Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chas20

Download by: [Zhejiang University] Date: 23 November 2015, At: 00:42

High Ability Studies

ISSN: 1359-8139 (Print) 1469-834X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Critical and creative thinking as learningprocesses at top-ranking Chinese middle schools:possibilities and required improvements

Z.K. Liu, J. He & B. Li

To cite this article: Z.K. Liu, J. He & B. Li (2015) Critical and creative thinking as learningprocesses at top-ranking Chinese middle schools: possibilities and required improvements,High Ability Studies, 26:1, 139-152, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2015.1015501

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1015501

Published online: 12 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 84

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Critical and creative thinking as learning processes at top-rankingChinese middle schools: possibilities and required improvements

Z.K. Liu, J. He* and B. Li

Institute of Psychology of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, P.R. China

Fostering and enabling critical and creative thinking of students is considered animportant goal, and it is assumed that in particular, talented students have con-siderable potential for applying such high-level cognitive processes for learningin classrooms. However, Chinese students are often considered as rote learners,and that learning environments at Chinese schools will not allow thinking criti-cally and creatively. The present exploratory study examines these assumptionswith students at top-ranking middle schools in mainland China who have beenselected for their high achievement scores in the examinations required foracceptance to such schools. Our findings in eight large mathematics classrooms(n = 381) strongly suggest that it is possible to acquire knowledge by thinkingcritically and creatively in these traditionally instructed classes, and that higherachieving students use such processes more intensively than lower achieving stu-dents. In addition, the study provides pathways for promoting these high-levelcognitive processes for learning in particularly with lower achieving students.Finally, the results indicate that the extracurricular activities that are prescribedto all students at Chinese middle schools should be redesigned to offer moreopportunities for critical and creative thinking.

Keywords: Chinese middle schools; learning environment; learning processes;critical thinking; creative thinking; higher achieving students

Introduction

The paradox of the Chinese learner

Teaching in Chinese classrooms is strongly teacher-guided, text-oriented, and exer-cise-based. All subjects are strictly organized by prescribed curricular objectives. Ineach semester in middle schools, the attainment of these objectives is assessed bystandardized examinations. At the end of middle school (grade 9), all students inChina have to take the “Senior High School Entrance Examination,” whose resultswill determine which level their education can be continued. Only those with excel-lent grades will be accepted by top-ranking academic senior middle schools that pre-pare for the higher education exam (in grade 12). As a consequence, classroomteaching for these students is also heavily examination driven. Both, teachers andstudents try to maximize achievement scores attained in the examinations (Zhang &Lee, 1991).

This hierarchically organized educational system with regularly repeated mea-surements of achievement levels of their students serves as an instrument for identi-fying high achievers that are also considered as high-ability learners. Additional

*Corresponding author. Email: jinghey@hotmail.com

© 2015 European Council for High Ability

High Ability Studies, 2015Vol. 26, No. 1, 139–152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1015501

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

instruments for diagnosing abilities as mere potentials like intelligence or other testsof ability constructs are not used. As a result, only exceptional students are selectedand get access to top-ranking middle schools. The sample of participants of thecurrent study has been drawn from such schools.

The described characteristics of teaching in Chinese classrooms determine stu-dents’ learning processes. While researching the Chinese learner, Biggs (1987) useda general model (3P-model) to study and describe the relations between presage,process, and product variables. The instructional conditions, including teachingstyle, curriculum, and assessment methods constitute the environmental “presage”variables. These presage conditions for learning influence the “processes” of thestudents, including their perception of the learning environment, and theirlearning styles and strategies. Both, presage and process variables, contribute to the“products” of learning, in particular to the acquisition of knowledge, and to student’sachievements in the different curricular subjects. In various studies, Biggs and othersinvestigated model-based predictions in Chinese classrooms. Even though the major-ity of these studies carried out in territories outside the mainland (e.g. Hong Kong),it is assumed that Chinese students develop and apply learning strategies (processes)like memorization that correspond to low cognitive levels in Bloom’s revised taxon-omy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) or to reproduction-oriented surface strategies(Marton & Saljö, 1976). Such low- or shallow-level approaches to learning predict-ably preclude the application and utilization of higher order cognitive processes likecritical and creative thinking as instruments for acquiring knowledge in Chineseclassrooms.

Biggs (1979) already provided evidence that low-level processes like rote learn-ing for literally reproducing the presented information will result in comparativelylower learning achievements (products) than deep approaches which require moreactive thinking and reflection by the students to transform the information presentedin lessons or textbooks into more elaborated, personally meaningful knowledgestructures. Therefore, students from countries using student-oriented, and construc-tivist teaching methods in their classrooms should attain higher achievements thanChinese students.

However, in sharp contrast to these model-based results and predictions, Chinesemiddle school students repeatedly attain higher scores in international comparisonsthat assess knowledge for tasks requiring cognitive processes on higher levels ofBloom’s revised taxonomy like evaluating and creating (Anderson & Krathwohl,2001), and which cannot be solved by simply reproducing rote-learned information(Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development [OECD, 2009]). Cai andHwang (2002) provided similar results indicating higher achievements of Chineseyear six students compared to US students for finding new patterns and relations insolving complex mathematical problems. This and other comparable findings thatcontradict to the model-based predictions have been called the “paradox of theChinese learner” (Watkins & Biggs, 2001).

Explaining the paradox and research needs

What are the reasons for these paradox findings? Watkins himself traces it back to amisconception about the Chinese learner as a rote learner. Accordingly, learning bymemorizing in traditional Confucian-oriented classrooms integrates lower and higherorder cognitive processes. Rao and Sachs (1999) supported this assumption by a

140 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

factor analysis of Pintrich et al.’s (1988) motivated strategies for learning question-naire (MSLQ) with Chinese high school students in Hong Kong. The originally sep-arated learning strategy factors “rehearsal,” and “metacognitive self-regulation”could not be discriminated but measure a single learning strategy that integrateslower and higher order cognitive processes according to Bloom’s revised taxonomy.

Hence, it seems to be possible to use and apply higher order cognitive processes,including critical/evaluative and creative thinking for learning in traditional Chinesemiddle school classrooms. In addition, according to the 3P-model, students withhigher achievements in the curriculum-related examinations may apply such pro-cesses more frequently and intensively than students with comparatively lowerachievements. Individual differences should be expected between students in thesame classroom who apply these forms of thought.

Evidence of these issues and their relationships to each other is still lacking andrequires further studies. This concerns the first open question about the possibility tothink critically and creatively about the content being instructed in traditional class-room environments of middle schools in mainland China. Secondly, further studiesare necessary concerning the relationship of individual differences in these higherlevel cognitive processes and the achievements of students in content- and subject-related examinations in the same classrooms as presage environmental conditionsfor learning. The current study is focusing on both questions. The results mayindicate how to further enhance students’ high-level cognitive processes, includingcritical and creative thinking as instruments for learning without completelychanging teaching methods and ways to organize learning by the teachers asintended by the ongoing educational reform in China (Gu, 2010).

Critical and creative thinking as high-level cognitive learning processes

For the purpose of analyzing and designing instruction, cognitive processes ofstudents have been categorized into different levels. Bloom’s revised taxonomy isthe most widely used taxonomy to distinguish such levels in curricular subjects(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The processes of “evaluating” and “creating” repre-sent the two top levels of cognition of the taxonomy. Thinking on these higherlevels has already been accounted for by proponents of discovery learning becauseonly such processes enable learners “to go beyond the information given”. Studentsshould think and reflect more frequently and deeply about the content of lessons togenerate more elaborated and integrated knowledge structures that can be appliedto transfer tasks, which are novel to the students and do not exactly, correspond tothose presented in the lessons (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

Critical thinking is a complex form of higher order processing which includesevaluating the provided information, and testing the own level of comprehension ascomponential processes. This kind of thinking has been predominately defined, mea-sured, and promoted as a general ability of students (e.g. Ennis, 1987; Facione,1998). In contrast to ability conceptualizations, (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994) conceivedand measured critical thinking as a learning strategy of students in terms of “theextent to which students report applying previous knowledge to new situations, i.e.solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations” (p. 7). As a strategy,it supports students’ self-regulated learning as well as their learning achievements(Neber, He, Liu, & Schofield, 2008). Similarly, Kember and Leung (2009) measuredcritical thinking as a process of reflection involved in student’s learning.

High Ability Studies 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Accordingly, “critical reflection” represents thinking on higher levels of Bloom’staxonomy, and involves evaluating and critiquing the validity of the content to belearned. Phan (2005) has shown that critical reflection, as measured by Kember’sself report scale, is a significant predictor of high mathematical achievements ofundergraduate students in the Asia-Pacific region.

Creativity has been defined in terms of products, processes, or even as environ-ments. As a “product,” it refers to achievements that are original or innovative. As a“process,” it has been conceived as divergent thinking or as a sequence of problem-solving processes leading to productive solutions. In terms of an “environment” ithas been defined by a number of work, and social-contextual components like open-ended tasks or low hierarchies that enable the production of creative products. Com-mon to all of these conceptions is that creativity has generally been defined andmeasured in terms of general abilities “to produce work that is both novel andappropriate” (Lubart, 1994, p. 290). Such abilities are promoted by many add-onprograms for in-classroom use or by extracurricular programs like the future prob-lem solving competition for high-ability students (Hunsaker, 2005). The changes inpresage environmental conditions towards student-oriented instruction that isintended by the Chinese educational reform are also focusing on developing generalcreative abilities as potentials of middle school students (Lockette, 2012).

Beyond classroom-based instruction, further extracurricular activities in self-selected domains are required by all students attending Chinese middle schools.Such contexts should provide even more opportunities and experiences for exercis-ing and developing creative abilities than regular classrooms. Zhao and Zhao (2012)request such expanded opportunities explicitly for high-ability and high-achievinglearners. However, evidence is missing if students actually apply critical and creativethinking in their extracurricular environments more intensively than in learning theprescribed subjects in their classrooms.

The overwhelming majority of approaches have defined creativity as a generalability. Whereas only few approaches have conceived it in terms of higher orderlearning processes or strategies that are used by students as instruments or tools forgenerating knowledge in the subjects taught at schools. In Bloom’s revised taxon-omy, “creating” represents the top-level cognitive process. As a macro-level process,creating relates to generating knowledge structures by elaborating and integratinginformation from different sources. It requires sub-processes of thinking like recom-bining, modifying, and even inventing that imply to go beyond the information pre-sented by the teacher (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Similarly, Kember and Leung(2009) defined “creative thinking” as a learning activity of students in Hong Kong,and measured it by their self-report scale as an indicator of deep processing.

Thinking creatively about the content of lessons may particularly be expectedfrom students that have been accepted as high-ability and high-achieving learners bytop-ranking middle schools. In following recommendations of Ziegler (2009) toconceive high abilities in domain-specific ways, this should particularly apply tosuch students in mathematics classrooms. Wolfle (1986) has already found that high-ability students in mathematics deal with the curricular content and tasks in variable,flexible and creative ways, and cannot be considered as repetitive rote learners. Thevariability generated by further elaborating on the given information stronglycontributed to high achievements of excellent Taiwanese 6th graders in whiteboard-supported mathematics classrooms (Hwang, Chen, Dung, & Yang, 2007). Accordingto the authors of the study, for these students, own elaborations and profoundly

142 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

criticizing others’ solutions are key process factors for generating mathematicalknowledge in classrooms. It may be inferred that individual differences in applyingcritical and creative thinking for learning mathematics by excellent students willhave consequences for their achievements in the curriculum-based mathematicsexaminations.

Perceived learning environment and domain-specific motivation as mediators ofhigher level learning processes

The utilization of higher order processes like meaning-oriented deep learning or crit-ical and creative thinking for learning in a classroom is influenced by a variety ofcontextual and student-specific presage factors as mediators (Biggs, 1987; Chan,1993). The social-emotional climate of the classroom is a most important contextualcondition for the intensity and the quality of student’s learning processes (Anderson,Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004). It depends on the subjectively perceived communicationor relationship conditions which have been measured since Moos (1978) by self-report scales. Perceived “cohesiveness” as experiencing the peers as helpful and sup-portive, and perceived “teacher support” as the extent to which the teacher helps,trusts, and is interested in students are decisive factors in determining the social-emotional climate, e.g. in mathematics classrooms in Singapore with consequencesfor the examination scores (Chionh & Fraser, 1998). Positively perceived relation-ships contribute rather strongly to a greater diversity of ideas and original solutionsin language learning classrooms (Klimoviene, Urboniene, & Barzdzuikiene, 2010).

Besides contextual presage factors, student-specific presage characteristics medi-ate their higher order processes in classrooms (Watkins, 2001). In particular, achieve-ment motivation turned out to be a strong predictor for using deep learning and otherhigher order learning strategies. Pintrich and de Groot (1990) measured “task value”as student’s perception of the importance of a domain, and “self-efficacy” as student’sbelief to be successful in this domain by their MSLQ, and have shown that bothmotivational variables are significant predictors of higher order learning strategies.Meanwhile, these results have been confirmed by Chinese versions of this self-reportscale (Neber et al., 2008). Lau and Roeser (2008) applied the MSLQ to measuretask-value and self-efficacy of 9th graders in Singapore. According to these authors,both motivational variables have to be considered as mediators of student’s deeplearning strategies in mathematics classrooms.

Research questions

The study should contribute to finding arguments, and promising pathways for strength-ening critical and creative thinking as learning processes for attaining the prescribedcurricular objectives in middle schools. A strong argument would consist in evidencethat such processes contribute to achievements in the standardized examinations evenin traditionally taught classrooms. Possible pathways would consist of informationabout promising starting points for promoting the application of these high-level think-ing processes for students in such examination-driven learning environments.

For getting more information about both issues, two kinds of comparisons willbe performed. In each comparison, possible differences in students’ self-reporteduses of processes, perceptions of the learning environment, and achievement motiva-tion will be investigated.

High Ability Studies 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

(1) Comparing students with higher and lower learning achievements inmathematics

The first comparison should provide evidence about critical and creative thinkingas instruments for acquiring knowledge in middle school classroom. From the intro-duction, it can be inferred that higher achieving students will apply critical andcreative processes for learning in mathematics classrooms more intensively, and thattheir environmental perception, and their achievement motivation as supportingfactors for such processes will be more positively developed than with lower achiev-ing students. For examining these expected differences, student’s mathematics scoresin their latest centralized examination have been communicated by the teachers.The mean examination score (M = 60) was used to create the subsamples of below-average (n = 188) and above-average (n = 193) mathematics achievers.

(1) Comparing mathematics classrooms and extracurricular contexts

The second comparison should contribute in finding out possible differencesbetween the same students in classrooms vs. in extracurricular contexts in using crit-ical and creative processes for learning as well as their related environmental percep-tion and motivation as supporting variables. The question concerns whether or notextracurricular activities that are not constrained by standardized objectives and tra-ditional teaching conditions offer more opportunities for these higher level processesthan regular classrooms. However, because of a lack of previous studies on thisissue, more directed expectations and hypotheses about context-related differencesin these measures cannot be derived.

Method

Participants

All students (n = 381) came from high-ranking middle schools that accept onlyhigh-achievers who have attained the upper quarter in the prescribed examinationsrequired for attending these schools. From each of junior and senior (academic) mid-dle schools (grades 8–12), the students of four complete classes and their teachersagreed to participate in the study.

Instruments and measures

The self-report scales used in this study were taken from questionnaires that havepreviously been applied and adapted to Chinese speaking students (Table 1). Theresearch basis for these variables and their definitions has already been described inthe introduction.

Critical and creative thinking processes

Critical thinking strategy is a variable of the MSLQ (Pintrich & de Groot, 1990).The validity of this questionnaire has been confirmed by Rao and Chan (2009) forChinese-speaking students in Hong Kong. In the current study, the five items forcritical thinking strategy have been rated twice on seven-point Likert scales by thestudents (for mathematics classrooms, and for extracurricular activities).

144 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Creative thinking and another indicator for critical thinking have been measuredby subscales of the student engagement questionnaire. Kember and Leung (2009)developed and validated this self-report instrument with students in Hong Kong(McNaught, Leung, & Kember, 2006). Again, each of the two items for creative andfor critical thinking has been answered twice (on five-point Likert scales formathematics classrooms, and for extracurricular activities).

Learning environment

The perceived communicative aspects of the actual learning environment have beenmeasured by two subscales (Teacher Support, and Student Cohesiveness) of theWhat-is-Happening-in-this-Classroom scale (Fraser, 2012). Chionh and Fraser(1998) applied the questionnaire to students in Hong Kong, and confirmed itsstructure. Again, the student-rated perceived teacher support (8 items) and perceivedstudent cohesiveness (8 items) twice (for mathematics classrooms and then forextracurricular activities) on five-point Likert scales.

Table 1. Self-report instruments and variables of the study.

Variables Items Example

Thinking processesCritical thinkinga 2 I have developed my ability to make

judgments about alternative perspectivesCreative thinkinga 2 I have been challenged to come up with

new ideasCritical thinking strategyb 5 I try to play around with ideas related to

what I learn in this class. When atheory, interpretation, or conclusion ispresented in class or in the readings, Itry to decide if there is good supportingevidence

Perceived environmentc

Teacher support 8 The teacher takes personal interest in meThe teacher’s questions help me tounderstand

Student cohesiveness 8 Members of this class are my friendsIn this class, I get help from otherstudents

Achievement motivationb

Task value 6 It is important for me to learn the coursematerial in this classI think the material in classes of myschool is useful for me to learn

Self-efficacy 8 I’m confident I can learn the basicconcepts taught in this classI expect to do well in this class

aStudent engagement questionnaire (SEQ).bMotivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).cLearning environment scale (WIHIC).

High Ability Studies 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Achievement (learning) motivation

Task value (6 items) and self efficacy (8 items) have been measured by motivationalsubscales of the MSLQ. All items were rated once, and related to mathematics learning.

Divergent thinking

A version of Guilford’s alternative uses test has been applied for measuring diver-gent thinking as an indicator of the creative ability of the participating students. Thetask consisted in producing as many as possible and diverse uses for a wooden ruler(in 3 min). Fluency (total number of ideas) and flexibility (number of different cate-gories like tools, weapons, or art) have been calculated from student’s responses. Inthe first comparison of below- and above-average achieving students, these divergentthinking measures were used as control variables.

Procedure

Principals and teachers agreed to reserve one hour for this first investigation byexternal researchers at their schools in mainland China. Therefore, the participatingstudents had to respond to all instruments within this time constraint in their class-rooms. The mathematics teachers introduced the study as a part of a project inimproving the quality of instruction at middle schools, and in stimulating the learn-ing potentials of their students. It was clearly communicated that the answers andresults will neither be used for grading, nor accessed or evaluated by other teachersat the school, and that all materials will immediately be returned to the researchers.

Results

Results of the first comparison between below- and above-average achievingstudents

The most important result of this comparison is that students with above-averagescores in their mathematics examinations apply high-level thinking processes forlearning more often than students in the same classrooms who attain weaker resultsin these exams. According to their self-reported critical- and creative thinkingscores, higher achieving students reflect and elaborate the content that is presentedto them in their mathematics classrooms relatively more intensively than lowerachievers. All three variables for thinking processes turned out as significantlystronger (p < .05) for those who acquired more knowledge in such classrooms, andthus confirm the corresponding expectations that have been derived from previousinvestigations (Table 2).

This has also been found for both process-mediating presage factors measured inthe study. The results for achievement motivation in mathematics as the student-related presage factor fully confirm the expectations that have been derived fromprevious studies. In both motivational variables, task value and self-efficacy, theabove-average achievers attained significantly higher and more positive results thanbelow-average achievers (p < .01 for both variables; Table 2).

The results for the social context of the learning environment in mathematicsclassrooms as second-mediating presage factor considered, confirm the expectationsfor only one of the two variables measured. The perceived teacher support, that

146 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

includes the experienced levels of teacher help and student-orientation, received sig-nificantly stronger ratings from above-average achievers (p < .01; Table 2). However,for student cohesiveness as the second indicator of the communicative quality of theclassroom learning environment no such differences among the two achievementgroups could be found (p > .05; Table 2).

For all other additional variables measured in this comparison of below- andabove-achieving students, no differences on significant levels have been found. Thefirst and rather important finding concerns the measured indicators of creativity asability or potential for the divergent production of ideas. Accordingly, both achieve-ment groups do have the same general potential for thinking creatively at their dis-posal (p > .05 for fluency and flexibility; Table 2). The second kind of additionalmeasures has not been related to mathematics classrooms but to the extracurricular,none classroom-related contexts for learning. In these contexts, above-average math-ematics achievers do not think more critically and creatively than below-averagemath achievers (p > .05 for critical and creative thinking; Table 2). The same appliesto student’s perception of the communicative quality of their extracurricular learningenvironments. Neither perceived student cohesiveness nor teacher support differedamong the two achievement groups (p > .05; Table 2). The tendency towards a morepositive perception of teacher-support by above-average achievers could not befound for extracurricular learning environments (Table 2).

Results of the second comparison of learning in classrooms and inextracurricular environments

In the second comparison of processes and perceptions in mathematics classroomsvs. extracurricular contexts rather clear results have been obtained for the total sam-ple of middle school students (n = 381). Most importantly, these students think morecritically (t = 7.38; p < .00) and more creatively (t = 1.44; p < .05) in their regularclassrooms, and not in their less-constrained extracurricular learning environments(Table 3).

The same more positive tendency for classrooms resulted for the social-commu-nicative quality perceived by the students. Both variables that have been measuredfor this aspect of the learning environments attained more favorable results for math-ematics classrooms. This applies to perceived teacher-support (t = 4.84; p < .00) aswell as to perceived student cohesiveness (t = 6.22; p < .00). Both variables are lesspositively pronounced for extracurricular contexts than it is the case with regularclassrooms (Table 3).

Discussion

As intended, the results of the study provide support for critical and creative think-ing in middle school classrooms. It does not only seem to be possible to use suchhigher level processes in these contexts, but evidence is also provided that they mayserve as effective instruments for generating and acquiring the curriculum specificknowledge that is required to achieve in the examinations. The results of the firstcomparison clearly indicate that above-average achievers in such examinations applycritical and creative thinking more intensively as instruments or strategies forlearning than lower achieving students.

High Ability Studies 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Table

2.Com

paring

below-andabove-averagemathematicsachieversin

middleschools.

Related

domain

Aspects

Variables

Below

average

achievers

Above

average

achievers

MSD

MSD

Fp

Mathematics

Thinkingprocesses

Critical

thinking

strategy

a4.45

1.26

4.83

1.37

5.75

.02

Critical

thinking

b3.44

1.01

3.70

1.03

4.46

.04

Creativethinking

b3.11

1.03

3.43

1.08

6.42

.01

Perceived

environm

ent

Teacher-supportc

3.31

1.09

3.72

1.06

8.66

.00

Student

cohesiveness

c3.11

1.03

3.43

1.08

1.64

.20

Achievementmotivation

Task

valuea

4.76

1.39

5.45

1.25

17.20

.00

Selfefficacy

a4.46

1.27

5.14

1.28

18.52

.00

General

Creativity

Fluency

4.87

2.52

5.02

2.64

.18

.67

Flexibility

2.52

1.48

2.66

1.51

.61

.43

Extra-curricular

Thinkingprocesses

Critical

thinking

b3.13

1.32

3.17

1.26

.17

.72

Creativethinking

b3.16

1.39

3.22

1.29

.16

.68

Perceived

environm

ent

Teacher-supportc

3.15

1.26

3.38

1.24

2.33

.13

Student

cohesiveness

c3.37

1.18

3.61

1.11

2.97

.08

a Motivated

strategies

forlearning

questio

nnaire

(MSLQ).

bStudent

engagementqu

estio

nnaire

(SEQ).

c Learningenvironm

entscale(W

IHIC).

148 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Because the ability to think creatively seems to be on the same level in bothachievement groups, it may be inferred that in particular lower achieving studentsdo not use their potential for learning purposes in mathematics classrooms even atthese top-ranking middle schools whose highly able students have been selected dueto their excellent performances.

The study provided further information about presage conditions for using thepotentially available abilities to think creatively. First, the perceived communicativequalities for learning have been considered in the study. The results indicate that theperceived teacher support in mathematics classrooms seems to be particularly impor-tant for more higher level thinking by the students.

This result enables a promising pathway for intensifying the utilization of criticaland creative thinking by the students. Teachers should expect that even students withcomparatively lower achievements in mathematics are able to think critically andcreatively about the information and tasks provided in their classes, even that morethan 80% of secondary school teachers are convinced that only high achievers areable to think on higher order levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, and that it is thereforejustified to treat students in this respect in “non-egalitarian” ways (Zohar, Degani, &Vaaknin, 2001). In contrast to that, the current study supports findings of Zohar andDori (2003) who encouraged higher order thinking processes of 10th grade studentsin science classrooms. In particular, lower achievers increased their learning perfor-mances as an effect of the short process-related interventions. Experiencing teacher’sencouragement to evaluate and elaborate the content provided in classrooms by ownreflections will contribute to more positively perceived teacher help and support.The results of the current study indicate that it represents a first pathway to increasethe level of critical and creative thinking of below-average achievers in mathematicslessons of middle schools. Teachers could pursue this approach in their teachingwithout cognitively overloading them, because it does not require to design com-pletely new learning tasks as suggested by Krulik and Rudnick (1999), or to imple-ment radically new methods of instruction as suggested by the educational reformthat has not been very effective so far in raising the level of creative thinking inChinese schools (Cheng, 2010; Lockette, 2012).

A second promising pathway for strengthening critical and creative thinking inmiddle schools results from findings for student’s mathematics-related achievementmotivation. In the 3P-model (Biggs, 1992), motivation represents an important, andrepeatedly confirmed student-specific presage characteristic that mediates such

Table 3. Comparing mathematics classrooms and extracurricular learning environments:thinking and perceiving by middle school students.

Aspects Variables

Mathematicsclassrooms

Extracurricularlearning

M SD M SD tc p

Thinking processes Critical thinkinga 3.55 1.02 3.13 1.27 7.38 .00Creative thinkinga 3.23 1.05 3.14 1.35 1.44 .15

Learning environment Teacher-supportb 3.43 1.12 3.18 1.28 4.84 .00Student cohesivenessb 3.72 .82 3.42 1.15 6.22 .00

aStudent engagement questionnaire (SEQ).bLearning environment scale (WIHIC).cPaired sample t-test, two-tailed t.

High Ability Studies 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

higher order learning processes (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008; Neber et al., 2008). Thecomparison of below- and average-achievers clearly indicates strong differencesbetween both groups. Results for both mathematics-related motivational variables,task value, and in particular students’ self-efficacy are in favor of the above-averageachievers. However, promoting these kinds of process mediators in classrooms maybe more challenging for teachers than pursuing the first pathway. One reason is thatit does not directly focus on higher level learning processes but on improving moti-vational prerequisites for such processes. In contrast to the first approach, it particu-lar focuses on fostering student’s self-efficacy, a variety of possibilities for teachershave been developed that may enable them to choose a promising approach forenhancing the self-efficacy for learning mathematics of below-average achievers.Fostering the formulation of individual learning objectives by lower achieversthrough reducing comparison with higher achieving students by the teacher or inten-sifying student’s persistence in thinking about mathematical issues by teacher’sverbal persuasion belong to easy implementable approaches (Lusby, 2012). Siegleand McCoach (2007) provided teachers with a brief training (two hours) as an easyway to increase self-efficacy of students in mathematics classrooms. The authorsreport strong improvements in student’s mathematical self-efficacy in a short periodof time, and emphasize that this is attainable with only minor changes in theinstructional style.

Finally, the study informs about extracurricular activities that are prescribed tothese students. According to the results of the second comparison, these activities donot contribute to intensifying critical and creative thinking. Recently, demandedchanges in designing these activities have seemingly not been met by the currentactivities even for students at top-ranking middle schools with assumed highpotential for such processes. Thus, the study provides additional arguments forredesigning extracurricular learning environments for meeting creativity enhancingobjectives of the Chinese educational reform (Shiah, Huang, Chang, Chang, & Yeh,2013; Zhao & Zhao, 2012).

Altogether, the current exploratory investigation in middle schools informs aboutrequired (Lau, 2004), and promising directions for creativity enhancing interventions,and for fostering student’s use of such higher order thinking processes as strategiesfor learning.

FundingThis work was supported by the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy ofSciences（KSCX2-EW-J-8) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,Beijing, China.

ReferencesAnderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behav-

iour in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211–225.Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learningoutcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.

150 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Councilfor Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Hong Kong: The Universityof Hong Kong.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn.Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese stu-dents’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of MathematicalBehavior, 21, 401–421.

Chan, G. (1993). Classroom environment and approaches to learning. In J. B. Biggs & D. A.Watkins (Eds.), Learning and teaching in Hong Kong (pp. 153–163). Hong Kong:University of Hong Kong.

Cheng, V. M. Y. (2004). Progress from traditional to creativity education in Chinese societies.In S. Lau, N. N. Hui, & Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When East meets West (pp. 137–167).Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Cheng, V. M. Y. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinesecontext. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 120–137.

Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Validation and use of the ‘What is happening in thisclass?’ (WIHIC) questionnaire in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Baron &R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills (pp. 9–26). New York, NY: Freeman.

Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes ofeducational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Fraser, B. J. 2012. Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. InB. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of scienceeducation (pp. 1191–1239). Dordrecht: Springer.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivations and cognition in the classroom.In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and performance(pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.

Gu, M. (2010). A blueprint for educational development in China: A review of “The nationalguidelines for medium- and long-term educational reform and development (2010–2020).”Frontiers of Education in China, 5, 291–309.

Hunsaker, S. L. (2005). Outcomes of creativity training programs. Gifted Child Quarterly,49, 292–299.

Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, N. S., Dung, J. J., & Yang, Y. L. (2007). Multiple representation skillsand creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboardsystem. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 191–212.

Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing stu-dents’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assur-ance. Learning Environments Research, 12, 15–29.

Klimoviene, G., Urboniene, J., & Barzdzuikiene, R. (2010). Creative classroom climateassessment for advancement of foreign language acquisition Report No. 16. Kaunas,Lithuanian University of Agriculture.

Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1999). Innovative tasks to improve critical and creative thinkingskills. In L. V. Stiff & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in gradesK-12 (pp. 138–145). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2008). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in scienceachievement and engagement: A person-centered analysis. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 18, 497–504.

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievementgoals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achieve-ment outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.

Lockette, K. F. (2012). Creativity and Chinese education reform. International Journal ofGlobal Education, 1, 34–39.

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving(pp. 289–332). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lusby, B. (2012). Increasing student’s self-efficacy in mathematics. Rising Tide, 5, 1–13.

High Ability Studies 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences to learning: I. Outcome andprocess. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

McNaught, C., Leung, D., & Kember, D. (2006). Report on the student engagement projectWorking Paper No. 2. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Centre forLearning Enhancement and Research.

Moos, R. H. (1978). A typology of junior high and high school classrooms. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 15, 53–66.

Neber, H., He, J., Liu, B.-X., & Schofield, N. (2008). Chinese high-school students in phys-ics classrooms as active, self-regulated learners: Cognitive, motivational and environmen-tal effects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 769–788.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). PISA 2006. Paris: Author.Phan, H. P. (2005). Examination of student learning approaches, reflective thinking, and episte-

mological beliefs. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10, 577–610.Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components

of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.Pintrich, P. R., McKeachie, W. J., Smith, D. A. F., Doljanac, R, Lin, Y. G., Naveh-Benjamin,

M., … Karabenick, S. (1988). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire(MSLQI). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

Rao, N., & Chan, C. K. K. (2009). Moving beyond paradoxes: Understanding Chinese learn-ers and their teachers. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner(pp. 3–32). Hong Kong: Springer Science and Business Media.

Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the moti-vated strategies for learning outcomes. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59,1016–1029.

Shiah, Y.-J., Huang, Y., Chang, F., Chang, C.-F., & Yeh, L.-C. (2013). School-based extracur-ricular activities, personality, self-concept, and college career development skills inChinese society. Educational Psychology, 33, 135–154.

Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy throughteacher training. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 278–312.

Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. InR. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognition(pp. 165–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. InD. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological andpedagogical perepectives (pp. 3–23). Hong Kong: Comparative Education ResearchCentre.

Wolfle, J. A. (1986). Enriching the mathematics program for middle school gifted students.Roeper Review, 9, 81–85.

Zhang, D., & Lee, P. Y. (1991). Examination culture and mathematics teaching. Proceedingsof ICMI – China Regional Conference of Mathematical Education at Beijing, 1, 8.

Zhao, X.-J., & Zhao, X.-T. (2012). Another way to develop Chinese students’ creativity:Extracurricular innovation activities. US-China Education Review, B, 6, 566–571.

Ziegler, A. (2009). Research on giftedness in the 21st century. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1509–1524). Amsterdam: Springer.

Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving studentsand higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469–485.

Zohar, A., & Dori, J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Arethey mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 1445–1445.

152 Z.K. Liu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Zhe

jiang

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

15