         Students’ attitudes. §         Some people purposely try to spoil our efforts. §         Classroom with limited teaching aids. §         Lack of IT skills hinders me from being creative. §         HOD who has little knowledge and narrow minded hinders me from being creative. §         Some people can not accept our creative ideas. §         Different opinions and age gap. §         Difficult to predict where it ends, or difficult to assess the creative works. §         More time needed to prepare such lessons. §         Too many other works in school hinder me from being creative. §         Many people are not too sure what is meant by the term creative.

Table 16 shows the respondents’ response to the first open ended question on the problem they faced in being creative. Firstly, respondents cited students as one of the problem they faced as they tried to be creative. Respondents said that students are quite pragmatic and considered creative activities conducted by teachers as waste of time as they did not see any direct link between such activities with the examination results. Secondly, respondents had difficulty in convincing their head of department to accept their creative ideas. Moreover, respondents also cited some Heads of mother tongue departments in their schools as narrow minded and not supportive of teachers’ efforts in promoting creativity. Respondents cited this factor as problem they faced in carrying out their professional duties. Thirdly, respondents cited the need to complete the syllabus as well as to set tests and examination papers as other problems they faced. Respondents felt that they did not have enough time to prepare creative lessons due to time constraints. Schools’ emphasis on academic achievement made the matter worst. Respondents cited too much responsibilities and overloading of work as problem for them to be creative in their work. As such, they cited that they need more time to prepare lessons with creative ideas embedded in them. Fourth, some respondents associated creative ideas with IT skills. Some said that due to their inferior skills on IT, they became less creative in their teaching. Fifth, respondents cited red tapes and age gap as well as differences in opinions as problem. Some felt that others would not like their creative ideas and these posed problems to them.

Table 17:  Second Stage Study – Respondents’ Response to the First Open Ended Question

1. Do you face a lot of problems when you try to be creative in carrying out your professional duties? If yes, what are the problems?

·        No. I was given encouragement and space to be creative. ·        Problem: o       1 students did not have the interests/ no cooperation fromstudents o       2 students could not see the objective while teachers conducting the lesson o       3 immature and childish behaviour of students and their attitutes toward education is poor, education is not valued much by some students o       4 afraid that it will affect the performance and results in the examination if carried out . ·        No. ·        Most of the time no problem. However, they are people who questioned the effectiveness of my creative approaches and wanted to see how such approaches could be applied for the purposes of examination such as ‘O’ and ‘N’ level examination. ·        No problem. ·        Surrounded by people who are not or less creative, therefore not able to appreciate efforts that have been put in. Worst, some of them refused to change and prefered the old methods and ways. ·        sometimes, ideas were not supported or encouraged by colleages and school commitee. ·        No problem. ·        Correct. Problem arise when you need the approval of those on authority. ·        When students start to enjoy the lesson, and enthutiastic about the lesson and started to make some healthy noise, Supervisors will pass by and started to give unconstructive comments that the class is too noisy with out realising that the students are engaged in a passionate discussion and enjoying the activities. ·        Times constraits. Sometimes, creative activities and approaches do not always ensured excellent results as what the school wanted. ·        Time. Sometime the creative ideas came suddenly. In ensure it could be carried smoothly need proper planning and preparation. Therefore, it is time consuming. ·        Sometime the idea is considered creative to me but not to the students. Some teachers had conducted similar activity with them. ·        Problems in implementing the idea as the school executive committee is hard to convince and also due to lack of budget, different in opinions and views, etc. Sometimes, when new ideas were formulated, time does not permit us to execute the ideas. The ideas become a waste. ·        I am not creative. ·        Most of the time did not have any problem due to openness of my collouges in accepting new ideas and suggestions. However, due to students’ readiness for such creative lessons, the excellent idea failed to materialise. Students are not ready to engage in such creative lessons. ·        So far no problem. My colleagues understand my reasons for doing so and they are open about it. ·        Not really, depend on the problem itself. ·        Not really. However, evaluation is an area of concern for conducting creative lessons. It is quite difficult to be objective in a creative lessons. What is the best way to assess the effectiveness of creative lessons? ·        Not much of a problem. Main problem is the stress on academic excellent by the school authority. Any creative lesson must serve the purpose of academic excellent and this does not always clear in the beggining.

Table 17 shows the respondents’ response to the first open ended question. Based on the similar questionnaire administered to the different group of Malay language teachers, the respondents reaffirm the problems cited earlier. Although some respondents did not find it a problem to be creative, some find it so. The respondents cited students as one of the factors that hindered them from being creative. The respondents felt that students were not cooperative and immature to understand and rationalise the teachers’ efforts in promoting creativity. According to the respondents, students failed to see the link between creativity and how they could do well in ‘O’ and ‘N’ level examinations. Respondents also felt stifled being surrounded by people who did not understand the teachers’ efforts in being creative. Respondents felt that some senior management of their schools viewed creative activities which allowed students to interact and communicate verbally as being disruptive and noisy. Such narrowed understanding of disruptive class discourage teachers from being creative, preferring an activity that did not require students to talk. The senior management of the schools focuses on academic achievements and thus did not see the direct correlation between creativity and students’ performance in the academics. Not only that, some of their colleagues also refused to lend their supports in promoting creativity among students. Lack of time is also considered by respondents as factors preventing them from being creative. Some respondents also cited evaluation of creative lessons as problem. It is considered to be quite difficult to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of creative lessons.

4.11    The Issues of Training

Table 18:  First Stage Study - Respondents Response to the Second Open Ended Question

2    Are the training/courses provided by MOE thus far meeting the needs of teachers to be creative in teaching? Why?

·        Not enough. Teachers need to be creative in creating their own lessons. ·        Moderately enough. ·        No, teachers are restricted by red tapes. ·        Yes, to capture students interests. ·        Need more training especially to cater to different levels, coursed available mainly on theory and general knowledge on education. ·        No, this year only one approach was introduced. ·        No, creativity can be taught simply all in class. Teachers need to do it consciously. ·        MOE provides the basic needs of teachers only such as ‘grammar’ courses and ‘comprehension’ coursed. ·        My school end lesson at 3 pm everyday. The school robs my rights to attend training as I could not attend any training that are available in the afternoon. ·        Not easy for MOE to conduct creative lesson or w/shops. ·        Limited courses available on creativity. ·        Workshops or courses offered by Teachers Network are much better as teachers share their experience as to what works and what not.

Table 18 shows the respondents’ response to the second open ended question on the issues of training. Responding to the second questions on the issue of training, respondents felt that MOE did not provide enough training for teachers in the area of creativity. They felt that training in the areas of creativity is important for teachers in order for them to be able to attract students’ interest to the subject. Respondents felt that more training on the aspect of creativity could be conducted by MOE. Respondents also welcome more sharing sessions of creative teaching strategies among teachers.

Table 19:  Second Stage Study - Respondents Response to the Second Open Ended Question

2. Are the training/ courses provided by MOE thus far meeting the needs of teachers to be creative in teaching? Why?

·        I think it is sufficient. However, teachers always in a rush to complete the syllabus and are left with very few apportunity to carry out creative activities fo their students. ·        Have, however most of such workshops are conducted in English language and teachers need to adapt to suit different needs of a classess. Most worshops and trainings were conducted by Teachers Network or IPAM (if you want to call these as organisations who support the MOE). However, most of the times such courses are conducted in the school holidays and teachers those times to re-charge, or busy with other school responsibilities such as making the GCE ‘O’ level papers and etc.  ·        Most of the courses  offered by Teachers Network are for primary school teachers. Training or courses on pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning are very limited for secondary school teachers. Moreover, most of the courses are offered at the beggining of year and during this time teachers are busy with many administrative work and school activities. ·        No. Many courses offered in TRAISI related to creativity. However, it was quite difficult to apply as limited vacancy available. ·        Some courses are designed to facilitate creative and interactive learning among participants and trainers such as the one conducted on  (JENDELA), the instructional materials courses. The recent workshop using the RDMC software conducted at Ummar Pulavar Tamil Center was good. ·        MOE provide sufficient training for all. It is up to teachers to implement them. ·        Dont think so. They are very limited courses available for Malay language teachers. Why? Please do your own reflection.... ·        Courses that are availabe might be sufficient.  The problem is, it was quite difficult to apply and to be accepted in such courses as limited places are available. My application has been rejected many times. Sometimes, i was frustrated and refuse to apply again. ·        Not enough. Training given does not reflect the real situation in class, when teachers face the students in class. ·        No. Courses are designed to encourage creative teaching and promote learning. However, the school emphasis on examination and results tend to make teachers resort to drill and practice strategy. All schools want to produce good results, because of that drill & practice strategy is preffered. To me, creative approaches is suitable for teachers who are able to modify and customise their teaching to the learning needs of students. ·        Many opportunity and exposure given in the area of I & E (Innovation & Enterprise) and sharing with teachers. ·        Courses offered by MOE in ML is not enough, perhaps the courses in CL, TL or even EL are opened to all do that we can learn from the besat practises available and tailor it  to our needs. ·        At the same time, there is a need to have paradign shift. Which one need to be priortise – creativity or examination results? Teachers are trapped between the two. ·        Have but not enough. Professional sharing by teachers are really creative. So I have never been to courses that train teachers to be creative as it was quite difficult to conduct or teach creativity. Creativity is a special skill inherits by individuals and how a person add value. What MOE can do is to conduct more professional sharing among teachers e.g. MOE EXCELL Fest. ·        Not sure. No time to attend such courses or to apply the knowledge. ·        Courses, for ML teachers, is not enough compared to other subjects, what’s more courses on creativity in Malay language. Most likely not emough resourses and talent to be shared. ·        There are many other courses could be planned. I did not have the time to surf the internet to source for better materials and new approaches. With proper training, we can improve the teaching and learning of ML. ·        Yes, there are many courses available. ·        Ya, especially courses on IT. ·        Still not enough.  ·        No. Courses are conducted by lecturers who are not creative, how can we be creative? ·        MOE provides enough training, the problem is the time as most of the times it clashes with school time table.

Table 19 shows the respondents’ response to the second open ended question on the issues of training. The respondents found that training in the areas of creativity is lacking and not enough. They felt more training to be planned for them to enhance their teaching skills and pedagogy. The respondents from the second group of Malay language teachers commented that most of the trainings related to creativity were conducted in English. They felt that it would be better if training on creativity is conducted in Malay language for them to understand better. Respondents felt that they were insufficient trainings on creativity offered by MOE for secondary level as compared to training for primary school teachers. The respondents also said that the timing of the training conducted by MOE were not suitable as such they could not attend the training.

4.12    Factors That Hinder Respondents’ Creativity

Table 20:  First Stage Study - Respondents’ Response to the Third Open Ended Question

3.  What are the factors that hinder you from being creative in class?

§         Too much stress on good grades and academic achievement. §         Not enough time. There are too many things to be done or completed during curriculum time. Teachers need to complete the syllabus. §         Cost too high and red tapes. §         Discipline. Some students do not want to accept new ideas and refuse to cooperate. §         To complete syllabus, priority and the need to prepare tests and assessment papers. §         Time, the need to complete works that are piling. §         Time and students attitudes towards learning. §         Teachers not committed, not willing to try out new ideas, teachers lack initiative. §         Time, venue and school regulations. §         Some students simply not ready. §         Lack of teaching aids. §         Lack of preparation time to plan teaching and learning strategies and students’ attitudes. §         Too many things to be done. §         Teachers feel comfortable using the familiar methods or ideas, do not want to move away from their comfort zone or practices. §         Need to follow leader who are not open minded and lack of vision. No of composition written is more important than teaching the students creatively, which so happen take longer time, and no obvious results can be seen. §         Restricted by syllabus. §         Heavy workload of teaching various levels, quite impossible for teachers to be creative and time factor will play a part in restricting teachers to try out new ideas and approaches. §         Students preferred to be spoon-feed. §         People want to see results instantly.

Table 20 shows the respondents’ response to the third open ended question on the factors that hinder respondents’ creativity. Responding to the third question asked in the open ended question, the respondents cited several reasons as factors that hindered them from being creative. Some of the hindering factors cited by respondents related to the problems they faced when they tried to be creative. Firstly, leaders who are not supportive are cited as one of the hindering factors to their creativity. In addition, some respondents felt that some school leaders were not open-minded, especially to the different views by others and this hindered the creativity of teachers.  Secondly, respondents said that schools’ emphasis on academic achievement as another hindering factor to their creativity. Schools stress too much on academic achievement. As a result, teaching becomes monotonous and not creative. In most cases, schools resort to drill and practice strategy to prepare students for examinations. Thirdly, time constraints are also cited as one of the reasons that hindered them from being creative. Respondents felt that they had to rush to complete the syllabus and thus preventing them from experimenting with new ideas and creative approaches to teaching. They also felt that they did not have time to prepare their lessons. Respondent felt that their heavy workload prevented them from being creative in their teaching. Fourthly, respondents also cited students’ readiness as another hindrance to their creativity. Respondents felt that students are not ready for creative approaches. Fifth, respondents cited inability of teachers to move away from their comfort zone or from using the trialed and tested methods as other hindering factor to their creativity. In another words, respondents said that the Malay language teachers were not willing to take the risks. Such behavior may discourage teachers to think out of the box when confronted with problems.

Table 21:  Second Stage Study - Respondents’ Response to the Third Open Ended Question

3. What are the factors that hinder you from being creative in class?

·        To me, small number of students hinder me from conducting creative and co-orperative learning activities. ·        Low motivation and response from students weaken teachers efforts to conduct and plan creative learning. Sometime students are not serious enough and refused to participate in class activities. ·        No problem for lower secodary level. For upper secondary levels, we needed to train students to do better in examination. However it doues not meant that no creative activities are given to pupils. ·        Time factor and not sure whether the school management could accept what being conducted. ·        Don’t have. ·        Teachers attitudes and not willing to change perspectives and perceptions. ·        Limited budget. ·        Lack of facilites or difficult to use and book the computer laboratory. The computer lab was usually used by NT students and we can only use the lab after school hours. ·        Students attitudes who are not creative and worst, do not bother to study. ·        Time constraints and lack of time  to create creative lessons. ·        Not enough courses in ML on new ideas and creativity for the teaching and learning of ML. The present courses are more or less same. ·        Students look down on mother tongue languages and no motivation to learn ML. No matter how creative we are, students think that they are cleverer and find leaning other subjects other than mother tongue subjects (EL, Math, Science, etc) is considered far more important. ·        Time and students attitudes. To conduct creative lessons need more time and careful planning. The problem is there are so many things to be done in schools and left us with no time to plan creative lessons. Students who never appreciate the efforts carried by teachers also hinders my creativity. ·        Some students did not have the interest to study and teachers are too busy with doing administrative duties. ·        Lack of space and computer lab. ·        Problem is not enough budget and did not receive full support from teachers. ·        Time and preparation. A part from that, we need to give students enough assignment and works for students to do. ·        The problem is, sometimes, no time to be creative. Limited access to computer lab. ·        Syllabus need to be completed. The present syllabus does not allow enough space fo creativity and too focus on examination. ·        Expectation of parents and school executives committee who expect better examination results than for teachers to conduct creative lessons. ·        I am not creative. ·        Students ability is average and lack of expoture to Malay language make the matter worst. Sometime it kills my desire to teach them creatively. ·        Time constraints. ·        Convention. ·        Time factor. To prepare a good lesson, teachers need more time. Teachers also need to check students; works. ·        Schools too focus on academic excellent.

Table 21 shows the respondents’ response to the third open ended question on the factors that hinder respondents’ creativity. The respondents from the second group of Malay language teachers cited several factors as hindrance to their creativity. Students’ negative reactions towards teachers’ efforts in preparing creative lessons hampered teachers’ motivation. Students’ negative attitudes towards the learning of Malay language discouraged teachers from being creative. Some students did not bother to learn Malay language as they perceived learning other subjects as more important than learning Malay language. Respondents felt that the relaxation in the Mother Tongue Policy were perceived by students as an indication that learning of Mother Tongue as the least important, including Malay language. Respondents also felt that the current syllabus does not provide any space or opportunity for teachers to be creative. Some respondents cited lack of budget and facility such as the need to book computer rooms as well as time as factors preventing them from being creative. Time constraints are another factor considered by teachers as the hindrance factor to them. In addition, their school emphasis on academic excellence restricts them from exploring creative approaches.

4.13    Definition of Creativity

Table 22:  First Stage Study - Respondents’ Response to the Fourth Open Ended Question

4    4. What is your definition of creativity? What is a creative person to you?

§         Ability to create or build something that are interesting and uncommon from the usual ones. §         Something new, fresh and interesting. §         Create something new, good idea and methods and etc. §         Ability to create something that ordinary people could not do. §         Ability to create something more creative. §         Ability within a person, to change, or come out with ‘crazy’ ideas, but effective. §         Ability to churn out as many ideas as possible to solve problems. §         Not necessary new ideas, but old ideas with new approaches. §         There is no right or wrong answers as far as creativity are concerned. §         Different from norms. §         Do things differently, interesting yet, fun. §         Ability to do things beyond the prescribed guidelines. §         Ability to analyze new ideas. §         A thinking process, ability to use the existing knowledge or ideas, to churn out new ideas or approaches. Look simple, but not many people can do it. §         Innovative. §         Ability to create something with high quality, in the areas of arts and literature. Ability to invent or create new ideas is also creative. §         Ability to think convergent and divergent, create something original. §         A person who is able to do something beyond ordinary people and has adopted multi approaches to problems faced. §         Able to look at problems from different angles. §         A unique person who can express fresh ideas from the existing situation  . §         A person who always tries new and interesting things. §         A person who can do thing differently, yet interesting and produced good results. §         A person who are able to relate old problem method to new methods, or create totally new approaches or methods. §         A person who are able to deliver his ideas from different perspectives . §         A person who does not merely continue what is usually done, but uses his ability within him to change the existing ideas/ways for better results. §         Ability to engage learners in their lessons. §         Able to think out of the box. §         Who can come out with new ideas, fresh, relevance and proactive. §         A person who has many ideas, always finding the best solutions for problems. §         Create new ideas, make thing happen, create something that can be applied, add value to the existing situation. §         A person who always thinks of doing things differently. §         Dare to try out new things/ideas, ability to come out with new ideas/ approaches and make thing happen, does not need too much instructions. §         Always in constant look out for new ideas, ability to accept and try the impossible, and see things in simple back and white. §         Flexible and appreciative. §         Person who inspires his students so that they will improve on their studies.

Table 22 shows the respondents’ response to the fourth open ended question on the definition of creativity. On the definition of what creativity and a creative person are, respondents gave various opinions and interpretations. Some respondents’ defined creativity as something special that was created by someone who is creative. Respondent felt that not every people can be creative. Respondents are also of the view that creativity and creative person refer to ones’ ability to create or build something that are interesting, new, fresh, uncommon from the usual ones and fun.  Some respondents associated creativity with ability within a person, to change, or come out with ‘crazy’ ideas, churn out as many ideas as possible to solve problems which are effective at times. Some respondents’ defined creativity as thinking process as defined by Ford and Harris (1992). Respondents defined creativity as a thinking process and ability to use the existing knowledge or ideas, to churn out new ideas or approaches and the ability to create something with high quality, in the areas of arts and literature. They also defined creativity as an ability to analyze new ideas, to be able to think convergently and divergently as well as the ability to look at problems from different angles. Innovativeness is also associated by respondents with creativity. Respondents also described creativity as an ability to think out of box.

Table 23:  Second Stage Study - Respondents’ Response to the Fourth Open Ended Question

4.  What is a creative person to you? What is your definition of creativity?

·        A creative person create new idea, do new things, fresh and interesting.  ·        Creativity ia an effort to create or adapt from old ideas to achieve maximum results for their students. Creative persons able to do so because of their motivation to see their students succeed in their studies. Creative teachers will customise their lesson sto suit the learning need of thier students. ·        Do things differently from others. A creative person always think of new ideas and how to implement them. ·        Creativity is a new idea and unique, thus able to sustain students’ interests. In this context, creative approach should be related to teachers’ approaches to enhance learning and attract students’ interests. ·        Creative persons are those who succeded in doing new things in what they did. Creativity is related to level of intellect, it does not only in form but also in its implementation. ·        Creative is different from norm, therefore not all creative things are good and need to be implemented. ·        Creative persons are those who constantly upgrade and adapt themselves to the surrounding to survice. In relation to this, not all artists, singers, dancers, writers can be considered creative. ·        Always churns up new ideas, or gives new perspectives to old ideas. Usually the ideas are new and never thoughts by others. ·        Creative persons always “Think out of the box”. ·        Creative persons are those who do simple things yet manage to attract the attention of others. ·        Creative persons are those who are brave to do new things. They can also upgrade or improvise others’ ideas and produce better solutions. ·        Something 'refreshing', not routine things. Creative persons must be brave to cross the boudaries, bend or break the rules. ·        Creative to me is a new appraoches to teaching, and not over reliant on textbooks. For example in a Comprehension lessons, a teacher can ask each students to write a word from the texts they read on white board to reflect their understanding. At the end of it, a students could be asked to summarise or draw conlcusion based on the ideas projected by his classmates on the white board earlier. ·        To me, creative persons posses many new ideas of how to carry out effective learning. Such persons do not really need supplementary teaching aids. ·        Creative is an ability to creative ideas, opinions or invent new things.Creative persons does not always create new ideas or things but able to analyse the current situations, and able to provide value-addedness to the existing ideas and  innovate. ·        Creative persons are those who have many good interesting ideas. ·        Creative is doing new things, able to attract others’ attention due to the unique and different approach taken. Creative persons see things from different perspectives and others could accept the point of views. ·        Try new approaches to the teaching of Malay language so that the learning become interesting and not bored students with the texbooks all the times.  ·        Creative new things and people like them. ·        Always think of new things and new approches. ·        Ability to things unconventionally, able to address the pressing problems and source of problems, able to produce or generate new interesting solutions. ·        To me, to creative is to challenge the minds to do new things and ideas. ·        Creativity meant the ability to provide solutions to problems faced, provide new ideas and ability to think for solutions and resouceful.

Table 23 shows the respondents’ response from the second stage of study. Similar to the responses in the first stage of study, respondents gave various definition and understanding of the term creativity and what creative person meant to them.  In summary, respondents have different interpretation and understanding of what creativity is and who a creative person is to them. The different opinions on this issue are not surprising as respondents might have based their opinion on personal observations and experiences.

For details of the respondents’ feedback in Malay language for First Stage of Study please refer to Appendix B (i).  And for details of respondents’ feedback in Malay Language for Second Stage of Study, please refer to Appendix B (ii).