Citation
Pre-Service Teachers' Personality Traits and Creative Behaviors  As Predictors of Their Support of Children's Creativity

Material Information

Title:
Pre-Service Teachers' Personality Traits and Creative Behaviors As Predictors of Their Support of Children's Creativity
Creator:
Lee, Ilrang
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (156 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
Kemple, Kristen Mary
Committee Members:
Jones, Hazel
Smith-Bonahue, Tina M
Behar-Horenstein, Linda Susan
Graduation Date:
5/4/2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Creativity ( jstor )
Demography ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Personality ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Personality traits ( jstor )
Preservice teachers ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Tipis ( jstor )
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
creativity -- earlychildhood -- personality -- preservice -- teacher
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to examine: 1) the relationship between pre-service teachers’ personality traits and their behaviors to support children’s creativity; 2) the relationship between pre-service teachers’ creative behaviors and their behaviors to support children’s creativity; and finally, 3) the role of pre-service teachers’ creative behaviors as a mediating variable between their personality traits and their behaviors to support children’s creativity. A total of 302 early childhood and elementary pre-service teachers participated in this study. The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), the Creative Personality Scale (CPS), the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI), and the Creativity-Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI), were used to measure the pre-service teachers’ personality traits (Five-Factor Model; openness to experiences, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability), creative personality trait, creative behavior/activity experiences, and their behaviors to support children’s creativity (independence, integration, motivation, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, question, opportunities, and frustration). The mediating role of the creative behavior/activity variable in the 13 relationship between the pre-service teachers’ personality traits and their behaviors to support children’s creativity were analyzed. There were four major findings: 1) pre-service teachers who had more creativity-related behavior experiences were likely to use more creativity-fostering teaching styles; 2) pre-service teachers who had higher scores on the openness personality trait were likely to use more creativity-fostering teaching styles 3) pre-service teachers who had more creativity-related behavior experiences were likely to use more creativity-fostering teaching styles; and finally, 4) pre-service teachers’ creative behavior/activity experiences fully and partially mediated the relationship between the openness trait and creativity-fostering teacher behaviors. Additional findings indicated that senior and master’s degree students had higher scores on creative personality trait and creativity-fostering behavior than junior students. White/Caucasian pre-service teachers had higher scores on the extraversion personality trait than other ethnicity pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers who prefer to teach younger children had higher scores on creative personality trait than pre-service teachers who prefer to teach older children. These findings will enable researchers and practitioners to anticipate teaching behaviors that are likely to lead to positive outcomes with regard to young children’s creative behavior. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Kemple, Kristen Mary.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ilrang Lee.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Lee, Ilrang. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
887737147 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2013 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 PRE SERVICE T By IL RANG LEE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTI AL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Il Rang Lee

PAGE 3

3 This work is dedicated t o my family Without their sacrifices, I would not have com pleted my doctoral journey.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee members Drs. Kristen Kemple, Hazel Jones, Tina Smith Bonahue, and Linda Behar Horenstein for their encouragement, support and advice. I sincer ely thank them from the bottom of my heart, it was a great privilege and honor to have yo u in my committee and being their student. My special tremendous gratitude goes to my advisor, Dr. Kristen Kemple who always displays the most professional and positi ve attitude as a researcher, advisor, mentor, and teacher She is my role model now and forever. I am also truly indebted to my former advisors Drs. Young Hee Oh, Dae Kyun Lee, and my US mother Judy Herr, for their constant i nvaluable support and encourag ement I would like to dedicate this work to my beloved family As always, the p erson I most admire, my father, K y e Seung Lee, has provided me with all sorts of tangible an intangible support. My moth er, Hee Sook Choi, is my hope to dream and my faith to endure She is a lso my mentor and advisor as a colleague in the a rea of early childhood education, along with my aunt, Mee Soo k Choi ; both Drs have constantly been there for me no matter what. I thank my cherished brother Chae Jin, who is a critical sup p orter as well as my best friend I dedicate this with deep reverence and affection to my grandmother, K wan Yeop Kang, as well as to the memory of my lat e grandfather, Moon Kyung Choi. My special and end less thanks go to my parents in law, Nakwon Chang and Sookh ee Park, who m I truly respect and who always trust me and support me. L ast but not least I thank m y husband, Yonghwan Chang and our preci ous daughter, Chloe Seoyul with eternal gratitude and love They are the inspiration for my every endeavor and t hey are the ones who make my life meaningful. Without my family, I would not be where I am today. I am happy to be a proud daughter, wife, and mother.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 21 Conceptions of Creativity ................................ ................................ ........................ 21 ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Creativity in Education ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 ................................ .............................. 26 Creative Teaching: Ability Based and Personality Based Approach ................ 29 Personality Trait: Five Factor Model of Personality ................................ ................ 32 Personality Traits and Creativity Fostering Behavior ................................ .............. 36 Personality Traits and Creativity ................................ ................................ ....... 36 Personality Traits ................................ ......... 39 Creative Behavior Experience and Creativity Fostering Behavior .......................... 41 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 42 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 Power Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 45 Data Collec tion ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 46 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47 Demographic Background ................................ ................................ ................ 48 Personality Traits: Ten Item Pe rsonality Inventory ................................ ........... 48 ............................... 50 Creative Behavior/Activity Experience: Creative Behavior Inventory ................ 52

PAGE 6

6 Fostering Teacher Behavior Index ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 53 Data Analysis Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 55 Preliminary Data Analysis Plan ................................ ................................ ........ 56 Missing data ................................ ................................ ............................... 56 Outliers ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 56 Normality ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 58 Linearity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 58 Homoscedasticity ................................ ................................ ....................... 58 Multicollinearity ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Measurement Model Test Plan ................................ ................................ ......... 59 Confirmatory Factor Analy sis (CFA) ................................ .......................... 60 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ................................ ......................... 60 Validity and reliability ................................ ................................ ................. 61 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ........................ 62 Analysis of Hypotheses Plan ................................ ................................ ............ 63 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 67 Preliminary Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ....................... 67 Missing Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 67 Outliers ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 68 Normality ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 68 Linearity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 69 Homoscedasticity ................................ ................................ ............................. 69 Multicollinearity ................................ ................................ ................................ 69 Validity and Reliability of Measure ment ................................ ................................ .. 70 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) 70 Principle Components Analysis (PCA) of Creative Personality Scale (CPS) .... 71 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Creative Personality Scale (CPS) ....... 72 Principle Components Analysis (PCA) of Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI) ... 73 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI) ....... 74 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) ................................ ................................ ................... 75 Demographic Descriptive Information ................................ ................................ ..... 77 Analysis of Hypot heses ................................ ................................ ........................... 80 Hypothesis 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 81 Hypothesis 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 82 Hypothesis 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 82 Hypothesis 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 84 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 110 Summary of the Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 110 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 112 Relationships between Pre Creative Behavior Experience ................................ ................................ ..... 112

PAGE 7

7 Relationship between Pre Creativity Fostering Behavior ................................ ................................ ...... 114 Relationship between Pre and Their Creativity Fostering Behavior ................................ ...................... 115 Additional Findings of Interests ................................ ................................ ...... 117 Implications for Teacher Education ................................ ................................ ....... 119 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ......................... 121 Implication for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............ 122 APPENDIX A LETTER OF CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............ 128 B TEACHER INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ .................... 129 C PERSONALITY TRATIS QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ........................ 130 D CREATIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ...... 131 E CREATIVE BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ .......................... 132 F CREATIVITY FOSTERING TEACHER BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE ............... 134 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 156

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Descriptive statistics on the variables ................................ ................................ 86 4 2 Summary of goodness of fit indices for TIPI ................................ ....................... 87 4 3 Summary for measurement model of TIPI ................................ .......................... 87 4 4 Correlations among TIPI constructs ................................ ................................ ... 87 4 5 Pattern matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of four factor solution o f CPS ....... 88 4 6 CPS model with four components ................................ ................................ ...... 89 4 7 Finalized CPS model after modification ................................ .............................. 89 4 8 Summary of goodness of fit indices for CPS ................................ ...................... 90 4 9 Summary for measurement model of CPS ................................ ......................... 90 4 10 Correlations among CPS constructs ................................ ................................ ... 90 4 11 Pattern matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of four factor solution of CBI ......... 91 4 12 CBI model with four components ................................ ................................ ........ 92 4 13 Finalized CBI model after modification ................................ ............................... 92 4 14 Summary of goodness of fit indices for CBI ................................ ........................ 93 4 15 Summary for measurement model of CBI ................................ .......................... 93 4 16 Correlations among CBI constructs ................................ ................................ .... 93 4 17 Summary of goodness of fit indices for CFTI ................................ ...................... 94 4 18 Summary for measurement model of CFTI ................................ ........................ 95 4 19 Correlations among CFTI constructs ................................ ................................ .. 97 4 20 Descriptive statistics on the modified variables ................................ .................. 97 4 21 Demographic and descriptive data ................................ ................................ ..... 98 4 2 2 Descriptive statistics on teaching experiences with different age groups ........... 99 4 23 Independent t test for demographic vari able: Program ................................ ....... 99

PAGE 9

9 4 24 Independent t test for demographic variable: Year of program ........................ 100 4 25 Independent t test for demographic variable: Ethnicity ................................ ..... 100 4 26 Independent t test for demographic variable: Having a music course .............. 101 4 27 Independent t test for demographic variable: Having an art course ................. 101 4 28 Independent t test for demographic variable : Number of different age groups taught ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 102 4 29 Independent t test for demographic variable: Ideal teaching grade level .......... 102 4 30 Zero order correlations among variables ................................ .......................... 103 4 31 Multiple regression analysis fo r variables predicting score of CFTI .................. 103 4 32 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the re lation between total CFTI score and personality trait of openness ................ 104 4 33 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between independence of CFTI score and personality trait of openness ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 104 4 34 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between integration of CFTI score and personality trait of openness .. 105 4 35 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between motivation of CFTI score and personality trait of openness ... 105 4 36 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between judgment of CFTI score and personality trait of o penness .... 106 4 37 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating r ole of CBI in the relation between flexibility of CFTI score and personality trait of openness ..... 106 4 38 Summary of regressi on analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between evaluation of CFTI score and personality trait of openness ... 107 4 39 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between question of CFTI score and personality trait of openness ..... 107 4 40 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between opportunity of CFTI score and personality trait of openness 108 4 41 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between frustration of CFTI score and personality trait of openness ... 108 5 1 Summary of findings on the research questions and hypotheses .................... 127

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Hypothetical model of the study ................................ ................................ .......... 20 3 1 Sample sizes by effect sizes and powers ................................ ........................... 66 3 2 Pathway of proposed model ................................ ................................ ............... 66 4 1 Pat h diagram of the proposed meditational model after modification ............... 109

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TERM S A GREEABLENESS Being friendly and good natured C ONSCIENTIOUSNESS Being disciplined and ru le oriented and having integrity C REATIVE BEHAVIOR OR EXPERIENCE C urrent or past creative accomplishments or activities C REATIVITY F OSTERING B EHAVIOR E XTRAVERSION Being outgoing an d sociable F IVE FACTOR MODEL ( FFM )/ B IG FIVE FFM is the most widely used framework to describe personality traits It includes five domains: Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism or Emotional Stability N EUROTICISM / E MOTIONAL S TABILITY H aving emotional anxiety/H aving emotional stability O PENNESS / OPENNESS TO EXPERIEN CE Having intellectual and experiential curiosity P RE SERVICE TEACHER A teacher candidate in a teach er certification program who is completing his/her student teaching practicum or internship.

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Deg ree of Doctor of Philosophy PRE SERVICE T By Il Rang Lee May 2013 Chair: Kristen Kemple Major: Special Education The purpose of this study is t o examine: 1) the relationship between pre service their relationship between pre service ive behaviors and their behaviors to and finally, 3) the role of pre service behaviors as a mediating variable between the ir personality traits and their behaviors to A total of 302 early childhood and elementary pre service teachers partici pated in this study. The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), the Creative Personality Scale (CPS), the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI), and the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI), were used to measure the pre service ity traits ( Five Factor Model; openness to experiences, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability) creative personality trait, creative behavior/activity inde pendence, integration, motivation, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, question, opportunities, and frustration). The mediatin g role of the creative behavior/activity variable in the

PAGE 13

13 relationship between the pre r behaviors to There were four major findings: 1) pre service teachers who had more creativity related behavior experiences were likely to use more creativity fostering teaching styles; 2) pre service teachers w ho had higher score s on the openness personality trait were likely to use more creativity fostering teaching styles 3) pre service teachers who had more creativity related behavior experiences were likely to use more creativity fostering teaching styles; a nd finally, 4) pre /activity experiences fully and partially mediated the relationship between the openness trait and creativity fostering teacher behaviors. Ad ditional findings indicate d degree students had higher score s on creative personality trait and creativity fostering behavior than junior students. White/ Caucasian pre service teachers had higher scores on the extraversion personality trait than other ethnicity pre service teachers Pre ser vice teachers who prefer to teach younger children had higher scores on creative personality trait than pre service teachers who prefer to teach older children These findings will enable researchers and practitioners to anticipate teaching behaviors that are likely to lead to

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION plays a significant role in almost every area of human life including the arts, science, philosophy, and technology (Chvez Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz Fuentes, 2012; Gough, 1979; Runco & Richards, 1998) ; furthermore, c reative behavior is arguably one of the most important and long lasting factors when it comes to pinpointing differences among individuals (Simonton, 2000) T here was a time when creativity was a highly neglected topic i n psychological research. This void in scholarship was filled when Guilford (1950) pioneer of modern creativity research, addressed the concept of creativity at the 1950 American Psychological Association (APA) Confere nce. Since that moment, the research on this subject has been rapidly growing and evolving. Guilford (1950) promoted the development of new ideas regarding creative personal ity and creative productivity. At the same tim e, he focused on the ne ed for creativity in the field of education, while advocating for creativity training as a way to produc e a more creative person (Cropley, 2001; Fasko, 2001; Sternberg & Dess, 2001; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002) g point for study ing the belief that creati vity can be nurtured through education. He believed that research would provide necessary knowledge to identify and foster the potential for creativity, especially among children (Sternberg & Dess, 2001) This i dea has been widely studied ; many researchers have identified a positive correlation between creativity and various types of creativity training (Amabile, 1983; Cropley, 1992; Fleith, Renzulli, & Westberg, 2002; Mansfield, Busse, & Krepelka, 1978; Nickerson, 1999; Rose L. H. & LIN, 1984; Sc ott, Leritz, & Mumford,

PAGE 15

15 2004; Torrance, 1972) Early childhood in particular, is a meaningful and optimal period for (Lowenfel d & Brittain, 1987; Torrance, 1979) C reativity fostering experiences during childhood have been positively (Nickerson, 19 99; Starko, 2010 ; Torrance, 1979) Statement of the Problem Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) the field of education has largely focus ed on quantitative measures, by using h igh stakes academic achievement test s in core subjects (e.g. reading and mathematics) while neglecting and deemphasizing non academic curricula. The quest for accountability has caused many teachers to focus allocated instructional time solely on academic curricula geared towards and test performance (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003; Goertz & Duffy, 2 003; Hursh, 2007; Loveless, 2012 ; Rose & Gallup, 2007) The current educational climate has contributed to suppressing creativity in teaching and learning (Kozol, 2006; Rentner et al., 2006) Given that creativity is a significant individual difference construct, it is surprising that it has received insufficient academic focus in comparison to related areas such as intelligence (Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, 2010) A long standing goal of early childhood educator is to teach and nurture the phy sical, and language development. H owever, fostering the development of creativity is a purpose that is less explicitly stated (Kemple & Nissenberg, 2000) Improving young (Nickerson, 1999; Saracho, 2012) is crucial because their ability fo r creative imagination is most

PAGE 16

16 active d uring the preschool years and begins to decreases once they enter kindergarten (Torrance, 1963) T he role of early childhood education teachers is to capitalize on teachable moments to enhance and support potential for creativity. Researchers have shown that qualities are p redictors of support f or the manifestation of (Esquivel, 1995; Jeffrey, 2006; McWilliam & Haukka, 2008; Mills, 2003; Olanisimi, Adeniyi, & Olawale, 2011; Schacter, Thum, & Zifkin, 2006) They have also suggested that there are several traits related to individual creativity and c reative behavior s such as motivation (Hennessey & Amabile, 1998; Prabhu, Sutton, & Sauser, 2008) leadership (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 2006; Zhang & Bartol, 2010) intelligence (McCabe, 1991; Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2006) self efficacy (Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007; Tierney & Farmer, 2002) and personality (Chvez Eakle et al. 2012; Dollinger, Urban, & James, 2004; Fe ist, 1999) Although creative teachers may there has been less research regarding the creativity, specifically in early chi ldhood education. In an effort to f ill this gap, this study has ado pted the Five Factor Model of personality traits and creative personality as predictors of early childhood education pre service In addition, this study examines the creative activit y experience as another predictor variable. According to Colang elo, Kerr, Hallowell, Huesman, and Gaeth (1992) past creative behavior s is the best predictor of future creative behavior Thus, a person who has less creative achievement tends to have lack of opportunity and

PAGE 17

17 encouragement to be creative (Kim & VanTassel Baska, 2010) Therefore pre service teach creativity. The purpose of this study is three fold: 1) to exam ine the relationshi p between pre service personal ity traits and their creativity; 2) to examine the relationship between pre service behaviors and their o examine the role of pre service the ir personality traits and their Research Questions The research questions that are addressed in this study are as follows: 1. What particular domains of pre service 2. What particular domains of pre service with their crea tive behav ior experiences ? 3. Do pre service own creative behavior experiences mediate the relationship between their personality traits and their behaviors to support Hypotheses Based on the extant theoretical and empirical research, t he following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 1. Some traits of pre service be significantly and positively related to their Hypothesis 2. Some traits of pre service te significant ly and positively related to their own creative behavior experiences

PAGE 18

18 Hypothesis 3. Pre service t will be significantly and positively related to t heir Hypothesis 4. Pre service t avior experiences will mediate the relationship between some traits of pre service their The hypothesized relationships are depicted in Figure 1 1. Limitations of the Study This study u tilized participants from a group of pre service teachers in early childhood and elementary education programs at a single large and co mprehensive university. Therefore, data from different institutions of higher education or demographically different grou p s of teachers (e.g. in service teachers or teachers with different educational backgrounds) may yield different results. This study relies on self report measurements. This research method is vulnerable to social desirability bias, in that participants ma y overestimate and exaggerate their abilities and beliefs (Kaufman, Plucker, and Baer 2008; Kruger & Dunning, 1999) Th e results of this study measured three variables of personali ty trait, personal creativity, and creative behavior s. Significance of the Study The current study will contribute to the body of knowledge in the early childhood education field by providing a greater understanding of the roles of human personality and c reativity in predicting This study may provide information about the mediating role of creative experience in the relationship between personality traits and teaching behaviors to promote children creativity. Such a relationship would suggest the importance of engaging teachers in creative experiences in order to support th eir use of teaching behaviors that promote The results of this study also will enable researcher s and

PAGE 19

19 practitioners to anticipate teaching behaviors that are likely to lead to positive outcomes Based upon a review of the theoretical background of the Five Factor Model of personality traits, creativity, cr eative behavior, creativity in education, and creativity in the fields of education al psychology and early childhood education the research developed the following model to predict the study outcomes.

PAGE 20

20 Figure 1 1. H ypothetical model of the study

PAGE 21

21 C HAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study is to examine: 1) the relationship between pre service their relationship between pre service ive beh aviors and their behaviors to pre service behaviors as a mediating variable between the ir personality traits and their behaviors to Chapter 2 is c omposed of three sections. The first section will discuss in early childhood education. Additionally, this section discusses the important role the teacher plays i section presents an overview of the theoretical background surrounding the personality traits (i.e., Five Factor Model of personality) and creative behavior. The third section provid es an overview of research on personality traits, creative behaviors, and creativity fostering behavior culminating in four hypotheses. Conceptions of Creativity Creativity has been of great interest to psychologists and educators for over a century. At th e 1950 American Psychological Association (APA) Conference, Guilford (1950) addressed a concern about neglecting the study of the creative aspects of personality as a topic of psychological research when it is believed to be an extremely important factor in the fulfillment of human potential His work served to attract greater attention to creativity from psychologies and educators. C reativity has been continuously researched and developed since then (Cropley, 2001; Fasko, 2001;

PAGE 22

22 Sternberg & Dess, 2001; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999 ; Treffinger et al. 2002) As interest in creativity research developed, scho lars were challenge d Scholars do not share a single understanding of creativity ; research reveals that there are more than 100 different published definitions of creativity. A wide range of definitions are present in psychology, soc ial science, a nd philosophy, definitions that change depending on whether the term refers to the individuals organizations, or societies (Aleinikov, Kackmeister, & Koenig, 2000; Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010; Runco, 2007; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Treffinger, 1995; Treffinger et al. 2002) The early years of scholar ly work on creativity focused on originality and divergent thinking among various facets of creativity. Later, researchers developed and extended the definition of creativity to include the concept of appropriateness (Kilgour & Koslow, 2009; Runco & Charles, 1993) Despite debates one contemporary definition of creativity has emerged that c reativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (original, unexpected, and dive rgent) and appropriate (useful, meets task constraints) (Sternberg & Lu bart, 1991, 1996, 1999) Mayeskey (2011) defined creativity specifically way of thinking and acting or making something decades of debate about defining creat ivity, researchers agree that fundamentally (Ford, 1996) Four The traditional psychological approach to creativity refers to four components : the creative person (or personality), the creative process, the creative product, and the creative place (or press), together referred to as the (Rhodes,

PAGE 23

23 1961) Recently, resear chers updated and expended it to persuasion (Simonton, 1988, 1990, 1995) and potential (Runco, 2003) to this approac h: 1) The refers to the s eries of cognitive processes that occur during creative thinking or creative activity, 3) the creative is describe d as the most objective approach and it focuse s on the creative outputs (i.e. literary works, works of art, and inventions), 4) the creative place or press zes the relationship between nature of t he environment and individuals 5) the the ability to convince and change the way others think to consider or accept an idea and 6) the focuses on potential creative processes or outputs, which have yet to be fulfilled (Davis, 2004; Kerr, 2009; Kozbelt et al., 2010; Rhodes, 1961; Richards, 1999; Watson, 200 7) In Rhodes (1961) importance of the four components and he addressed the significance of the interactions between the four components. L ater researchers further emp hasize d the interrelations of those multi facets, referring to the consideration of those interactions as an ecological or interactionist approach to creativity (Harrington, 1990; Isaksen, Murdock, Firestien, & Treffinger, 1993; Isaksen, Puccio, & Treffinger, 1993; Murdock & Puccio, 1999) Isaksen and Aerts (2011 ) established the basic thesis of the interactionist approach by stating problem solving process and the context wi thin which this activity occurs (p. 8). In their work, they focu sed on describing and explaining the interactions between the facets,

PAGE 24

24 and argued that creativity is developed when these four facets are function ally operating with each other. The framework of the present study is grounded in the c omponents (person /personality process, and product) with in t he interactionist approach Specifically creative pre service teacher s ( creative person /personality ) may use creativity fostering behaviors ( creative product) influenced by their own creative ac tivity experiences (creative process ) However, the creative activity experiences also may b e viewed as a creative product when the experiences serve as a past creativity accomplishment The component of creative place/press is not included in the framewor k of this study. Someone may argue that pre should be considere d as a creative process in the 4 model, s ince this study measured pre cognitive intention toward behavior. However, numerous studies seeking to predict human behavior have used the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). According to Ajzen (2001 2005 ), people act according to their i ntentions and their perceptions of control over their behavior. These intentions are affected by attitudes toward the behavior, perceptions of behavioral control, and subjective norms. In the field of education a number of studies regarding teacher eptions toward their teaching behaviors have included results supporting the assertion that intentions play an important role in guiding actual behavior ( Burak, 1994; Crawley, 1990; Dillon, & Gayford, 1997 ; Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 1996 ) Therefore, pre s enact creativity fostering behavior may be consider ed as a creative product.

PAGE 25

25 Creativity in Education At the American Psychological Association (APA) conference, Guilford (1950) ion between education and creative productiveness? Why do we not produce a larger number of creative geniuses than we addressed the problems of education that psychologists and ed ucators need to investigate: discovering creative promise in children and youth; and promoting the development of creative personalities. S ince Guilford emphasized the importance of creativity in education over sixty decades ago, many researchers have trie d to explore those problems and have debated about how creativity can be developed and nurtured through training. These scholars have brought evidence that supports a range of hypotheses regarding the ability to foster creativity in education (Amabile, 19 83; Fleith et al., 2002; Mansfield et al. 1978; Rose L. H. & LIN, 1984; Scott et a l. 2004; Torrance, 1972) S pecifically, previous studies emphasized the role of creativity in education during the early childhood period. It has been proposed that every child is born being creative; in other words, creativity (or at least creative pote ntial) is viewed as a natural ability in young children. S ome researchers proposed that children develop creativity as a result of adults simply removing the barriers to creative expression since they naturally possess a creative ability of their own (Feldman, 1982; Feldman, 1994; Gardner, 1985; Gardner, 2011) On the other hand, psychologists and educators believe that creativity can be elicited, support ed, and trained through variety of methods and procedures (Amabile, 1983; Feldhusen, 2005; Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987; Moran, Sawyers, Fu, & Milgram, 1984; Renzulli & Reis, 1994; Sternberg & De ss, 2001; Torrance & Myers, 1970 ) For decades, the researchers examined and demonstrated

PAGE 26

26 the e the recent experimental study by Lee and Erdogan (2007) demonstrated the effect of science technology s Especially, numerous researchers believe that many abilities, including creativity, emerge during the preschool years and that the preschool period is a sensitive period during (Dacey, 1989; Mead or, 1992; Torrance & Myers, 1970 ) A large number of early childhood education scholars have focused on childr its various aspects: intelligence (Preckel et al., 2006; Rindermann & Neubauer, 2004) sel f esteem (Gerrard, Poteat, & Ironsmith, 1996) self determination (Sheldon, 1995) as well as academic aspects such as math, art, and science (Druin & Solomon, 1996; Haugland, 1992; Russ, Robins, & Christiano, 1999) Since the purpose of the present study examines the pre service creativity fostering behavior to stimulate childr approach, nurturing creativity, is relevant to this study. In sum, children are born with the capability of being creative and it is essential to support and nurture this capacity. With ulation, children can develop their creative potential so that they can become more creative individuals during the preschool years. The following section fostering behaviors in the educat ional setting. In a school setting, the teacher is the person who provides the appropriate

PAGE 27

27 ories and researchers have proposed the importance creativity. For example, de Kruif, McWilliam, Ridley, and Wakely (2000) examined the relationship between early childho There is a positive relationship between teacher student in teractions in early childhood education classrooms. negatively correlated to ch (Graham, Sawyers, & DeBord, 1989) creativity. Aljughaiman and Mowere Reynolds (2005) ent creativity teachers need to identify characteristics of the creative personality, recognize creative production, understand the cognitive processes used by creative students, and (p. 17). There supportive environments created by teachers. classroom environment with r egard to whether it enhances creativity or obstructs Fleith, 2000) Findings from this study indicated that both teachers and children believed that a clas sroom environment stimulated ity. Fleith observed that the learning environments can enhance creativity within four

PAGE 28

28 confidence, accepting students as they are, not imposing things on students, providing students opportunities to become aware of their creativity); strategies (cooperative groups, cluster groups, free time, arts center, flexible directions, brainstorming); activities (open ended activities, hands on, creative writing, drawing); and education al seemed to be inhibited when teachers provided excessive structured teaching, ignore d or attempted to control students. R esearchers and educators have reported the impact of diffe rent teaching strategies in stimulating fostering creativity. Finally, by combining and summarizing those fram eworks and theories, he suggested nine research 1. Encourage students to learn independently (Independence) 2. Have a co operative, socially integrative style of teaching (Integration) 3. Mo tivate students to master factual knowledge, so that they have a solid base for divergent thinking (Motivation) 4. clearly formulated (Judgment) 5. Encourage flexible thinking (Flexibil ity) 6. Promote self evaluation in students (Evaluation) 7. 8. Offer students opportunities to work with a wide variety of materials and under many different conditions (Opportunities) 9. Help students to l earn to cope with frustration and failure, so that they have the courage to try the new and unusual (Frustration) ( p. 98)

PAGE 29

29 B ased on these nine behaviors, Soh (2000) invented a measu rement of Fo stering Teacher Index (CFTI ), which was used in this study. Additionall teac fostering behaviors suggests that teachers who support cr eative development tend to have a : 1) humanistic philosophic orientation, 2) high value of interpersonal relationships, and 3) characteristics of creative personality. H e emphasized that teachers must realized creative teaching is in itself a creative proc ess. Therefore, in conclusion, even though it is widely believed that all children have creativity, the role o f the teacher is very important. T eachers need to provide appropriate supports and learning However, few be an overview of research about creativity. Creative Teaching : Ability Based and Personality Based Approach Creative teaching is often considered as effective teaching. Namely, effective teachers are individuals who possess the capacity to teach student through creative teaching style (Anderson, 2002; Esquivel, 1995; Fasko, 2001; Renzulli, 1992). Dacey (1989) suggested the effective teachers have positive attitude toward creativity and student related ability of acceptance, openness, and flexibility. Strenberg, Grigorenko, and Zhang (2008) proposed two styles of learning and thinking in teaching. From a synthesis of theories and research on thinking style they

PAGE 30

30 identified two different types of creativ e teaching style: ability based and personality based. There is a fundamental difference between the ability based style (e.g., how creative teachers in their teaching) and the personality based style (e.g., how much the teachers like to be creative in the ir teaching). refers to ability based teaching, which consists of three types of teaching, (i.e., analytic teaching, practical teaching, and creative te aching). P eople who were successful and intellige nt possessed a balance of these three types of abilities. The researchers applied this theory to ability based teaching style: 1. Analytic teaching: encourage student to analyze, critique, judge, compare and contrast, evaluate, and assess 2. Practical teaching: encourage students to apply, use, put into practice, implement, employ, and render practical what they know 3. Creative teaching: encourage students to create, invent, discover, imagine, suppose, and predict (Strenberg, Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008, p. 488) Th e ability Intelligence while the personality based thinking is based on the Theory of Mental Self Government developed by Strenber g (1998, 1999b), which provides an understanding of teache approach relevant to this study. Personality based thinking consists of 13 t hinking st yles that fall along five constructs: functions ( legislative, executive, and judicial ); forms ( monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic ); levels ( local and global ); scope ( internal and external ), and leanings ( liberal and conservative ) of government The key characteristics of each

PAGE 31

31 thinking style are: legislative (being creative), executive (being conforming), judicial (being analytical), monarchic (dealing with one task at a time), hierarchic (dealing with multiple prioritized tasks), oligarchic (de aling with multiple non prioritized tasks), anarchic (dealing with tasks at random), global (focusing on abstract ideas), local (focusing on concrete ideas), internal (enjoying working independently), external (enjoying working in groups), liberal (using n ew ways to deal with tasks), and conservative (using traditional ways to deal with tasks) (Zhang, 2001, p. 561). from the theory of mental self government. Zhang and her colleag thinking styles as manifested in teaching; the Type 1 teaching style is more creative generating and expresses higher levels of cognitive complexity (i.e., legislative, hierarchical, gl obal, judicial, and liberal); the Type 2 teachin g style is a norm favoring tendency that expresses lower levels of cognitive complexity ( i.e., conservative, local, monarchic, and executive); and the Type 3 teaching style is the rest of the four teaching styles that belong to neither the Type 1 teaching style nor the Type 2 teaching style (i.e., anarchic, oligarchic, internal, and external) (Zhang, 2001, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2007; Zhang, Huang, & Zhang, 2005). culture study (2006) examined the preferences for g styles among college students from China, Hong Kong, and United States. They found similar results among three groups of students. All groups of students preferred to teach students with Type 1 teaching (creative generating teaching) and they also prefer red to facilitate interactions among students (external

PAGE 32

32 oligarchic, and internal style. This study shows that pre service teacher expressed strong preference to use a creative generating teaching style that : 1) creative thinking, 2) increases their level of cognitive complexity, and 3) work s collaboratively with others. Other studies regarding the relationship between teaching onality will be discussed in following sections. Personality Trait: Five Factor Model of Personality Psychologists have struggled to define personality since it is such a complex psychological concept that incorporates social, biological, and cognitive fa ctors. As a concept, it is even more multifaceted than creativity. Roberts (2009) one of the leading of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect the tendency to respond in certain ways ( p. 140) Many models of personality traits that have been formulated (Borghans, Golst eyn, Heckman, & Humphries, 2011; John, Robins, & Pervin, 2010) ( C. G. Jung, 1971 ) Myers Briggs personality types theory (Myers, 1987, 2003; Myers, McCaulley, & Most, 1985) ( Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, 2008; Cattell H. E. P., & Schuerger, 2003; Cattell, R. B., Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1988) and the Five Factor Model of personality traits (Brand & Egan, 1989; Costa & McCrae, 1989; Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Goldberg et al., 2006; Goldberg, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 2007; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005; Norman, 1963) s based on the assumption that there are four different functions (i.e., sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling) and two attitudes (i.e., extraversion and introversion) of consciousness. These functions and attitudes are modified by eight psychologica l types; extraverted sensation, introverted sensation, extraverted intuition,

PAGE 33

33 introverted intuition, extraverted thinking, introverted thinking, extraverted feeling, and introverted feeling. Myers Briggs personality types and the development of T he Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Murray, Rushton, & Paunonen, 1990; Myers, 1987, 2003 ; Myers et al., 1985 ) were psychological types theor y. The ad dition of judgment and perception attitudes to the MBTI resulted in sixteen personality types. The MBTI test addresses only one personality type amo ng sixteen types of personality while the Five Factor Model of personality traits measure indicate s the stre ngth of an personality by providing percentile scores for five dimensions of personality (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, o penness agreeableness, and conscientiousness). taxonomy of personality traits using a lexical approach with standard applicable personality adjectives, which were developed through factor analysis. This theory measures personality based upon sixteen primary factors within a high and low range; warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity, vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self reliance, perfectionism, and tension. However, this theory has been cri ticized because the factors have not been replicated. Despite attempts this measurement has failed to provide evidence of validity and reliability (Eysenck, 1991; Howarth & B rowne, 1971; Kline & Barrett, 1983; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987; Sch uerger, Zarrella, & Hotz, 1989). However development of the well Five Factor Model ( John & Srivastava, 1999 ). Several researchers were involved in the discovery and

PAGE 34

34 cla factors known as extraversion or surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability versus neuroticism, and intellect or openness (Borgatta, 1964; Digma n & Takemoto Chock, 1981; Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961, 1992). The Five leading theories the most widely used and most comprehensively researched model of personali ty and used by several psychologists in the field of human personality (Goldberg, 1992; Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 2007) categorize s the five fundamental traits of human person ality according to : (O) Openness to experience: Originality, Open Mindedness (C) Conscientiousness: Control, Constraint (E) Extraversion: E nergy, Enthusiasm (A) Agreeableness: Altruism, Affection (E) Neuroticism: Negative Affectivity, Nervousness (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121) The words next to domains help to understand the characteristics of that particular domain. Each domain encompasses a broad meaning of personality traits that are assoc iated with more than one word. These traits are al so referred to by using the (Goldberg, 1999; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999)

PAGE 35

35 eagerness to have new experiences. This is explained by appreciation of art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, b road minded, and creativity versus imperceptiveness with a variety of experience s. People reporting higher levels of the openness to experience factor are more open minded and appreciative of arts, and also of deep and intellectual reflection (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990, 1992; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997; Wiggins, 1996) Conscientiousness or dependability traits of peopl e tend to show self discipline, dutiful actions thoroughness, responsibility, and an achievement oriented personality. Also, these people are organized and planned rather than spontaneous and they value efficiency in their lives. While people reporting l ower levels of conscientiousness, display negligence, unreliability, and sev ere carelessness (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1999; Nowack, 1997) T he trait of e xtraversion also know as surgency, comprises traits such as energy, positive emotions, assertiveness, sociability, active participation and reactive emotion. Someone who displays a higher extraversion factor tends to enjoy the stimulation br ought on by the company of large numbers of people, this type of person is generally talkative and assertive. Those who score lower on extraversion factor tend to be shy and have a lower degree of energy (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1999; John & Srivastava, 1999) The factor of agreeableness includes courtesy, sympathy, kindness, and cooperation, with feelings of warmth and trustworthiness. People who score higher on th is factor tend to be more friendly and compassionate For them, getting along with

PAGE 36

36 others is important for the common good, as opposed to behaving in ways that are suspicious hostile, unkind, a nd antagonistic towards others (Dig man, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1999 ) The factor of neuroticism is also reversely stated as emotional stability. Emotional stability indicates higher emotional stability, in co ntrast to neuroticism which indicates lower emotional stability. Neuroticism includes nervousness, temper amental behavior and moodiness Individuals who report a higher level of neuroticism tend to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, sel f defeat, high anxiety, depression, or vu lnerability. Also, they are extremely concerned about personal competence, while a lower level of neuroticism (i.e., emotional stability) includes even te mperament, self confidence, resilience, high tolerance of str ess, and a well adjusted personality (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1999; Nowack, 1997) The following section will discuss the linkage between FF M personality traits and creativity followed by research hypotheses. Personality Traits and Creativ ity Fostering Behavior Personality Traits and Creativity Researchers ha ve examined the correlation between personality and creative traits. Especially among the FFM personality factors, the openness to experience is the most positively and consistently associated with a wide range of diverse creativity traits in creativity personality research (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005; Hirsh & Peterson, 2008; Hoseinifar et al., 2011; Prabhu et al. 2008) Dollinger and his colleagues conducted representative research regarding perso nality and creativity among college students for several years (Dollinger, 2003, 2007, 2011; Dollinger, Bur ke, & Gum p, 2007; Dollinger et al. 2004) R ecent ly Dollinger

PAGE 37

37 et al. (2004) examined the relationship between the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality dimensions and their creative potential as measured by a Test for Creative Thinking Drawing Production (TCT The results re vealed that the trait of openness to experience consistently correlated with creative personality (CPS) creative drawing task (TCT DT) a nd creative behavior (CBI); and extraversion had some reliable association with creative production (TCT DP), creative behavior (CBI), and creative personality (CPS). Griffin and McDermott (1998) also developed a study am ong undergraduate students; they found that openness to experience was a strong predictor of creative behaviors openness to experience is closely related to multiple creative related variables such as divergent thinking of fluency and creativity, creative behaviors (CBI), creative achieveme nt (Creative Achievement Questionnaire: CAQ scale), and some variables of the Creativity Scale for Difference Domains (i.e., global creativity, hands on creativity, and empathic interpersonal creativity). Furnham, Zhang, and Chamorro (2006) study found that the openness to experience was significantly correlated with psychometric creativity while the conscientiousness was negatively correlated with psychometric creativity In McCann (2011) study of the relation of creative production to conservatism and openness to experience f rom large national wide dataset suggested creative production (i.e., patents per state population from 46 states) positively related to personality trait of openness to experience s while negatively related

PAGE 38

38 to conservatism. (2003) fifty year longitudinal study showed accomplishments. In 19 50, 80 males graduate students were assessed on potential, intelligence intellect, personality, and creativity at a mean age of 27. Then, their personality and career outcome was collected again at a mean age of 72. The results of this study reported that variables of intelligence ( i.e., primary mental abilities, spatial, and number) and personality (i.e ., self confidence, tolerance, openness, psychological mindedness, and introversion) at age 27 predicted lifetime creativity at age 72. Many studies have found a correlation between openness to experience and creativity (i.e., creative achievement, creative personality, and creativity test), while less research has found a relationship between other personality traits and creativity. Furnham and Bachtiar (2008) reported that among the FFM, the extraversion trait was significantly related to four measures of creativity: divergent thinking test; self rated creative measurement; creative judgment; and creative beha viors. King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) found a relationship between personality and creative achievement They found that the trait of openness to experience and extraversion were positively related to verbal creati ve ability and openness was also correlated to creative achievement. However, there are negative influences of some FFM personality traits. The trait of agreeableness was negatively correlated with creative accomplishments (King et al., 1996). The dimensio n of conscientiousness has shown a negative relationship to creative drawing (Dollinger, 2011) and to scientific and artistic creativity (Feist, 1998).

PAGE 39

39 S capacities. In Horng, Hong, ChanLin, Chang, and Chu 's (2005) qualitative study some aspects of personal traits (e.g., persistence, willingness to develop, acceptance of new e xperience, and imagination) influence d Morgan & Woerdehoff (1969) found that some personality factors (i.e., ascendance, sociability, masculinity, and gross creative) were the best predict classroom behaviors. Houtz, LeBlanc, Butera, and Arons (1994) personality (the Myers Briggs Type Indicator; MBTI ; Murray et al. 1990; Myers, 1987, 2003 ; Myers et al., 1985 ) creativity (Torrance Test of Creative Thinking; TTCT; Torrance, 1966, 1974), and classroom behavior (Classroom Creativity Observation Schedule; CCOS; D enny, Rusch & Ives, 1969) of elementary and secondary pre service teachers. The TTCT provided a measure of fluency, flexibility, originality, and a Torrance average score. The CCOS provided scores of classroom motivational climate, classroom variation, div ergent use of materials, student initiative, student to teacher interaction, pupil to pupil interactions, teacher responsiveness to the needs, abilities, and changing attention levels of students, teacher differentiation, and teacher encouragement. The res ults of this study showed that there was no relationship affected actual classroom behavi climate, divergent use of materials, and pupil to pupil interactions. Creative individuals tend to be more thinking rather than feeling and more perceiving rather than judging

PAGE 40

40 ( Thorne & Gough, 1991). Thus, the traits of thinking and perceiving preference from the MBTI contain creative characteristics. Zhang (2007) examined the possible effects of personality traits (i.e., Five Factor teaching styles based on the personality based Government, which was described earlier. The Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (TSTI; Grigorenko & Strenberg, 1993) was adapted to measure seven thinking styles as manifested in teaching; Type 1 teaching style (legislative, global, judicial, and liberal) and Type 2 teaching style (conservative, local, and executive). Each teaching style was labeled as creative generating teaching (Type 1 teaching) and conservative teaching (Type 2 teaching). The results of this study also revealed that the Five Factor Model of personality traits significantly contributed to e results showed that the openness to experience trait was positively related to the Type 1 teaching styles, but negatively to the Type 2 teaching styles. By contrast, the conscientiousness trait was positively related to the Type 2 styles, but negatively related to the Type 1 teaching style. In addition, the neuroticism trait was related to both the Type 1 and Type 2 styles. This teaching styles (creative versus co nservative). The aforementioned literature report s personality traits and their creative behaviors or accomplishments. Furthermore, the se provide ng

PAGE 41

41 Hypothesis 1. Some traits of pre service be significantly and positively related to their Hypothesis 2. Some traits of pre service te significantly and positively related to their own creative behavior experiences Creative Behavior Experience and Creativity Fostering Behavior Past creative behaviors or achievements appear to be the best predictor of future creative behavior and behavioral abilities can facilitate creative action (Colangelo et al ., 1992; Ford, 1996) Creative behavior or experience refers to c urrent or past creative accomplishments or activities (Kaufman et al., 2008) Numerous self report instruments we re developed to ask about individua ls past or current crea tive achievement or activities (Kaufman, Cole, & Baer, 2009) such as the Alpha Biological Inventory (Taylor & Ellison, 1967) the Creative Behav ior Inventory (Hocevar, 1979) the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson et al., 2005) and the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (Runco, 2008) activities and achievement are the best evidence for measuring their creativity (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Plucker, 1999; Wallach, 1976) predict Tan (2001) examined pre service fostering creativity. Dollinger and his colleagues have conducted representative research regarding creative behavior experi ences and creativity performances among college students throughout several studies. Their findings

PAGE 42

42 showed that creative acco mplishments were associated to creative products and performances such as creative writing, creative drawing, creativity dossiers, photo essay s and creative abilities (Dollinger, 2003, 2007, 2011; Dollinger, Dollinger, & Centeno, 2005) Specially, the results indicated that the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI; Dollinger, 2003; Hocevar, 1979) showed strong relationship with the Test for Creative Thinking Drawing Production (TCT DP; Urban, 1996; Urban & Jullen, 1986, 1996) (Dollinger, 200 3, 2007, 2011; Dollinger et al., 2005), creativity dossiers, the open ended descriptions of creative accomplishments (Dollinger et al., 2005), photo essay s (Dollinger, 2011), and creative stories (Dollinger, 2003). Previous literature demonstrated that pr evious creativ e accomplishment or behaviors are predictors of creative behaviors. Hence, the researcher hypothesized the experiences will also have creativity, which lead the Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 3. Pre service t eachers will be significantly and posi tively related to their Hypothesis 4. Pre service t will mediate the relationship between some traits of pre service their vity. Summary Since creativity is a multifaceted construct, it has been a very complex term to define. Despite the lack of a unified definition researchers seem to agree that creativity (Ford, 1996) Few studies

PAGE 43

43 personality is also difficult to define and there are various personality theories and frameworks. The Five Factor Model (Big Five) of personality traits is a leading theory that consists of the five factors of personality traits and each factor has their own character: openn ess to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The current study adapted the personality. T hrough careful review of literature, the researcher identified two variables (personality traits and creative behaviors), as having high potential to influence Findings from this study will help to remedy the dearth of research in the area.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is three fold: 1) to exam ine the relationship between pre personal creativity; 2) to examine the relationship between pre behaviors and their behaviors to support chil the role of pre Chapter 3 provides a description of the resear ch method, the participants and setting, and the instruments that utilized to collect data. M ethods of data collection and procedures of data analysis will be described. Power Analysis To predict valid sample size for this study, a priori power analysis was conducted using the G*Power 3.1 statistical program ( Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007 ; Faul, Erdfelder Bu chner, & Lang, 2009 ). A priori power analysis was computed using the parameters of 16 variables: 6 domains of personality traits, creative b ehavior, and 9 effect sizes of .15, an alpha level of .05, and a power estimate of .80, the analysis suggested that the minimum number of participants in this study should be 143. The final sample size obtained for data analysis from total 302 participants, which yielded effect sizes of .10, and alpha level of .05, and a power estimate of .95. Figure 3 1 indicates the total sample size by power level range from 0.60 to 0.99 and effect size range from .10 to .20.

PAGE 45

45 Participants Three hundred and two p re service teachers, in t he College of Education in a university located in north Florida were involved in this study. They include: sixty seven pre service teachers (22.2%) who a re enrolled in the Unified Early Childhood ProTeach (UEC) program ( student teachers who are prepare d to teach children from birth through grade 3); and two hundred and thirty five pre service teachers (77.8%) who are enrolled in the Element ary ProTeach pro gram (UEP) program (student teachers who are prepared to teach at the elementary level (kindergarten through grade 6 )). Both programs lead to teacher certification and a dual emphasis in general and special e ducation. UEC program leads two teacher certifications (birth through age 4 and age 3 through grade 3) as well as pre kindergarten disability endorsement and ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) endorsement. UEP program leads teacher certificatio n in general elementary education (kindergarten through grade 6) as well as reading endorsement and ESOL endorsement, and optional certification in special education (kindergarten through grade 12). The programs also emphasized culturally sensitivity, incl usion, and the importance of family ( Brownell, Ross, Coln, & McCallum, 2005; Correa et al., 1997; Kemple, Hartle, Correa, & Fox, 1994). The participants range from who are experienced working with ch ildren at the actual early childhood or elementary settings through p racticums or internships. 47.4% of the participants were juniors, 37.4% of the participants were seniors, and 15.2% of the participants were graduate students. The participants ranged in age from nineteen to thirty four years old ( M = 20.92) and the majority of the participants (96.4%) were female. The majority of the

PAGE 46

46 participants were White/Caucasian (80.8%). Hispanic/Latino (10.6%) was the second largest group among participants. The sma ll numbers of participants were Black/African American (6.3%) and Asian (2.3%). Half of the participants (51%) have worked within 3 to 4 different age groups of classroom settings (preschool and elementary grade level), 21.2% of the participates have worke d within 1 to 2 different age groups, and 27.9% of the participants have worked within more than five different age groups. Approximately 60% of the participants have worked within kindergarten, first grade, and second grade and approximately 11% of the pa rticipants have worked within sixth grade and seventh and higher grade. Approximately 40% of the participants wanted to teach first and second grade level of children when they complete teacher certification and approximately 20% of the participants wanted to teach kindergarteners, third, and fourth grade in a future The participants were asked whether they took music and art courses as a part of their coursework at the (i.e., MUE 3210: Music of the elementary child and ARE 4314: A rt education for elementary schools). These two courses are open for UEP students. A creativity related course is offer ed in the early childhood education program for UEC graduate students. N one of UEC students had yet completed a co urse with music and art content however, a pproximately 60% of the participants had a music and art courses as a coursework. Data Collection The data collected at the beginning of the spring semester, January 2013 After receiving Institutional Revi ew Board (IRB) approval, the researcher contacted the course instructors at the College of Education in the participants and received permission to collect data from their students. The researcher distributed the questionnaire to the instructor s and the instructors had a

PAGE 47

47 choice about how to collect data from their students: 1) students completed the questionnaire during class hours, or 2) students took it home to complete and return ed it to the class instructor. Prior to the survey, the particip ants were given the consent form (see Appendix A), which describes the nature of the study including the purpose of the study, voluntary participation, and confidentiality of their answers. The researchers provided the instructions individually whenever ne eded via e mail. The consent form (see Appendix A), which includes the key contents of the study and information of the researcher, was attached to the survey. No compensation was provided and there was no preference for a particular demographic segment (e .g. gender, age, and ethnic background). To maintain confidentiality of participants, the participants did not provide their name. Instead of names the survey packet was given a number and these numbers were used to identify each participant. After data we re collected, all questionnaires includes demographic information questionnaire, the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), (CPS), the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI), and t he Creativity Fosteri ng Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) were administered by the researcher. Instrumentation T he survey instrument was comprised of five sections ; 1) demographic background, 2) personality traits, 3) creative personality, 4 ) creative activity experience, Appendix F). F our published self report measurements were used for this study. Brief written introductions were provided in the consent form about the questionnaire including the purpose, importance, and assurance of confidentially. Written directions about how to respond to each question were provided at the beginning of each survey.

PAGE 48

48 Demographic Background Section one of the questionnaire (see Appendix B) contains seven multiple choice demographic items The demographic questions asked participants to identify their program of study, gender, age, academic status, and their ethnic background. Next participa nts were asked whether they had completed music and art courses. In addition, there were questions regarding pa particular age groups in classroom settings, as well as the age group s of children that they would ideally like to teach ranging from preschool to seventh grade or older. Personality Traits: Ten Item Perso nality Inventory The Five Factor Model (B ig Five ) of persona lity theory based measurements is one of the most popular and well supported personality inventories along with the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Murray et al. 1990; Myers et al., 1985; Myers, 1987) based on Carl (1971 ) While the result of the MBTI test addresses only one person ality type among sixteen types of personality, the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality rating measurements indicate the strength of personality by providing percentile scores for five dimensions of personality (i.e., neuroticism, e xt raversion, Openness agreeableness, and conscientiousness). Since the FFM is the predominant model in psychology, during the past two decades psychologist and personality res earchers have actively developed n umerous personality assessment approach es to th e FFM personality traits (Goldberg, 19 92; Hofstee et al., 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 2007) However, th ose instruments are very lengthy. For example, the revised Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness Personality Inventory (NEO PI R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a, 1992b) which is one of the most widely used and validated commercial measurement based on the FFM of

PAGE 49

49 personality traits (Johnson, 2005) has 240 items and it takes 45 minutes to complete. And other commonly used short FFM measurements also contain approximately more than 40 items and it takes 5 15 minutes to complete such as 44 item Big Five Inventory (BFI; Ben et Martnez, & John, 1998 ; John & Srivastava, 1999 ), 50 item International Personality Item Pool ( IPIP FFM; Goldberg, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006) and the 60 item NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992a). Therefore, Gosling and his colleagues developed a very short Big Five inventory: the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003 ). The present study employed the TIPI (see Appendix C) t o measur e the FFM of personality tr aits. The TIPI is a public domain resource that works as an alternative to other comprehensive FFM instruments. For neuroticism domain, the TIPI includes the term of emotional stability instead of neuroticism. H igher scores on this dimension indicate highe r emotional stability while measures of neuroticism in which higher score indicate lower emotional stability. The reliability of each domain has been reported with alpha coefficient s of .68 (extraversion), .40 (agreeableness), .50 (conscientiousness), .73 ( emotional stability ), and .45 (openness to experience) ( Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) 2009) study of university students showed coefficient alphas value of .71 (extraver sion), .34 (agreeable ness), .56 (conscientiousness), .65 ( emoti onal stability), and .52 (openness to experience) Although both studies showed low alpha values, each dimension has only two items. However, they reported adequate level of the test retest reliability with an average correlation of .72 (ranging from.62 to .77) for the five dimensions from a six week time span ( Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) In addition, the TIPI reported reasonable convergent validities with other

PAGE 50

50 commonly used FFM measurements such as the Mini IPIP, the 50 item IPIP FFM, 120 item IPIP NEO, NEO FFI ( Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006 ; Ehrhart et al., 2009 ; Furnham, 2008; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003 ). T herefore, the TIPI was found to be a valid and reliable scale to measure the FFM of personality traits. The TIPI contains 10 i tems to assess the Five Factor personality t raits: emotional stability (neuroticism) extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Each domain o f the five dimensions of the FFM consists of 2 items with 1 positively and 1 negatively keyed items and participants were asked to indicate how accurate the statements listed are regarding their own behavior and personality; this is done using a 7 point Li kert rating scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) and 7 (agree strongly ). For positive keyed items, the response is assigned a value of 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). For negative keyed items, the response is assigned a value of 1 (agree s trongly) to 7 (disagree strongly). The TIPI takes about a minute to complete. The creative personality trait is one of the pr edictor variables of this study. T he (CPS; Gough, 1979) was utilized as a measure of this variable (see Appendix D) The CPS was developed from items on the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 19 65) The CPS contains 30 items of a self perception of their own behavior. Participants were given adjectives that are descriptive of their personalities. The ad jectives of the original measure were presented in the form of binomial response (i.e., yes or no). However, the present study modified the

PAGE 51

51 measures into a 6 point Likert type of scale format (i.e., 1 = very inaccurate to 6 = very accurate). This allows fo r more variability of response, contributing to potential for greater variance and reliability. Dollinger et al. (2005) utilized the CPS with Likert format that yielded an internal consistency coefficient alphas range of .65 to .77 with a sample of univers ity students. In add ition, this modification enabled the application of advanced statistical techniques such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The original CPS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency coefficient alphas ranging from .7 3 to .81 in the sample of 1700 individuals (which were mostly nonstudents) and test retest reliability of .70 (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965; Gough, 1979) The CPS has been identified as a reliable and valid m easure of creative personality. P revious studies have established that the CPS correlates with other measurements, such as the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ; Carson et al., 2005) the Five Factor Mo del of personality traits (Dollinger et al., 2004) and divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987) In addition Kaduson and Charles (1991) provided validity of the CPS for highly creative women through a 25 year follow up study. The result showed validity of this measure. Among thirty adjectives, eighteen it ems are positive keyed items (i.e., clever, humorous, and informal) that positively correlated with creative personality, which is identified as being highly creative. The other twelve negative keyed items (i.e., sincere, cautious, and conservative) are ne gatively correlated with highly creative individuals. The positive item response assigned a score value that falls between 1 (very

PAGE 52

52 inaccurate) to 6 (very accurate) and the negative item responded assigned a score value that falls between 1 (very accurate) to 6 (very inaccurate). Creative Behavior /Activity Experience: Creative Behavior Inventory The short form of Creative Behavior Inventory (C BI; Dollinger, 2003; Dollinger et al., 2005; Dollinger, 2007 2011) based on BI measurement (Hocevar, 1979, 1980) was adapted t experiences that are seen as creativity related behaviors (Appendix E). The original 90 item scale includes six subscales identified as visual arts, crafts, literature, music, performing arts, and mathematics/science while the short form of CBI was developed in a 28 item s cale and includes items regarding visual arts, craft, literacy, performing arts, and other creative activities. Since the original inventory of CBI contains an uncommon and high level achievement of creative behavior, such as having published a literary wo rk, having recorded a music record or CD, and having written an original computer program, the short form of CBI has reduced these infrequent and high level achievement items by selecting items with common creative behavior, which excluded some items from each variable and all of music and mathematics/science related items (Dollinger, 2003) Due to these changes some researchers referred to short form of CBI was referred to ( Silvia & Kimbrel, 2010; Silvia et al. 2009; Silvia, Wigert, Reiter Palmon, & Kaufma n, 2012) In addition, the 28 item version of the CBI measurement does not have subscales Thus, the researchers used total score of all 28 items as their predictive value of CBI. The original 90 item CBI reported that internal consistency reliability ranged from .63 to .89 while the short form 28 item of CBI yielded a coefficient alpha of .88

PAGE 53

53 (Dollinger, 2007 ; Dollinger et al., 2007 ) .89 (Dollinger, 2003; Dollinger et al. 2005) and .92 (Silvia et al., 20120). For validity of the short form of the CBI, it showed many correlations with creativity related domains such as Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ; r = (1979) Creative Personality Scale (CPS; r = .43), self rated creativity ( r = .52) (Dollinger et al., 2005) and divergent thinking (Silvia & Kimbrel, 2010) Additionally, the short form of the CBI presented correlations with the Five Factor Model of personality traits with a domain of openness to experience (r = .37; Dollinger, 2007) and (r = .40; Dollinger, 2011) The recent study by Silvia et al. (2012) examined Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the 28 item CBI. The results of the CFA of the CBI shows reasonable model fit factors ranges from .5 35 to .748. The participants provided the frequency of the creative activity in their adolescent and adult life, such as painting an original picture, writing poems, and receiving an award for making a craft. This measu rement utilized a 4 point Likert ty pe scale (i.e., A = Never did this, B = Did this once or twice, C = Did this 3 5 times, and D = More than five times) and each item was assigned a weight given as 0 (A), 1 (B), 2 (C), and 3 (D). The deg ree of previous creative behavior accomplishment. Fostering Teacher Behavior Index The Creativity Fosteri ng Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI ; Soh, 2000) was employed to measure the F). The CFTI is a 45 item self (1997) creativity fostering behaviors, the subscales of th e CFTI. The following behaviors 1. Encourage students to learn independently (Independence)

PAGE 54

54 2. Have a co operative, socially integrative style of teaching (Integration) 3. Motivate students to master factual knowledge, so that they have a solid base for divergent thinking (Motivation) 4. clearly formulated (Judgment) 5. Encourage flexible thinking (Flexibility) 6. Promote self evaluation in students (Evaluation) 7. 8. Offer students opportunities to work with a wide variety of materials and under many different conditions (Opportunities) 9. Help students to learn to cope with frustration and failure, so that they have the courage to try the new and unusual (Frustration) (p. 98) Soh (2000) used the original instrument to examine in behavior. However, the pre sent study collected data from pre service teachers, who have less experience than in service teachers. Therefore, the participants were asked their beliefs of teaching styles in a classroom setting instead of their current and past teaching experiences, w style? When you think about your own teaching style, how important do you believe ideas. (2000) was .96 with the following subscales: Independence ( r = .77); Integration ( r = .85); Motivation ( r = 71); Judgment (.88); Flexibility ( r = .88); Evaluation (r = .84); Question ( r

PAGE 55

55 = .84); Opportunities ( r = .90); and Frustration ( r = .84), with an average co efficient alpha value of .82. R ecent ly, Forrester and Hui (2007) reported reasonable reliability and validity of the CFTI with alpha coefficients of subscales ranging from .74 (Frustration) to .86 (Judgment). They also found a positive correlation between the CFTI r = .39 with Motivation) and figural creativity ( r = .46 with Evaluation). In addition, the CFTI also showed a correlation (Gough, 1979) particularly with Flexibility and Questi on ( r = 52), Judgment ( r = .48), Motivation ( r = .43), Independence ( r = 40), and Opportunities ( r = .38). Data Analysis Plan Data analysis was performed in f our stages. First, data from the survey were screened and performed preliminary analyses. Sec ond, descriptive statistics for the variables were obtained Third, measurement models were examined to explore reliability and validity of four variables (i.e., personality traits, creative personality trait, creative behavior experience were performed as well as model fits followed by reliability analysis, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and C onf irmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Finally, in the simultaneous equations, hypotheses analyses were pe rformed. The researcher examined the relationships among the four variables. The mediatin g role of the creative behavior experiences variable in the relationship between the pre pers onality traits and their creativity were analyzed followed by four hypotheses. D ata were entered into and analyzed utilizing Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 21.0 program, R statistical package, and pter 4.

PAGE 56

56 Preliminary Data Analysis Plan Prior to the main analyses, all the variables were screened to satisfy several assumptions for valid interpretation of the data for multiple regressions. SPSS 21.0 is used to compute preliminary analyses regarding mi ssing data, outliers, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and m ulticollinearity accordingly. The results of the preliminary analyses are present ed in Chapter 4. Missing data The dataset was evaluated for accuracy of data entry and missing data. After is has significance value greater than .05, the null hypothesis fails to reject and it suggests that the current dataset is missing data completely at random. After the result showed that the data are missing completely at random, the missing value was replaced with predicted value by the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm ( Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1977) which is a popular method to find the maximum likelihood estimate o f the parameters of an underlying distribution when the data is incomplete or has missing values ( Bilmes, 1988; Capp & Moulines, 2009). Those missing data treatment procedures were employed by SPSS. Outliers Since regression analysis is to estimate a line ar relationship between two variables, this technique is highly sensitive to outliers. Outliers in regression analysis can overstate the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ), which bring erroneous vales for the

PAGE 57

57 slope and intercept and it leads to false conclu sions about the model (Walfish, 2006). The dataset was scrutinized for both univariate and multivariate outliers. First, to detect univariate outliers the boxplot outlier labeling rule ( Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986; Tukey, 1997) was used, which is base d on multiplying the Interquartile Range (IQR) by a factor value of 2.2; see Equation 3 1 ). Outlier labeling rule is one of the most popular comprehensive graphical and statistical procedures, which provides a much more accurate evidence than using a visua l inspection of checking scatterplot ( Banerjee & Iglewicz, 2007 ; Walfish, 2006 ) The original study suggested value of g with 1.5. However, Hoaglin and Iglewicz (1987) revalidated value of g and they suggested g value with 2.2 more reasonable with sample s ize between 20 and 300. Therefore, the present study adapted boxplot outlier identification testing with g = 2.2 instead of 1.5 from the original study suggestion. (3 1) When highest and lowest observation values of dataset a re lower and greater than upper and lower limit values based on outlier labeling rule, which over limit values are considered as outliers. Along with boxplot outlier identification, a histogram of observed values for each variable was plotted and a boxplot also inspected using SPSS. Second, multivariate outliers were identified through use of the Mahalanobis and multivariate outlier case was an influential data point ( Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggested threshold levels for the Mahalanobis distance value should be less than 1.00.

PAGE 58

58 N ormality To meet the assumptions for regression analysis, normality was tested to examine whether scores on each variable is normally distributed about the predicted dependent scores (Pallant, 2010). Normality was analyzed with examining the skewedness an score of skewedness and kurtosis value between 2 and 2 is considered reasonably normally distributed the data at p value of .05 level (Garson, 2012 ). When skewedness and kurtosis values indicate that a v ariable distribution departs meaningfully from a normal distribution (violate a normality assumption), data transformation has been recommended to change the data into a normal distribution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Additionally, histogram, normal P P p lot, normal Q Q plot, and scatterplot were used for visual inspection to detect any unusual cases with normality problems. Linearity Each independent variable was testing for nonlinearity as linear relationships between two variables should be present t o conduct regression analyses. First, simple visual inspection of scatterplot matrices was used to examine any evidence of nonlinearity and identify the need for transformation of the data. The residuals should have a straight line relationship with predic ted dependent variable scores (Pallant, 2010). In addition, ANOVA test of linearity also computed for systematic and accurate results. Homoscedasticity The assumption of homoscedasticity is that the variance of the residuals about predicted dependent var iable scores should be the same for all predicted scores (Pallant, 2010). To examining the homoscedasticity of variance of independent

PAGE 59

59 variables on the dependent variables, the homoscedasticity of error variance assumption was assessed with the Breusch Pag an test (Breusch & Pagan, 1979) using SPSS syntax, which is systematic and a much more accurate method than using a graphical methods such as visual inspection of plotting the residuals. The null hypothesis for the Breusch Pagan test is that there is no ho moscedasticity of error of dataset. When Breusch Pagan test has significance value greater than .05, the null hypothesis fails to reject, indicating that the assumption of homoscedasticity was not violated. Multicollinearity Multicollinearity was also ana lyzed to evaluate unacceptable high level of intercorrelation among the independent variables, which can be a problem when multiple scales are used to measure the same construct (Garson, 2012; Keith, 2006). Multicollinearity was demonstrated by given two v alues Tolerance and VIF (Variance Inflation Factor), these values are reciprocal with each other. Multicollinearity can be detected when Tolerance value is less than .20 or VIF value is above 4.0 (Garson, 2012). However, some researchers use the more moder ate cutoff of Tolerance (< .10) and VIF (> 10.0) value (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Pallant, 2010). Measurement Model Test Plan The data were first subjected to evaluate the mea surement models using the C onf irmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and the Pr incipal Component Analysis (PCA) on variables with R statistical package and SPSS; personality trait (i.e., Ten Item Scale: CPS), creative behavior (i.e., Creative

PAGE 60

60 Fostering Teacher Behavior Inventory: CFTI ) These measurements also scrutinized reliability and validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) CFAs were c onducted for all variables to assess the over all model fit using R statistical package. The results of overall fit of the four models of measurement (i.e., TIPI, CPS, CBI, and CFTI) were examined and adjusted with CFA. To determine goodness of model fit s everal model fit indices were included such as chi square/degree of freedom, the Comparative Fit I ndex (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI, also know as Non Normed Fit Index: NNFI), the Standard Root Mean Squared R esidual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Er ror of A pproximation (RMSEA). The result of chi square/degree of freedom values needs to be less than 3.00 with good fit and 5.00 with acceptable fit. CFI and TLI values close to .95 or greater are reasonably good fit, .90 above is traditional fit, and .80 is sometimes permissible. T he SRMR value less than .08 implies good fitting models and .05 is the conservative cutoff value. When RMSEA value s are close to 06 or below suggests a good fit, between .06 and .08 indicates an a cceptable fit, and higher than .10 implies an unacceptable fit (Browne, Cudeck, Bollen, & Long, 1993; Hair et al., 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1999) In addition, the sizes of the factor loadings were inspected for goodness of fit indices and adequate construct validity. Through this process, for overall model fit and validity reason, some factors were dropped based on threshold value of below .05 factors loading value. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Based on results of CFA, due to unsuitable goodness of model fit, factor loadings, and construct validity, the CBI and CPS measurements were subjected to PCA using SPSS. This measurement includes many items (CBI = 28 items and CPS =

PAGE 61

61 30 items). However, these measurements are designed for one factor model. Therefore, PCA was conducted with Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis (PA) to explore the CBI factors in PCA, which is most recommended simu lation technique ( Ledesma & Valero Mora, 2007) Through this process, two models of measurements (i.e., CBI and CPS) were reconstructed with some sub variables based on PCA recommend results. Prior to perfor ming PCA, the suitability of dat a fo r factor ana lysis was assessed by the Kaiser Meyer (Bartlett, 1954). The Kaiser Meyer Olkin value has to exceed the recommended value significance to support the factorability of the correlation matrix; in other words, these values must be met the recommended value in order to proceed with doing the PCA (Pallant, 2010). Then, the models were examined by visual inspection of the screeplot test and the Monte Carlo PA. The models were reconstructed with certain component (sub variables) based on the results from these two tests. To aid in the interpretation of changed components, the Oblimin rotation was performed. Lastly, the results of rec onstructed models were inspected through CFA for evidence of goodness of fit indices and construct validation. Validity and reliability The standardized loading estimates and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were measured to assess construct validity (e .g., convergent validity). The results of standardized loading estimates (i.e., factor loadings) should be .05 or higher for enough construct validity, and ideally .7 or higher and AVE values need to be .5 or above to suggest adequate convergent validity ( Hair et al., 2010). In addition, Composite Reliability (CR) for construct was measured, which is an indicator of convergent validity.

PAGE 62

62 When reliability is .7 or higher suggests good reliability and between .6 and .7 suggests acceptable, which indicate inter construct validity are good (Hair et al., 2010). In addition, i nternal consistency values (Cro employed to examine how well the subscale items were correlated with each other using SPSS When the values are greater than .70, the reliability is indicated as acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) Analyses of inter correlation between measured constructs were conduct ed to inspecting evidence of discriminant validity. When there are high construct inter correlation, it needs to assess discriminant validity for subsequent research findings (Farrell, 2010). The correlation between any two construct .85 or greater conside r as high construct inter correlations (Kline R. B., 2010). In addition, AVE estimates for two factors also should be greater than the square of the correlation between the two factors to provide evidence of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010). Fina lly, when measurement models were modified via CFA and PCA, some assumptions were rescreened for valid interpretation for regressions regarding normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and m ulticollinearity accordingly. Descriptive Statistics Descriptive analyses were performed based on characteristics (e.g., program of study, gender, age, year of program, and their ethnic background, number of different age groups taught, and ideal teaching grade level) to describe the b asic characteristics of the data using SPSS 21.0 Various descriptive statistics of the variables were used in this study such as measures of central tendency (e.g., mean, mode, and median) and measures of variability (e. g., range, va riance, and

PAGE 63

63 standard devi ation). In addition, demographic variables were scrutinized to compare the primary variables for demographic characteristics via independent sample t test. Analysis of Hypotheses Plan The proposed models (see Figure 1 1 and Figure 3 2) were tested t h rough the (1982) test of significance for the following four hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Some traits of pre positively related to their Hypothesis 2. Some traits of pre positively related to their own creative behavior experiences. Hypothesis 3. Pre serv will be significant ly Hypothesis 4. Pre serv will mediate the relationship between some traits of pre their behaviors to support childr Baron and Kenny (1986) suggested a four step procedure for assessing mediation effect. The first step of this procedure evaluates the dependent variable (Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index: CFTI) regressed on the independent vari able (Ten Item Personality Inventory: TIPI and Creative Personality Scale: CPS), which estimate and assess path c in the Figure 3 2. This step suggests complete support of Hypothesis 1. The second step of this procedure assesses the mediator (Creative Beha vior Inventory: CBI) regressed on the independent variable (TIPI and CPS), which estimates and assesses path a in the Figure 3 2. This step suggests complete support of Hypothesis 2. The third step of this procedure evaluates the dependent variable (CFTI) regressed on both the independent variable (TIPI and CPS) and on the mediator (CBI), which estimates and assesses path b in the Figure 3 2. This step suggests complete support of Hypothesis 3. Final step of this procedure assesses

PAGE 64

64 the mediation hypothesis. To establish that the mediator (CBI) mediates the relationship between the independent variable (TIPI and CPS) and dependent variable (CFTI), the effect of the mediator (CBI) remains significant after controlling for the independent variable (TIPI and CPS in the Figure 3 2. When independent variable (TIPI and CPS) is no longer significant when mediator (CBI) is controlled, the finding supports full mediation and when independent variable (TIPI and CPS) is still significant the finding supports partial mediation. This step suggests complete support Hypothesis 4. The following regression models (Equation 3 2, 3 3, and 3 4) were conducted for the mediation analysis (i.e., Step 1, 2, and 3). The variables were named as name o f instruments; personality traits (TIPI), creative personality traits (CPS), creative (3 2) (3 3) (3 4) Finally, when regressions among variables are computed through 4 Step procedure and mediating estimation were met, formal tests of the significance of error of the mediator and test the significance of mediated effects (see Equation 3 5 below).

PAGE 65

65 These tests are to demonstrate whether the indirect effect of the i ndependent variable (TIPI and CPS ) on the dependent variable (CFTI) through the mediator (CBI) is si gnificant. z ab = (3 5)

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3 1. Sample sizes by effect sizes and powers Figure 3 2. Pathway of proposed model N =302

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study is to examine: 1) the relationship between pre service teache their relationship between pre service ive behaviors and their behaviors to pre service ve behaviors as a mediating variable between the ir personality traits and their behaviors to Chapter 4 presents the results of the preliminary analysis of data, demographic and descriptive information, and examines the valid ity and reliability of the instruments used in this study. Finally, Chapter 4 presents the results of the various statistical analyses related to each hypothesis. Preliminary Data Analysis As preliminary data analysis, all the variables were screened to sa tisfy assumptions for multiple regressions regarding missing data, outliers, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity. Missing Data There was relatively small amount of data missing data in current study dataset ( n = 11). Firstly, Litt MCRA test ( F = 11 89.54 ) failed to reject null hypothesis at the .803 significance level, indicating that the current dataset is missing data completely at random. Second, the missing value was dealt with replacing predicted values by the Expectation

PAGE 68

68 Maximization (EM ) algorithm (Dempster et al., 1997), which is a general method of finding likelihood estimation of incomplete or missing ( Bilmes, 1988; Capp & Moulines, 2009). After treating all missing values, there were no missing data values in this study. Outliers Ea ch variable was evaluated for univariate outliers using the boxplot outlier labeling rule ( Hoaglin et al., 1986; Tukey, 1997), which is one of the most common graphical and statistical procedures that provides a much more accurate evidence than using a vis ual inspection of checking scatterplot ( Banerjee & Iglewicz, 2007; Walfish, 2006). The results showed that there was no extreme data points found from variables of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), Creative Personality Scale (CPS), Creative Behavi or Inventory (CBI), and the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI). Therefore, no outlier treatment was needed for this dataset. Subsequently inspection of r. The result of Mahalanobis for all cases ranged from .01 to 1.00, which is above (< 1.00). Therefore, it was determined that there are no multivariate outliers and no influential outliers based on Normality Normality of variables was evaluated to examine whether scores on each variable is normally distributed about the predicted dependent scores based on skewedness and kurtosis score. The result revealed that all vari ables, TIPI, CPS, CBI, and CFTI were found to be normally distributed with skewedness range from 1.364 (conscientiousness) t o .556 (CBI), and kurtosis range from .709 (motivation) to 1.176

PAGE 69

69 (conscientiousness), which fell within the recommended range (i.e., a z score between +2 to 2). In addition, graphical methods such as histograms, normal Q Q plots, normal P P plots, and sc atterplots were used for visual inspection to detect any unusual cases with normality problems. There was no visual evidence of normality being violated for variables in the dataset. Table 4 1 shows results of the normality test with skewedness and kurtosi s scores. Linearity Graphical method of visual inspection using scatterplot matrices found some evidence of nonlinearity for some independent variables. To confirm this evidence, ANOVA test of linearity was analyzed. The results showed that nonlinearity was detected for s ome variables from TIPI (i.e., conscientiousness, e xtraversion, agreeableness, and e motional stableness), which is theoretically and empirically expected result. Therefore, no transformation was treated for this violation. Homoscedastic ity To examining the homoscedasticity of variance of all the independent variables (i.e., TIPI, CPS, CBI) on the dependent variables (i.e., CFTI), the of error variance assumption was inspected through the Breusch Pagan test (Breusch & Pagan, 1979). The n ull hypothesis for the Breusch Pagan test is that there is no homoscedasticity of error of dataset. The resulting score ( F = .015) of this test failed to reject null hypothesis at the 1.00 significance level (which indicated that the assumption of homosced asticity was not violated). Multicollinearity M ulticollinearity among independent variables was analyzed to evaluate unacceptable high level of intercorrelation among the independent variables. VIF values

PAGE 70

70 ranged from 1.047 to 1.351 and Tolerance values r anged .740 to .955, providing evidence that no issues of multicollinearity were identified in the dataset, which indicated that relationships between the TIPI, CPS, CBI were low enough to justify the simultaneous inclusion of these predictors in a regressi on equation assessing mediation. Validity and Reliability of Measurement The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), (CPS), the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI, short form), and t he Creativity Fosteri ng Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) were used for the present study. For reliability and validity of the instruments, several statistical analyses were examined such as a reliability analysis, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using SPSS and R statistical package. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) 10 item TIPI was subjected to CFA, which contains four factors (i.e., openness, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability ). The result of CFA of TIPI model indicated excellent fit ( 2 / df = 32.30/25 = 1.288, CFI = .991, TLI = .984, RMSEA = .031, SRMR = .023). All of model fit indices met satisfied range of good model fit. Table 4 2 represents summary of goodness of fit indic es for TIPI. Construct validity was established by high factor loadings in the TIPI model. item in openness (.59). However, this loading value still met acceptable value (e.g., > .50). Table 4 3 shows factor loadings of each TIPI item ranged from .59 to .99. The AVE values ranged from .85 (openness and emotional stability) to .88 (agreeableness; see Table 4 3), indicating suitable convergent validity. In addition, Composi te Reliability (CR) for construct was measured and the results of CR value ranged from .92

PAGE 71

71 (openness and emotional stability) to .94 (agreeableness), which suggested that internal are good. (e motional stability) to .82 (conscientiousness; see Table 4 3), indicating appropriate internal consistency. To examine discriminant validity, an analysis of correlation between measured construc ts was conducted as evidence of discriminant validity. Correlation between constructs ranged from .14 (conscientiousness and agreeableness) to .25 (emotional stability and agreeableness), which is below excessively high value (e.g., < .85; see Table 4 4). The results revealed that no high construct inter correlation existed and that each construct is sufficiently discriminant to measure personality traits. In addition, each squared correlation should be smaller than AVE and in this model all AVE estimates were found to be greater than the squared correlations (see Table 4 3 and Table 4 4). The results of CFA suggested that the TIPI model has good model fit with adequate reliability and validity in the current dataset. Principle Components Analysis (PCA) of Creative Personality Scale (CPS) PCA was evaluated for CPS to explore factor structure since CPS is one factor model includes 30 items with the Eigenvalue Monte Carlo simulation of Parallel Analysis (PA) using SPSS syntax. Prior to perfor ming PCA, the suit ability of dat a f or factor analysis was assessed by the Kaiser Meyer Sphericity. The result of Kaiser Meyer Olkin value was .76 that reached recommend ed statistical significance with significance level of .00. PCA results revealed the presence of 8 components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 15.27%, 10.78%, 8.19%, 5.76%, 4.50%, 4.31%, 3.77%, and 3.56% of the variance respectively. Then, screeplo t and PA were computed

PAGE 72

72 to determine the number of factors to retain in PCA. The result recommended four factors for CPS in this dataset. The four components solution explained a total of 40.00% of the variance, with Component 1 contributing 15.27%, Compone nt 2 contributing 10.78%, Component 3 contributing 8.19%, and Component 4 contributing 5.76%. The Oblimin rotated solution revealed the presence of simple structure with four factors. Table 4 5 depicts a pattern matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of fou r factors solution of CPS items and Table 4 6 indicates the final model of CPS with four component solution with PCA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Creative Personality Scale (CPS) CFA was performed for adjusted CPS with four factors based on PCA results. Through this process, some items were dropped and 10 items were retained for the finalized model based on standardized loading estimates with cutoff threshold value of below .05. Table 4 7 shows finalized CPS model after modification. The result o f CFA of modified CPS model indicated excellent fit ( 2 / df = 42.032/29 = 1.449, CFI = .984, TLI = .976, RMSEA = .039, SRMR = .039). All of model fit indices met satisfied range of good model fit. Table 4 8 represents summary of goodness of fit indices for CPS. Construct validity was established by high factor loadings in the CPS model. Table 4 sug gested value of .50 and ranged from .63 (well mannered) to .90 (confident). The results of AVE value suggested good convergent validity and ranged from .89 (component 1 and 3) to 90 (component 2 and 4). In addition, Composite Reliability (CR) for construct was measured and the results of CR value ranged from .94 (component 4)

PAGE 73

73 to .96 (component 1 and 3), which implies that internal consistency exists and that other rang ed from .72 (component 1) to .83 (component 4), indicating appropriate internal To examine discriminant validity, an analysis of correlation between measured constructs was conducted as evidence of discriminant validity. Correlation between constructs ranged from .15 to .38, which is below excessively high value (e.g., < .85; see Table 4 10). The results revealed th at no high construct inter correlation existed and that each construct is sufficiently discriminant to measure personality traits. In addition, each squared correlation should be smaller than AVE and in this model all AVE estimates were found to be greater than the squared correlations (see Table 4 9 and Table 4 10). The results of CFA of CPS suggested that the modified CPS model with four components has good model fit with enough reliability and validity in the current dataset. Principle Components Analysi s (PCA) of Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI) The 28 item version of the CBI was subjected to PCA. T he Kaiser Meyer Olkin st of Sphericity were assessed and results show the CBI is suitable dat a for factor analysis The result of Kaiser Meyer Olkin value was .78, indicated statistical significance with significance level of .00. PCA results shown the presence of 9 components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 18.31%, 7.18%, 6.02%, 5.75%, 4.79%, 4.39%, 4.08%, 3.87%, and 3.74% of the variance respectively. Then, screeplot and PA were computed to determine the number of factors to retain in

PAGE 74

74 PCA. The result suggested four factors for CBI in this data set, which four components solution explained a total of 37.26% of the variance, with Component 1 contributing 18.31%, Component 2 contributing 7.18%, Component 3 contributing 6.02%, and Component 4 contributing 5.75%. The Oblimin rotated solution reveale d the presence of simple structure with four factors. Table 4 11 indicates a pattern matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of four factors solution of CBI items and Table 4 12 depicts the final model of CBI with four component solution with PCA. Confirmat or y Factor Analysis (CFA) of Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI) CBI with four factors was evaluated and modified via CFA. First, the initial CFA was performed to determine which items are retained and which items are eliminated for the finalized model based o n standardized loading estimates with cutoff threshold value of below .05. Through this modification process, 12 items were retained for the finalized model. Table 4 13 shows finalized CBI model after modification. The result of CFA of modified CPS model i mplied excellent fit ( 2 / df = 62.070/48 = 1.035, CFI = .984, TLI = .977, RMSEA = .031, SRMR = .042). All of model fit indices met satisfied range of good model fit. Table 4 14 represents summary of goodness of fit indices for CBI. Construct validity was e stablished by high factor loadings in the CBI model. Table 4 suggested value of .50 and ran ged from .56 (made sculpture) to .86 (wrote play). The results of AVE value suggested good convergent validity and ranged from .88 (component 1 and 2) to .90 (component 3 and 4). In addition, Composite Reliability (CR) for construct was measured and the re sults of CR value was .95 (component 2, 3, and

PAGE 75

75 4) and .96 (component 1), which implies that internal consistency exists and that other alpha estimates reached satisfi ed value (> .07) and ranged from .71 (component 2) to alpha coefficient value of the CBI also showed acceptable value (.76). To examine discriminant validity, an analysi s of correlation between measured constructs was conducted as evidence of discriminant validity. Correlation between constructs ranged from .19 to .29, which is below excessively high value (e.g., < .85; see Table 4 16). The results revealed that no high c onstruct inter correlation existed and that each construct is sufficiently discriminant to measure personality traits. In addition, each squared correlation should be smaller than AVE and in this model all AVE estimates were found to be greater than the sq uared correlations (see Table 4 15 and Table 4 16). The results of CFA suggested that the modified CBI model with four components has good model fit with satisfied reliability and validity in this dataset. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of Creativity F ostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) CFTI was subjected to CFA, which contains nine factors (i.e., independence, integration, motivation, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, question, opportunity, and frustration). The original measure has 5 observed vari ables for each latent variable. Two items were dropped from each latent variable based on the results from the initial CFA and 27 observed variables were retained for nine latent factors. The result of CFA of CFTI model showed good fit ( 2 / df =351.309/288 = 1.22, CFI = .979, TLI = .974, RMSEA = .027, SRMR = .040). All of model fit indices met satisfied range of good model fit. Table 4 17 represents summary of goodness of fit indices for CFTI.

PAGE 76

76 Construct validity was established by high factor loadings in th e CFTI model. Table 4 alpha coefficients for the CBI model. The factor loadings of each CFTI item ranged from .59 to .79 which exceeded the guidelines of greater than .50. The AVE values ranged from .89 to .92 indicating suitable convergent validity. In addition, Composite Reliability (CR) for construct was measured and the results of CR value ranged from .96 to .97, which suggested that internal consistency exist s and that ot (flexibility ) to .80 ( independence ), indicating appropriate internal consistency. The o the CFTI also reve aled satisfactory value (. 9 1 ). To examine discriminant validity, an analysis of correlation between measured constructs was conducted as evidence of discriminant validity. Correlation between constructs ranged from .12 (independence and question, and integ ration and question) to .67 (opportunity and flexibility), which is below excessively high value (e.g., < .85; see Table 4 19). The results revealed that no high construct inter correlation existed and that each construct is sufficiently discriminant to me asure personality traits. In addition, each squared correlation should be smaller than AVE and in this model all AVE estimates were found to be greater than the squared correlations (see Table 4 18 and Table 4 19). The results of CFA suggested that the mod ified CFTI model has good model fit with sufficient reliability and validity in the current dataset. Finally, modified measurement models were reexamined for valid interpretation for regressions. The results revealed that no violation was found from all mo dified

PAGE 77

77 measurements (CPS, CBI, and CFTI) regarding normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and m ulticollinearity accordingly. Table 4 20 shows descriptive statistics on the modified variables. Demographic Descriptive Information Pre service student teache collected from the participants through a survey questionnaire. Demographic elementary education), gender, age, y ear of program (i.e., junior, senior, and graduate level), and their ethnic background. In addition, the participants were asked their previous experiences regarding taking music and art courses during their college year. Lastly, they were asked to give in formation regarding their teaching experiences with different age groups in classroom settings and the age of children they would ideally like to teach when they complete teaching certification. Table 4 21 and 4 22 depict the demographic and descriptive in formation of the participants. A total of 302 pre service student teachers participated in this study from a university located in the southeastern portion of the United States 67 participants (22.2%) were in an early childhood education program and 235 participants (77.8%) were in an elementary education program. The majority of the participants were female (96.4%). Ninety eight percent of the participants were between the ages of 19 and 24 years old ( M = 20.92, SD = 1.39). Approximately half of particip ants ( n = 143, 47.4%) were juniors, 37.4% of the participants ( n = 113) were seniors, and 15.2% of the participants ( n = 46) were graduate students. The majority of the participants were White/Caucasian (80.8%). Hispanic/Latino (10.6%) was the second large st group

PAGE 78

78 among participants. The small numbers of the participants were Black/African American (6.3%) and Asian (2.3%). Approximately 60% of the participants had completed music and art courses as a part of their coursework in the university that the part icipants attended (i.e., MUE 3210: Music of the elementary child and ARE 4314: Art education for elementary schools). None of the UEC students had yet completed a course with music and art content. The participants were asked their teaching experiences wor king within classroom settings (preschool and elementary grade level), which is a multiple response (multiple dichotomy) variable. Table 4 22 indicates number of response and percentage of responses and cases regarding this item. Fifty one percent of the ( n = 154) participants have worked within 3 to 4 different age groups of classroom settings, 21.2% of the participants ( n = 64) have worked within 1 to 2 different age groups, and 27.9% of the participants ( n = 84) have worked within more than five differen t age groups. Among grade (63.2%) were the most experienced age groups. Sixth grade (11.6%) and seventh and higher grade (11.9%) were the least experienced groups. The p articipants were also asked the age group they would ideally like to teach when they complete their certification. One hundred and twenty nine participants (42.7%) wanted to teach first and second grade level of children when they complete teacher certific ation and 69 (22.8%) of the participants wanted to teach kindergarteners and 61 (20.2%) of the participants wanted to teach third and fourth grade in a future while seventh and higher grade (.7%) was the least preferred age group.

PAGE 79

79 Demographic variables we re examined with regard to their relationship with the primary variables (TIPI, CPS, CBI, and CFTI) in the study. Based on their distributions, year of program, ethnicity, number of different age groups taught, and ideal teaching grade level were dichotomi students (52.6%), White/Caucasian (80.8%) versus other ethnicities (19.2%), number of different age groups taught for 3 different age group teaching experience (48.7%) versus more than 4 different age gr oup teaching experience (51.8%), and ideal teaching grades for preschool to first grade (46.7%) versus second grade and older (53.3%). Gender was excluded among demographic variables due to the fact that the majority of the participants were female (96.4%) On each of these dichotomized demographic variables, independent samples t tests were conducted via SPSS (see Table 4 23 to Table 4 29) There were four significant differences in some scores (i.e., CPS, extraversion, CFTI) for demographic characteristics (i.e., year of program, ethn icity, and ideal teach ing grade level; see Table 4 24, Table 4 25, and Table 4 29 ). There was a significant difference in the Creative personality Scale (CPS) scores for juniors ( M = 27.66, SD M = 28.88, SD = 5.25 ; t (297.58) = 2.19, p = .028, two tailed). Also, there was a significant difference in the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) score for junior ( M = 130.28 SD = 13.28 ) and M = 133.59 SD = 12.54 ; t ( 300) = 2. 23 p = .027, two tailed). These results suggested that scores on CPS and CFTI than junior students. There was a significant difference in the personality trait of extraversion scores for White/Caucasian pre service teachers ( M =

PAGE 80

80 10.13 SD = 2.39 ) and other ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and Asian) pre service teachers ( M = 8.98 SD = 3.21 ; t (300) = 2.83 p = .005, two tailed). These results suggested that White/Caucasian pre servic e teachers had higher scores on the trait of extraversion than other ethnicity pre service teachers. There was a significant difference in the CPS scores for pre service teacher group who want to teach preschool, kindergarten, and first grade when they hav e teacher certificate ( M = 29.09 SD = 5.52 ) and pre service teacher group who want to teach second grade or older grade ( M = 27.09 SD = 4.09 ; t (255.25) = 2.67 p = .008, two tailed). These results suggested that pre service teachers who like to teach fir st grade or younger had higher scores on CPS than pre service teachers who like to teach second grade or older. The results of t test analyses indicated that other demographic variables were not found to differ sig nificantly in their reports of personality traits, CPS CBI and CFTI Analysis of Hypotheses Prior to examining main analysis, zero order correlations among all variables were examined to determine retention and elimination of dependent variables for the regression and mediation tests (see Tabl e 4 30 ). The dependent variable (e.g. CFTI) was significantly and positively related to openness ( r = 37, p = .00). This suggested complete support for Hypothesis 1, which was further examined by regressing CFTI on openness. Also, openness was significantl y and positively related to CBI ( r = .28, p = .00), which support for Hypothesis 2 and it was also further examined by regressing CBI on openness. Hypothesis 3, which predicted a positive relation between CFTI and CBI, was supported, as CBI was correlated to CFTI ( r = .31, p = .00). CBI also further examined by regressing CFTI on CBI. However, other independent variables were not associated with both CBI and CFTI. In addition, multiple regression analysis was

PAGE 81

81 evaluated to approve valid predictors for the ma in analyses. Table 4 31 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis for variables predicting the total score of CFTI. The results suggested, equivalent to results of zero order correlation analysis, the traits of openness and CBI were statistical = .24, p < .001, respectively). Thus, other variables including conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, and CPS were eliminated for regressions and mediation test. Specifically, openness of personality trait and CBI were retained as predicting variables. Figure 4 1 represents the final proposed hypothetical model of this study after modification. nificance including simple and multiple regressions were followed to analyzed 4 hypotheses of current study. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1. Some traits of pre service openness ) will be significantly and positively related to their behaviors to support creativity (CFTI). significance of the direct relationship between independent variable and the dependent variable. Linear regression was used to assess the predicting e ffect of the personality trait of openness on CFTI and each variable of CFTI. The results suggested that openness significantly predicted total score of CFTI ( = .37, t (300) = 6.93, p < .001). The overall model with the openness also predicted the total score of CFTI ( F (1, 300) = 47.96, p < .001), accounting for 13.5 percent of the variance in total score of CFTI (adjusted R 2 ; see first step of regression analy sis in Table 4 32 ). Also, the personality trait of openness significantly predicted each variable of CFTI; independence ( = .29,

PAGE 82

82 t (300) = 5.24, p < .001), integration ( = .38, t (300) = 7.05, p < .001), motivation ( = .12, t (300) = 2.06, p < .05), judgme nt ( = .24, t (300) = 4.30, p < .001), flexibility ( = .30, t (300) = 5.47, p < .001), evaluation ( = .22, t (300) = 3.89, p < .001), question ( = .13, t (300) = 2.22, p < .05), opportunity ( = .36, t (300) = 6.51, p < .001), and frustration ( = .23, t (30 0) = 4.03, p < .001). The overall model with the openness also predicted the each variable of the CFTI with adjusted R 2 range between .011 and .139. The results appear in the first step of the regression analys es in Table 4 33 to Table 4 41 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2. S ome traits of pre service openness ) will be significantly and positively related to their own creative behavior experiences (CBI). significance of the direct rela tionship between the independent variable and the mediating variable. Linear regression was employed to assess the predictive effect of the personality trait of openness on CBI. The results indicated that openness significantly predicated CBI ( = .28, t (3 00) = 5.03, p < .001). The overall model with openness also predicted the total score of CBI ( F (1, 300) = 25.29, p < .001), accounting for 7.5 percent of the variance in CBI (adjusted R 2 ). The second step of the r egression analysis in Table 4 32 indicated results of direct relationship between openness and CBI. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3. Pre service t experiences (CBI) will be significantly and positively related to their creativity (CFTI) The third step of Bar investigating the significance of the direct relationship between the mediating variable and independent

PAGE 83

83 and the dependent variable with the independent variable in the model. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluat e the predictive effect of both CBI and the personality trait of openness on CFTI. The result showed that CBI significantly predicted total score of CFTI with openness in the model, F (2, 299) = 32.07, p < .001, accounting for 18 percent of the variance in total score of CFTI (adjusted R 2 ; see third step of r egression analysis in Table 4 32 ). CBI ( = .23, p < .001) and openness ( = .31, p < .001) were each found to be significant predictors of total score of CFTI. All nine variables of the CFTI were also evaluated as dependent variables. The results indicated CBI significantly predicted each variable of CFTI with openness in the model. And CBI and openness were also found to be significant predictor of each variable of CFTI except openness for motivation a nd question variables, indicating that the variable of motivation and question were fully mediating and other variables were partially mediating between openness and each variable of the CFTI; independence (CBI: = .14, p < .01 and openness: = .25, p < .001), integration (CBI: = .12, p < .01 and openness: = .34, p < .001), motivation (CBI: = .15, p < .05 and openness: = .18, p = .20), judgment (CBI: = .24, p < .001 and openness: = .18, p = < .01), f lexibility (CBI: = .17, p < .01 and openness: = .18, p < .001), evaluation (CBI: = .13, p < .05 and openness: = .18, p < .01), question (CBI: = .15, p < .05 and openness: = .19, p = .15), opportunity (CBI: = .14, p < .05 and openness: = .31 p < .001), and frustration (CBI: = .14, p < .05 and openness: = .19, p < .01). The overall model with the CBI and openness also predicted each variable of the CFTI with adjusted R 2 range between .029 and .149. The results appear in the third step of the r egression analyses in Table 4 33 to Table 4 41 Even though multiple regression

PAGE 84

84 analyses were performed with the variable of openness was added in these models, these results were sufficient to support Hypothesis 3 because CBI was found to be a signif icant predictor of total score of CFTI and each variable of CFTI when variable of openness was controlled. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4. Pre (CBI) will mediate the relationship between some traits of pre service rsonality (openness) and their (CFTI) hypothesis. To establish mediation, the independent variable (openness) should significantly affect the dependent variable (CFTI; Step 1) and the mediator (CBI; Step2), the mediator (CBI) should continue to significantly affect the dependent variable (CFTI) when the independent variable (openness) is added to the model (Step 3), and the effect of the indepen dent variable (openness) on the dependent variable (CFTI) should decrease from Step 1 to Step 3 controlling for mediator (CBI). Through this procedure all models met the estimations of mediating effect (see Table 4 32 through Table 4 41 ), which indicates C BI mediates the relationship between personality trait of openness and total score of CFTI and each variable of CFTI. The results revealed that full mediation was evident for model with motivation and question dependent variables as openness is no longer s ignificant when CBI is added to the model. And other dependent variables (total score of CFTI, independence, integration, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, opportunity, and frustration) models were found as partial mediation since openness still remains a significant pre dictor when CBI was controlled. standard error of the mediator and of mediated effect. Specifically, these tests

PAGE 85

85 demonstrate whether the indirect effect of the i ndependent variable (openness) on the dependent variable (CFTI) through the mediator (CBI) is significant. The result of personality trait of openness and total score o f CFTI ( z = 3.21, p < .001). All of nine test indicated that CBI was found to fully mediate the relationship between openness and motivation ( z = 2.30, p = < .05) and que stion ( z = 2.24, p = < .05) variables of CFTI. two models reveal in Table 4 35 and Table 4 39 mediate the relationship between openness and o ther dependent variable of CFTI; independence ( z = 2.14, p = < .05; see Table 4 33 ), integration ( z = 1.92, p = < .05; see Table 4 34 ), judgment ( z = 3.23, p = < .01; see Table 4 36 ), flexibility ( z = 2.56, p = < .05; see Table 4 37 ), evaluation ( z = 2.06, p = < .05; see Table 4 38 ), opportunity ( z = 2.18, p = < .05; see Table 4 4 0 ), and frustration ( z = 2.16, p = < .05; see Table 4 41 ).

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 1. Descriptive statistics on the variables Mean SD Min Max Skewedness Kurtosis TIPI O penness 1 1.09 1.96 5.00 14.00 .740 .175 Conscientiousness 12.00 2.11 4.00 14.00 1.364 1.176 E xtraversion 9.91 2.80 2.00 14.00 .506 .284 Agreeableness 10.94 2.44 3 .00 14 .00 .778 .177 Emotional Stability 10.04 2.43 3 .00 14.00 .400 .638 CPS 116.77 9.57 92.00 144.00 .159 .145 CBI 28.20 11.40 4.00 63.00 .556 .224 CFTI 217.64 22.16 164.00 266.00 .047 .668 Independence 21.79 3.59 11.00 30.00 .188 .045 Integration 26.54 2.54 19.00 30.00 .535 .183 Motivation 24.97 2 .84 17.00 30.00 .128 .709 Judgment 22.93 3.30 14.00 30.00 .005 .470 Flexibility 23.14 3.23 13.00 30.00 .262 .075 Evaluation 21.69 3.59 11.00 30.00 .122 .351 Question 25.24 3.15 16.00 30.00 .334 .521 Opportunity 25.25 3.21 15.00 30.00 .553 .225 Frustration 26.09 2.89 18.00 30.00 .460 .620 Note TIPI = ten item personality inventory; CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 2. Summary of goodness of fit indices for TIPI Measurement model 2 df 2 / df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR TIPI 32.20 25 1.288 .991 .984 .031 .023 Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standard root mean squared r esidua l Table 4 3. Summary for mea surement model of TIPI Measurement model SE AVE CR Openness .85 .92 .74 Open to new experiences, complex .59 .09 Conventional, uncreative (Reverse) .99 .14 C onscientiousness .86 .93 .82 Dependable, self disciplined .79 .1 0 Disorganized, careless (Reverse) .88 .11 Agreeableness .88 .94 .76 Sympathetic, warm .72 .08 Critical, quarrelsome (Reverse) .88 .09 Extraversion .86 .93 .80 Extraverted, enthusiastic .94 .12 Reserved, qu iet (Reverse) .72 .10 Emotional Stability .85 .92 .72 Calm, emotionally stable .81 .10 Anxious, easily upset (Reverse) .71 .11 Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliabilities Table 4 4. Correlations among T IPI constructs 1 2 3 4 5 1. Openness 1.00 2. Conscientiousness .13 1.00 3. Extraversion .17 .10 1.00 4. Agreeableness .09 .14 .06 1.00 5. Emotional Stability .05 .00 .04 .25 1.00

PAGE 88

88 Table 4 5. Pattern matrix for PCA wi th Oblimin rotation of four factor solution of CPS Item Pattern coefficients of component Communalities 1 2 3 4 Cautious ( .587 ) .136 .292 .116 .258 Well mannered ( .573 ) .228 .154 .057 .357 Insightful ( .566 ) .103 .154 .134 .428 Sincere ( .557 ) 268 .132 .006 .439 Reflective ( .550 ) .003 .091 .084 .673 Honest ( .506 ) .307 .062 .065 .559 Capable ( .382 ) .086 .033 .243 .283 Submissive ( .364 ) .294 .222 .222 .229 Egotistical .214 ( .633 ) .014 .341 .363 Dissatisfied .025 ( .624 ) .044 .222 .1 57 Artificial .049 ( .581 ) .112 .020 .470 Snobbish .287 ( .581 ) .023 .178 .294 Suspicious .052 ( .536 ) .006 .036 .439 Informal .099 ( .436 ) .331 .083 .397 Narrow interests .022 ( .430 ) .381 .208 .288 Unconventional .033 .294 ( .661 ) .103 .373 Conventional .145 .114 ( .660 ) .157 .393 Conservative .284 .104 ( .500 ) .077 .442 Commonplace .070 .194 ( .496 ) .083 .410 Inventive .235 .038 ( .428 ) .399 .491 Self confident .153 .156 .283 ( .854 ) .434 Confident .074 .087 .143 ( .843 ) .403 S exy .044 .251 .203 ( .556 ) .337 Original .229 .002 .261 ( .478 ) .426 Resourceful .164 .144 .021 ( .475 ) .311 Intelligent .378 .099 .031 ( .428 ) .712 Clever .339 .217 .207 ( .393 ) .371 Wide interests .193 .207 .340 ( .374 ) .287 Humorous .127 .111 .200 ( .347 ) .459 Individualistic .046 .086 .169 ( .309 ) .508 Note. Major loadings for each item are in the parentheses

PAGE 89

89 Table 4 6. CPS model with four components Component Number of item Items Component 1 8 Cautious (R), Well mannered (R), Insightful, Sinc ere (R), Reflective, Honest (R), Capable, Submissive (R) Component 2 7 Egotistical, Dissatisfied, Artificial (R), Snobbish (R), Suspicious (R), Informal, Narrow interests (R) Component 3 5 Unconventional, Conventional (R), Conservative (R), Commonplace ( R), Inventive Component 4 10 Self confident, Confident, Sexy, Original, Resourceful, Intelligent, Clever, Wide interests, Humorous, Individualistic Note scored items Table 4 7. Finalized CPS model after modification Component Number of item Items Component 1 3 Well mannered (R), Sincere (R), Honest (R) Component 2 2 Egotistical, Snobbish (R) Component 3 3 Unconventional, Conventional (R), Conservative (R) Component 4 2 Self confident, Confident Note scored items

PAGE 90

90 Table 4 8. Summary of goodness of fit indices for CPS Measurement model 2 df 2 / df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR CPS 42.032 29 1.449 .984 .976 .039 .039 Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square err or of approximation; SRMR = standard root mean squared r esidua l Table 4 9. Summary for measurement model of CPS Measurement model SE AVE CR Creative Personality Scale (CPS) .65 Component 1 .89 .96 .72 Well mannered (Reve rse) .63 .06 Sincere (Reverse) .70 .06 Honest (Reverse) .73 .06 C omponent 2 .90 .95 .76 Egotistical .78 .07 Snobbish (Reverse) .79 .07 Component 3 .89 .96 .74 Unconventional .74 .06 Conventional (Reverse) .64 .06 Conservative (Reverse) .72 .06 Component 4 .90 .94 .83 Confident .90 .09 Self confident .80 .08 Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliabili ties Table 4 10. Correlations among CPS constructs 1 2 3 4 1. Component 1 1.00 2. Component 2 .38 1.00 3. Component 3 .23 .13 1.00 4. Component 4 .15 .16 .05 1.00

PAGE 91

91 Table 4 11. Pattern matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation o f four factor solution of CBI Item Pattern coefficients of component Communalities 1 2 3 4 23. Made jewelry ( .620 ) .203 .032 .028 .427 27. Made wood craft ( .590 ) .102 .060 .117 .256 16. Made ceramic craft ( .564 ) .050 .110 .024 .382 3. Made me tal craft ( .552 ) .223 .176 .004 .279 7. Made sculpture ( .546 ) .175 .019 .190 .199 17. Designed clothing ( .498 ) .037 .008 .040 .415 18. Made floral arrangement ( .461 ) .236 .211 .008 .377 13. Made plastic craft ( .453 ) .049 .080 .153 .386 28. De signed costume ( .451 ) .081 .020 .119 .502 2. Made cards ( .426 ) .156 .020 .186 .438 5. Made decorations ( .425 ) .042 .040 .059 .390 15. Made leather craft ( .406 ) .194 .371 .247 .488 9. Wrote poetry .047 ( .683 ) .012 .185 .286 20. Wrote lyric s .086 ( .632 ) .076 .134 .338 21. Wrote story .160 ( .613 ) .133 .150 .362 8. Had a piece of literature .002 ( .581 ) .087 .129 .354 14. Made cartoons .037 ( .501 ) .168 .261 .262 26. Kept sketch book .214 ( .405 ) .386 .371 .299 19. Drew picture .302 ( .345 ) .204 .201 .366 12. Received craft award .107 .088 ( .651 ) .137 .405 6. Built mobile .003 .156 ( .628 ) .128 .473 24. Had art exhibit .103 .090 ( .620 ) .042 .428 11. Received art award .041 .220 ( .535 ) .166 .362 1. Painted picture .264 .21 4 ( .424 ) .227 .461 22. Planned speech .030 .109 .074 ( .622 ) .327 10. Wrote play .070 .123 .093 ( .611 ) .570 25. Did set design .009 .149 .270 ( .445 ) .378 4. Held puppet show .184 .125 .159 ( .381 ) .222 Note. Major loadings for each item are in the p arentheses.

PAGE 92

92 Table 4 12. CBI model with four components Component Number of item Items Component 1 12 Made jewelry, Made wood craft, Made ceramic craft, Made metal craft, Made sculpture, Designed clothing, Made floral arrangement, Made plastic craft, Designed costume, Made cards, Made decorations, Made leather craft Component 2 7 Wrote poetry, Wrote lyrics, Wrote story, Had a piece of literature, Made cartoons, Kept sketch book, Drew picture Component 3 5 Received craft award, Built mobile, Had art exhibit, Received art award, Painted picture Component 4 4 Planned speech, Wrote play, Did set design, Held puppet show Table 4 13. Finalized CBI model after modification Component Number of Item Items Component 1 4 Made wood craft, Made ceramic cr aft, Made sculpture, Made plastic craft Component 2 3 Wrote poetry, Wrote story, Had a piece of literature Component 3 3 Received art award, Received craft award, Had art exhibit Component 4 2 Wrote play, Held puppet show

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 14. Su mmary of goodness of fit indices for CBI Measurement model 2 df 2 / df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR CBI 62.070 48 1.035 .984 .977 .031 .042 Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standard root mean squared r esidua l Table 4 15. Summary for me asurement model of CBI Measurement model SE AVE CR Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI) .76 Component 1 .88 .96 .73 Made wood craft .60 .06 Made ceramic craft .71 .06 Made sculpture .56 .06 Made plastic craft .67 .06 C omponent 2 .88 .95 .71 Wrote poetry .76 .07 Wrote story .64 .06 Had a piece of literature .60 .06 Component 3 .90 .95 .73 Received art award .63 .06 Received craft award .69 .06 Had art exhibit .76 .06 Component 4 .90 .95 .80 Wrote play .86 .08 Held puppet show .78 .07 Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliabilities Table 4 16. Correlatio ns among CBI constructs 1 2 3 4 1. Component 1 1.00 2. Component 2 .19 1.00 3. Component 3 .29 .24 1.00 4. Component 4 .27 .24 .20 1.00

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 17. Summary of goodness of fit indices for CFTI Measurement model 2 df 2 / df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR CFTI 351.309 288 1.22 .979 .974 .027 .040 Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standard root mean squared r esidua l

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 18. Summary for measurement model o f CFTI Measurement m odel SE AVE CR Creativity Fostering Teacher Indext (CFTI) .91 Independence .91 .97 80 Leave questions for students to find out for themselves. .77 .05 Teach students the basics and leave room for individual learning. .71 .05 Leave open ended questions for my students to find the answers. .79 .05 Integration 90 .96 .72 Students have opportunities to share ideas and views. .67 .06 Students are encouraged to contribute to the lesson. .65 .06 Encourage students to a sk questions and make suggestions. .76 .05 Motivation .91 .96 .74 Learning the basic knowledge/skills well is emphasized. .67 .06 Emphasize the importance of mastering the essentials. .77 .06 Expect students to learn the basic kn owledge/skills well. .66 .06 Judgment .89 .96 .7 3 Get students to explore their ideas before taking a stand. .64 .06 Do not give own view immediately on .75 .06 more thorou ghly exploration. .69 .06 Flexibility .90 .96 .71 thinking. .59 .06 Encourage students to think in different directions. .69 .05 Like students to take time to think in different ways. .72 .05 Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliabilities

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 18. Continued Measurement model SE AVE CR Creativity Fostering Teacher Indext (CFTI) Evaluation .92 .97 .79 Provide opportunities for students to share strengths and weaknesses. .78 .05 Students to check their own work before the teacher does. .67 .05 Students have opportunities to judge for themselves. .79 .05 Question .89 .96 .72 .60 .06 lightly. .69 .06 they are not practical. .76 .06 Opportunity .90 .96 .72 have learned into different uses. .65 .06 Encouraged students to do different things with what they have learned. .73 .05 ideas and deviating. .70 .05 Frustration .89 .96 .73 Help students who experienced failure to regain confidence. .66 .06 Help students t o draw lessons from their own failures. .68 .06 Encourage students who experienced failure to find other solutions. .71 .06 Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliabilities

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 19. Correlations among CFTI construc ts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Independence 1.00 2. Integration .46 1.00 3. Motivation .15 .13 1.00 4. Judgment .54 .38 .24 1.00 5. Flexibility .52 .59 .16 .57 1.00 6. Evaluation .59 .49 .19 .56 .59 1.00 7. Question .12 .12 .31 .16 .13 .17 1.00 8. Opportunity .49 .59 .13 .49 .67 .58 .19 1.00 9. Frustration .41 .56 .16 .35 .52 .52 .16 .55 1.00 Table 4 20. Descriptive statistics on the modified variables Mean SD Min Max Skewedness Kurtosis CPS 28.30 4.86 17.00 51.00 .719 1.449 CBI 12.43 6.14 1.00 29.00 .572 .122 CFTI 132.02 12.98 98.00 160.00 .085 .612 Independence 13.24 2.65 4.00 18.00 .343 .007 Integration 16.06 1.76 11.0 0 18.00 .785 .091 Motivation 15.12 2.09 10.00 18.00 .386 .617 Judgment 13.19 2.36 6.00 18.00 .149 .311 Flexibility 15.08 2.01 8.00 18.00 .488 .256 Evaluation 13.61 2.43 5.00 18.00 .249 .228 Question 14.71 2.19 8.00 18 .00 .449 .105 Opportunity 15.10 2.15 7.00 18.00 .713 .288 Frustration 15.72 1.86 11.00 18.00 .442 .675 Note CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index

PAGE 98

98 Tab le 4 21. Demographic and descriptive data Frequencies Percentage Program Early Childhood Education Elementary Education 67 235 22.2% 77.8% Gender Male Female 11 291 3.6% 96.4% Age 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+ 121 1 51 24 6 40.1% 50.0% 7.9% 2.0% Year of program Junior Senior Graduate 143 113 46 47.4% 37.4% 15.2% Ethnicity Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White/Caucasian 7 19 32 244 2.3% 6.3% 10.6% 80.8% Having a m usic course Yes No 188 144 62.3% 37.7% Having a n art course Yes No 123 179 40.7% 59.3% Numbers of different age groups taught 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ 64 154 52 32 21.2% 51.0% 17.2% 10.6% Ideal teaching grade lev el Preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 2 Grade 3 4 Grade 5+ 9 69 129 61 34 3.0% 22.8% 42.7% 20.2% 11.3%

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 22. Descriptive stati stics on teaching experiences with different age groups Number Percent of responses Percent of ca ses Preschool 149 12.6% 49.3% Kindergarten 207 17.6% 68.5% Grade 1 199 16.9% 65.9% Grade 2 191 16.2% 63.2% Grade 3 135 11.5% 44.7% Grade 4 125 10.6% 41.4% Grade 5 101 8.6% 33.4% Grade 6 35 3.0% 11.6% Grade 7 or older 36 3.1% 11.9% Total 1178 100. 0% 390.1% Table 4 23. Independent t test for demographic variable : P rogram Early c hildhood Elementary t df Openness 11.15 (1.78) 11.08 (2.01) .27 300 Conscientiousness 12.03 (1.78) 11.75 (2.15) .95 126.41 Agreeableness 11.15 (2.40) 10.89 (2.79 ) .80 300 Extraversion 9.58 (2.85) 10.00 (2.79) 1.08 300 Emotional Stability 10.07 (2.38) 10.03 (2.45) .12 300 CPS 28.70 (5.42) 28.20 (4.69) .76 300 CBI 12.18 (5.73) 12.50 (6.26) .37 300 CFTI 131.63 (11.96 ) 132.13 (13.28 ) .28 300 Note. Stand ard deviations appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index.

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 24. Independent t test for demographic variable : Y ear of program Junior Senio t df Openness 10.93 (1.98) 11.24 (1.92) 1.37 300 Conscientiousness 11.73 (2.17) 11.89 (1.98) .69 300 Agreeableness 10.84 (2.30) 11.03 (2.58) .68 300 Extraversion 9.75 (2.75) 10.05 (2.40) .94 300 Emotional Stability 10.11 (2.47) 9.98 (2. 40) .47 300 CPS 27.66 (4.31) 28.88 (5.25) 2.19* 297.58 CBI 12.36 (6.13) 12.49 (6.17) .19 300 CFTI 130.28 (13.28 ) 133 58 (12.54 ) 2.22* 300 Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative b ehavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index. p < .05. Table 4 25. Independent t test for demographic variable : E thnicity White Non White t df Openness 11.06 (1.93) 11.24 (2.09) .64 300 Conscientiousness 11.82 (2.10) 11.78 (1.97) .16 300 Agreeableness 10.96 (2.39) 10.84 (2.69) .33 300 Extraversion 10.13 (2.39) 8.98 (3.21) 2.83** 300 Emotional Stability 10.05 (2.39) 10.00 (2.62) .15 300 CPS 28.24 (4.95) 28.57 (4.46) .46 300 CBI 12.71 (6.16) 11.24 (5.96) 1.64 300 CFTI 132.00 (13.01 ) 132.10 (12.96 ) 0 5 300 Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index. ** p < .01.

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 26. Independent t test for demographic variable : H aving a music course Yes No t df Openness 11.09 (1.97) 11.10 (1.95) .03 300 Conscientiousness 11.74 (2.11) 11.93 (2.24) .75 300 Agreeableness 10.86 (2.57) 11.08 (2.77) .77 300 Extraversion 10.05 (2.82) 9.68 (2.77) 1.12 3 00 Emotional Stability 10.02 (2.43) 10.08 (2.44) .20 300 CPS 28.20 (4.88) 28.47 (4.83) .47 300 CBI 12.43 (6.31) 12.42 (5.87) .01 300 CFTI 132.36 (13.28 ) 1 31.50 (12.51 ) .54 300 Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creat ive personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index. Table 4 27 Independent t test for demographic variable : H aving an art course Yes No t df Openness 11.10 (2.10) 11.09 (1.86) .04 300 Conscientious ness 11.79 (2.24) 11.83 (1.96) .18 238.70 Agreeableness 10.94 (2.63) 10.94 (2.37) .03 300 Extraversion 10.13 (2.87) 9.75 (2.75) 1.15 300 Emotional Stability 9.98 (2.51) 10.09 (2.37) .40 300 CPS 28.31 (5.22) 28.23 (4.60) .33 300 CBI 12.11 (6.3 2) 12.64 (6.02) .73 300 CFTI 132.50 (13.05 ) 131.69 (12.96 ) .54 300 Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index.

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 28 Independent t test for demographic variable: N umber of different age groups taught 1 3 Groups 4 or more t df Openness 11.13 (1.7) 11.05 (2.04) .37 300 Conscientiousness 11.77 (2.17) 11.86 (1.98) .37 300 Agreeableness 10.92 (2.54) 10.96 (2.36) .15 3 00 Extraversion 9.75 (2.84) 10.06 (2.77) .96 300 Emotional Stability 10.00 (2.40) 10.07 (2.46) .25 300 CPS 28.80 (5.09) 27.84 (4.60) 1.71 300 CBI 11.72 (5.62) 13.10 (6.54) 1.96 300 CFTI 132. 40 (13.01 ) 131.65 (12.99 ) .50 300 Note. Standard deviatio ns appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index. Table 4 2 9 Independent t test for demographic variable: I deal teaching grade level PreK to Grade 1 Gr ade 2 and up t df Openness 11.31 (1.88) 10.90 (2.01) 1.83 300 Conscientiousness 11.87 (1.94) 11.77 (2.19) .40 126.41 Agreeableness 11.01 (2.32) 10.88 (2.56) .49 300 Extraversion 9.96 (2.71) 9.86 (2.89) .33 300 Emotional Stability 10.03 (2.28) 10 .06 (2.56) .10 300 CPS 29.09 (5.52) 27.09 (4.09) 2.67** 255.25 CBI 12.60 (6.12) 12.27 (6.18) .47 300 CFTI 132 22 (11.99 ) 131.84 (13.83 ) .25 300 Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis below means. CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = cr eative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index. ** p < .01.

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 30 Zero order correlations among variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. O 1.00 2. C .13* 1.00 3. A .10 .14* 1.00 4. E .17 ** .1 0 .06 1.00 5. ES .05 .01 .25* .04 1.00 6. CPS .07 .23* .39 .16** .02 1.00 7. CBI .28** .07 .02 .07 .07 .08 1.00 8. CFTI .38 ** .06 .09 .08 .07 .04 .31 ** 1.00 Note O = openness; C = conscientiousness; A = agreeableness; E = extraversion; ES = emotional stability; CPS = creative personality scale; CBI = creative behavior inventory; CFTI = creativity fostering behavior index p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 4 31 Multiple regression analysis f or variables predicting score of CFTI Variables B SE B Openness .141 .028 .288 *** Conscientiousness .020 .026 .043 Agreeableness .023 .022 .058 Extraversion .006 .019 .017 Emotional Stability .025 .021 .063 Creative Personality Scale .001 .022 .001 Creati ve Behavior Inventory .075 .017 .241 *** Note R 2 = .20; Adjusted R 2 = .18. *** p < .001.

PAGE 104

104 Table 4 32 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between total CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .183 .026 .371*** .135 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .151 .027 .308*** .180 3.214 .001** CBI .071 .017 .228*** Note. CBI = creative be havior inventory a = Dependent variable is Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 4 33 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in t he relation between independence of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .262 .050 .290*** .081 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .228 .052 .252*** .095 2.140 .032* CBI .078 .033 .135** Note. CBI = creative be havior inventory a = Dependent variable is independence of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 34 Summary of regression analysis predicting t he mediating role of CBI in the relation between integration of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .227 .032 .377*** .139 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .207 .033 .344*** .149 1.972 .049* CBI .045 .021 .118** Note. CBI = creative be havior inventory a = Dependent variable is integration of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 4 35 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between motivation of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .084 .041 .118* .011 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .054 .042 .075 .029 2.304 .021* CBI .070 .027 .154* Note. CBI = creative beh avior inventory a = Dependent variable is motivation of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. *** p < .001.

PAGE 106

106 Table 4 36 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediatin g role of CBI in the relation between judgment of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .194 .045 .241*** .055 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .141 .046 .175** .104 3.228 .001** CBI .122 .029 .237*** Note. CBI = creative behavior inventory a = Dependent variable is judgment of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 4 37 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating r ole of CBI in the relation between flexibility of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .207 .038 .301*** .088 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .174 .039 .175*** .111 2.552 .011* CBI .074 .025 .169** Note. CBI = creative behavior inventory a = Dependent variable is flexibility of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 38 Summary of regression analysis predicti ng the mediating role of CBI in the relation between evaluation of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .182 .047 .219*** .045 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .141 .048 .182** .058 2.060 .039* CBI .070 .031 .133* Note. CBI = creative be havior inventory a = Dependent variable is evaluation of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 4 39 Summary of regression analysis predicting the m ediating role of CBI in the relation between question of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .087 .039 .127* .013 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .059 .041 .086 .030 2.239 .025* CBI .065 .026 .149* Note. CBI = creative behavior inventory a = Dependent variable is question of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. *** p < .001.

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 4 0 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediat ing role of CBI in the relation between opportunity of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .257 .040 .352*** .121 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .229 .041 .314*** .135 2.183 .029* CBI .063 .026 .136* Note. CBI = creative b ehavior inventory a = Dependent variable is opportunity of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. *** p < .001. Table 4 41 Summary of regression analysis predicting the mediating role of CBI in the relation between frustration of CFTI score and personality trait of openness Sobel t est B SE B Adj R 2 z p Step 1 a Openness .144 .036 .226*** .048 Step 2 b Openness .438 .087 .279*** .075 Step 3 a Openness .120 .037 .189** .062 2.160 .031* CBI .055 .023 .136* Note. CBI = creative be havior inventory a = Dependent variable is frustration of Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index b = Dependent variable is Creativity Behavior Inventory p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

PAGE 109

109 Figure 4 1. Path diagram of the proposed meditational mo del after modification

PAGE 110

110 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Chapter 5 discusses the findings and implications of the study. First, the summary of the study will be stated. Second, the findings of this study will be discussed, indicating three sections regarding: 1) pre creative behavior experience; 2) pre creativity fostering behavior; 3) pre se rvice their creativity fostering behavior ; and 4) additional findings of interests. Then, implications for teacher education will be discussed. Finally, limitations of the study will be discussed followed by implications for future research. Summary of the Study Creativity is a key component of being human. The early childhood years present (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987; Nickerson, 1999; Saracho, 2012 ; Starko, 2010; Torrance, 1979) However, nurturing the development of creativity receives less attention in early childhood education, in comparison to core aca demic curricula in areas such as reading and mathematics ( Batey et al. 2010 ; Kemple & Nissenberg, 2000 ; Kozol, 2006; Rentner et al., 2006 ) Despite limited support of creativity in education, many studies h ave revealed the importance of creativity, an have provided significant evidence supporting (Esquivel, 1995 ; Jeffrey, 2006; McWilliam & Haukka, 2008; Mills, 2003; Olanisi mi et al., 2011; Schacter et al., 2006) This study investigated pre service

PAGE 111

111 pre service fostering behaviors for their students. The purpose of this study is three fold: 1) to e xam ine the relationship between pre service personal ity traits and their examine the relationship between pre service and their ity; and finally, 3) to examine the role of pre service ir personality traits and their A total of 302 pre service teachers, enrolled in the early c hildhood education and the elementary education programs in the College of Education at a university located in the southeastern portion of the United States were involved in this study. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire packet that includes five sections of the questionnaire: demographic background, personality traits, creative personality creativity. To assess personality traits, the Te n Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) was used to measure the Five Factor Model of personality traits (i.e., openness to experiences, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability). rsonality traits were also collected via previous experiences that related to creative activity, the Creativity Behavior Inventory (CBI) was used. To assess teaching behaviors Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) was employed. Data analysis was performed in four stages. First, the dataset was screened and preliminary analyses were performed to examine the assumptions for simple and

PAGE 112

112 multiple linear regressions. Second, each variable including the demographic variables were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Third, each instrument was examined for reliability and validity through factor analyses (Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Principal Component Analysis). Finally, hypotheses were analyzed to investigate the relationship among the variables (i.e., TIPI, CPS, CBI, and CFTI) via simple and multiple linear regressions. The mediating role of the creative behaviors variable in the relationship between the pre Table 5 1 presents a summary of findings on the research questions and hypotheses. Discussion of the finding will be presented in following sections. These findings may contribute to the teacher education field, by helping researchers and practitioners to better understand the roles of personality traits and creativity in Findings Relationships between Pre service Creative Behavior Experience This ich related to their creativity activity sample of early childhood and elementary education pre service teachers. Hypothesis posited t hat some traits of pre behavior experiences. The results of this study found openness to experiences strongly predict pre service pre se rvice erience

PAGE 113

113 predicted more creative behavior experiences such as wrote a story, made some type of craft (i.e., wood, plastic, and ceramic), or received an art and craft award. This result is consistent with several studies. First, this result supports the study of personality traits and creative behavior among university students conducted by Dollinger et al. (2004). His findings showed that the personality trait of openness to experience consistently correlated with creative behavior (CBI). His study also found extraversion to be associated with creative behavior (CBI), a finding which was not supported in the current study. The results of the present study are also consistent with researc h conducted by King et al. (1996), Griffin and McDermott (1998), Feist and Barron (2003), McCann (2011), and Silvia et al. (2009), which suggested that the personality trait of accomplishments. However, the results of the present study could not support results of other studies regarding other personality traits (i.e., the personality traits of extraversion and 008) study indicated the personality trait of extraversion was significantly related to creative of agreeableness was negatively correlated with creative accomplish ments These differences of findings can be explained by several reasons. First, the demographic characteristics of participants of these studies are different than current study. Furnham ge ranging from (1996) study involved 27 male and 48 female with the age ranging from 17 to 47 years

PAGE 114

114 from a university in Texas. T he current study involved 11 male and 291 female an early childhood and an elementary pre service teachers with the age ranging from 19 to 34 years from a university located in the southeastern portion of the United States Second, different measurements were used in these studies. Furnham and study used the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) to measure the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits and the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behavior (BICB; Batey, 2007; Batey & Furnham, 2008; Batey et al ., 2010) the Big Five Inventory (BFI; Benet Martnez, & John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999 ) to measure examined. The current study used the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003 ) and the short form of Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI; Dollinger, 2003; Dollinger et al., 2005; Dollinger, 2007, 2011) Different demographic variables and use of measurement of the studies may bring different results. Relationship between Pre raits and Their Creativity Fostering Behavior Hypothesis 2 posited that some traits of pre service sonality would predict their creativity fostering behaviors for their students. The results of this study found the personality trait of opennes s to experiences significantly and positively related to pre service teachers who had higher score on openness to experiences were likely to use more creativity fostering teaching s tyles, which were categorized into nine variables: independence, integration, motivation, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, question, opportunities, and frustration. This result supports and extends previous studies. Houtz

PAGE 115

115 et al. (1994) examined personali ty type and classroom teaching style of elementary and secondary pre service student teachers using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI ; Murray et al. 1990; Myers, 1987, 2003 ; Myers et al., 1985 ) and the Classroom Creativity Observation Schedule (CCOS; Denny et al., 1969). The results indicated that personality traits of the thinking and perceiving preferences from the MBTI, which contain creativity characte ristics ( Thorne & Gough, 1991), predicted pre service climate, divergent use of materials, and pupil to pupil interactions. Zhang (2007) examined the relationship between perso regard to whether teachers use a creative teaching style or conservative teaching style. The results suggested that the personality trait of openness to experience is positively related to the creative teachi ng style. Moreover, the results of a qualitative study conducted by Horng et al. (2005) indicate that the personality trait of acceptance of new with the results of the c urrent study. Relationship between Pre Their Creativity Fostering Behavior ty in a sample of early childhood and elementary education p re service teacher. Hypothesis 3 posited that pre service fostering behavior fo r their students. In addition, Hypothesis 4 po sited that pre service behavior experiences would mediate th e relationship between their personality traits results of this study suggest that

PAGE 116

116 p r e ior experiences strongly predict their creativity fostering behaviors, which includes nine sub variables: independence, integration, motivation, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, question, opportunities, and frustration. Pre service teachers who had more creativity related behavior experiences were likely to use more creativity fostering teaching styles. This finding is consistent with the results of studies regarding creative behavior experiences and creativity performances among college students by Dolli nger and his colle a gues The studies showed that creative acco mplishments were associated to creative products and performances such as creative writing, creative drawing, creativity dossiers, photo essay s and creative stories (Dollinger, 2003, 2007, 2011; Dollinger, Dollinger, & Centeno, 2005) Finally, the results of this study support the predictions of b oth partial and full mediations. Pre relationship between openness to experiences and two creativity fostering teacher behaviors: motivation and questioning. Pre behavior experiences partially mediated the relationship between openness to experiences and other creativity fostering behaviors: independence, integration, judgment, flexibility, evaluation opportunity, and frustration. T h e mediating role of creative ac tivity experiences in the relationship between personalit y traits and creativity fostering behaviors this finding supp orts model of creativity within the interactionist approach which provided a framework for the present study Sp eci fic ally, the findings support (person /personality process, and product) I n that pre (creative process) mediate the relationship between the personality traits of openness (creativ e person /personality ) and

PAGE 117

117 their creativity fostering behaviors (creative product) in terms of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) The current study investigated one variable, CBI as a me diator; there are numerous additional variables that could contribute to the effect of personality traits on creative performance. For example, Prabhu et al. (2008) hypothesized a conceptual model and tested the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in th e relationship between personality traits and creativity among university personnel. The finding supported the potential mediating role of intrinsic motivation between creativity and openness to experience as a partial mediation. Recent studies of Hadjam a nd Widhiaso (2010, 2011) examined the role of teacher efficacy as a mediator between the Five Factor personality traits and optimal teaching performance. The result of this study showed teacher efficacy reduced the role of the Five These results indicated that teacher efficacy has an influenc e on personality traits and teacher performance as a mediator. These variables may need to be investigated for further research. However, research on teacher efficacy involving pre service teachers would require careful consideration of the validity of exi sting teaching efficacy measures for use with pre service teachers. Additional Findings of Interests There were several additional interesting findings for the demographic variables. When interpreting the results of this study, it is important to consider the findings within variables (TIPI, CPS, CBI, and CFTI). Independent t tests were performed to identify potential demographic group differences by year of program, ethnicity, number of

PAGE 118

118 different age group taught, and ideal teaching grade level. Theses variables were ethnicities, number of different age group taught for 3 different age group teaching experiences versus more than 4 different age group teaching experience, and ideal teaching grades for preschool to first grade versus second grade and older. The results indicated four significant findings. First, there was a significant d ifference in the Creative Personality Scale (CPS) and the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior Index (CFTI) scores for juniors and higher score on CPS and CFTI than juni or students, which may support the results of Dababneh, Ihmeideh, and Al 2010) study Dabaneh et al. found the effect of education level (university versus postgraduate) in developing creativity in the classroom educational environment among kinde rgarten teachers. However, their study of the creative environment. Second, in the current study there was a significant difference in the extraversion score for White/C aucasian pre service teachers and other ethnicity pre service teachers, such that White/ Caucasian pre service teachers had higher scores on the personality trait of extraversion than other ethnicity pre service teachers (i.e., Hispanic/Latino, Black/Africa n American, and Asian). This finding is among university students, which suggested White students tended to score higher on extraversion than Asians and Latinos studen ts. The last finding indicated that there was a significant difference in the CPS scores for pre service teacher group who prefer to

PAGE 119

119 teach preschool, kindergarten, and first grade and pre service teacher group who want prefer to teach second grade or older grade. The finding suggested that pre service teachers who would like to teach first grade or younger had higher scores on CPS than pre service teachers who would like to teach second grade or older. Additional demographics could be considered for future studies such as gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and teaching context. Implication s for Teacher Education The findings of this study suggest that early childhood and elementary pre service teachers who score higher on the personality trait of openness to experience tend to perform more creativity fostering behaviors. In addition, pre service teachers with higher openness to experience scores have had more creative behavior experiences. Pre gnificantly and positively related to pre fostering behaviors for their students. Finally, the potential mediating role of pre service experiences between pre pe nness to experience and creativity the CFTI variables of motivation and question and partial mediation for the CFTI variables of independence, integration, judgment, flexibility, evaluation, opportunity, and frustration. These findings disclosed several implications for teacher education. research has focused on teacher creativity. Moreover, li ttle research appears to focus on identifying creative characteristics and behaviors of teachers ( Aschenbre ner, Terry Jr, & Torres, 2010). The personality traits and creativity will contribute significa ntly to the body of knowledge in

PAGE 120

120 the early childhood education field by providing a greater understanding of the roles of human personality and creativity in predicting use of teaching behaviors to promote Second, creative teaching is viewed as an essential component to become an effective teacher (Anderson, 2002; Esquivel, 1995; Fasko, 2001; Renzulli, 1992). the mediation analysis in this study provide d information abou t the mediating role of creativity related behavior experience s in the relationship between personality traits and teaching behaviors to This relationship suggest s the possibility that engaging teach ers in creative experiences will support their use of Through encouraging pre service recognize and appreciate, on a personal level, the benefits of creative a ctivities. This ma y encourage this use of creativity creative teachers. creative capacities (Esquivel, 1995 ; Jeffrey, 2006; McWilliam & Haukk a, 20 08; Mills, 2003; Olanisimi et al., 2011; Schacter et al. 2006) The results of this study also enable researcher s and practitioners to anticipate teaching behaviors that are likely to lead to avior. It is important to fostering behaviors into teacher preparation programs, and to teach pre service teachers to use those practices. Additionally, y should be respected the

PAGE 121

121 important educational research topic. The findings of this study can be employed as exploratory information for future investigations. In addition, implications of the findings creativity within early childhood and elementary teacher educational context. Limitations of the Study There were some limitations to the current study related to the study design and the measures used. First, the part icipants of this study were all pre service teachers at a university located in the southeastern portion of the United States The majority of the participants were White /Caucasian middle class and young adult females. Data from different institutions of higher education may yield different results, through these demographics are typical of pre service teachers. A generalization of the results of this study to in service teacher is limited. Second, another limitation is related to instrumentation First, all of the instruments were self report measures. This research method is vulnerable to the fact that the participants may overestimate and exaggerate their abilities and beliefs (K aufman et al., 2008; Kruger & Dunning, 1999) Thus, it may have reduced the (Creative Personality Scale: CPS), creative activity experiences (Creative Behavior Inve Fostering Behavior Index: CFTI) were trimmed and modified for some items, in accordance with goodness of fit indices and construct validation for the current dataset using fa ctor analyses (Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Principal Component Analysis). Thus, the process and results of the measurements may show different results for other datasets from other group of participants. Moreover, there are also alternative

PAGE 122

122 measuremen ts to investigate variable of personality traits, creative behavior or related variables such as the revised Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness Personality Inve ntory (NEO PI R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a, 1992b) the Big Five Inventory (BFI; Benet Martnez, & John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999 ), the Creative Achievement Questionna ire (CAQ; Carson et al., 2005) and the Creative Environment in Classroom survey questionnaire ( Dababneh et al., 2010). Using different measurements could lead results that unlike to results of the current st udy. Another limitation of this study is that the current study only investigated person ality traits and creative behavior s experiences. Therefore, follow up studies need to in vestigate the influence such as teacher efficacy ( Hsiao, Tu, Chang, & Chen 2011) motivation ( Prabhu et al., 2008) and creative self efficacy ( Tierney & Farmer, 2002) fostering Implication for Future Research Future research should address the limitations of this study. First, t his study only involved early childhood and elementary pre service teachers from one particular university located in north Florida; in the future it is advisable to also include a sample of other groups of teachers such as in service teache rs with diverse demographic characteristics as well as gender teaching experiences, cultural background, educational background, marital status, and family background. Thes e factors may

PAGE 123

123 creative influence their creative aspects. Additionally, Dabaneh et al. (2010) found the nt to Second, measurement issues should be addressed in future studies, such as considering alternative or additional measures of the variables explored in this study. Other measures of personality traits or related variable s such as the revised Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness Personality Inventory (NEO PI R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a, 1992b) the Big Five Inventory (BFI; Ben et Martne z, & John, 1998 ; John & Srivastava, 1999 ), and the International Personality Item Pool ( IPIP FFM; Goldberg, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006) should be considered because it is possible that 13.5 percent effect of the trait of openness to experience on CFTI is actually in part due to a other hidden variable that is highly correlated with CFTI. In addition, other measures of creative behavior experiences or related variable such as the original CBI measurement (Hocevar, 1979, 1980) the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ; Carson et al., 2005) the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behavior (BICB; Batey, 2007; Batey & Furnham, 2008; Batey et al., 2010), and the Creative Domain Questionnaire (CDQ and CDQ R; Kaufman & Baer, 2004; Kaufman et al ., 2009) could be considered as possible alternative s to the CBI. The Creative

PAGE 124

124 Environment in Classroom survey questionnaire ( Dababneh et al., 2010) also could be considered as possible alternative s to the CFTI. Third, other psychological traits such as self efficacy, creative self efficacy, teacher efficacy, and motivation may contribute to the relationship between teacher personality and teaching behavior. Studies on creative behavior have found self efficacy (Ford, 1996; Prabhu et al., 2008; Schack, 19 89; Starko, 1988), creative self efficacy ( Beghetto, 2006; Jaussi et al., 2007 ; Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002 ) teacher efficacy ( Hadjam & Widhiaso, 2010, 2011; Hsiao et al., 2011 ) and motivation (Choi, 2004; E isenberger & Shanock, 200 3; Hennessey & Amabile, 1998; Prabhu et al., 2008) to be significantly correlated with aspects of creativity such as creative performance. These findings suggest that a similar relationship may exist with fostering behaviors for their students, such that self efficacy, creative self efficacy, teacher efficacy, and motivation could mediate the relationship also be alternative outcome variables. Further res earch would benefit from identifying Fourth, fostering behavio rs, additional investigations need to be considered for the future research. First, creativity fostering behaviors as they occur in the cl assroom would greatly contribute to only self report. The Classroom Creativity Observation Schedule (CCOS; Denny et al., 1969) is one of the creativity teaching behavior observation tools.

PAGE 125

125 and practitioners of teacher education such as field supervi sors. Second, conducting socio emotional development, and physical development may provide stimulate findings for the field of early childhood education and teacher educat ion. F ifth beliefs and thoughts regarding perceptions of creativity and their creativity fostering behaviors For example ding educational system. U sing in depth interview s could also bring specific and diverse s about creativity. Lastly, it would be helpful to conduct intervention studies such examining fostering behaviors can be enhanced by increasing their engagement in creative activities. In sum, findings of the current study, implication, and suggestions would deliver multiple contributions to various areas. First of all, it is to be benefit of the teacher education program to nurturing creative, proactive, and effective professionals. Second, it would be beneficial to the policy makers and school administrators to develop creativity. Third, i t is to be benefit of the researchers to recognize impotence of It is also beneficial to the researchers to extend their research idea based on implications

PAGE 126

126 and sugges ts of this study. Finally, it would contribute to both practical and academic settings such as teacher education, administrators, policy makers, researchers, and practitioners to appreciate the proposed framework in this study, the human personality traits creativity in the educational context.

PAGE 127

127 Table 5 1. Summary of fi ndings on the research question s and hypotheses Research q uestions Hypotheses Findings Q1. What par ticular domains of pre service traits are associated with their behaviors to creativity? Some traits of pre service significantly and positively related to their behaviors to support Supported Personality trait of openness to experience was significantly and positively related to pre service fo stering behavior (see Table 4 32 to Table 4 41 ). Q2. What particular domains of pre service teach traits are associat ed with their creative behavior experiences ? Some traits of pre service significantly and positively related to their own creative behavior experiences. Supported Personality trait of op enness to experience was significantly and positively related to pre service own creative behavior experiences (see Table 4 32 ). Q3. Do pre service n creative behavior experiences mediate the relationship between their personality tr aits and their behaviors to creativity? Pre servi behavior experiences will be significantly and positively related to their behaviors to Supported Pre service t behavior experiences were significantly and positively related to their creativity fostering teaching behavior s (see Table 4 32 to Table 4 41 ). Pre serv behavior experiences will mediate the relationship between some traits of pre s and their behaviors to support Supported Pre service t behavior experiences had a mediating effect between the p ersonality trait of open ness to experience and their creativity fosterin g teaching behavior s (see Table 4 32 to Table 4 41 ).

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX A LETTER OF CONSENT FORM Dear Participants; The collected information in this survey will be used to provide a greater understanding about pre lity traits and creative behaviors as predictors of It would be greatly appreciated if you would simply complete the following questionnaires. Your contribution and participation in this survey is very important for the further development of the field of early childhood education There are no known risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey and your responses will not be identified with you personally. This survey will take 10 15 minutes to complet e and there are no direct benefits or compensation to you for participating in the study. Your participation is voluntary a nd there is no penalty if you do not participate If you have any questions or concerns about completing the questionnaire or about b eing in this study, please contact the addresses below. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the IRB (1 352 392 0433). Thank you again for your cooperation and the valuable information you are providing in t his survey. Sincerely, I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Il Rang Lee Graduate s tudent Department of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies University of Florida PO Box 117050 Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 ilranglee@ufl.edu Kristen M. Kemple, PhD Professor Department of Special Education, Sch ool Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies University of Florida PO Box 117050 Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 kkemple@coe.ufl.edu

PAGE 129

129 APPENDIX B T EACHER INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE I. On this page, there are questions about DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please fill in the section below by either filling in the blank space or check the appropriate box. 1. Please check your teacher preparation program: Unified Early Childhood ProTeach Program (UEC) Unified Elementary ProTeach Program (UEP) 2. I am: Male Female 3. I am: __________ years old 4. I am a: 1st Semester Junior 2nd Semester Junior 1st Semester Senior 2nd Semester Senior 5. I am: American Indian or Alaska Nati ve Asian Black or African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander White Other __________ please specify: _____ _____ 6. H ave Yes No 7. H ave Yes No 8. Indicate which age groups you have worked with in a cla ssroom setting (this includes employment and field experience): Please check the ALL appropriate boxes. Preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 or older 9. Ideally, what grade level would you most like to teach when you complete your certification? Please check ONLY ONE of the following boxes Preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 or older

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX C PERSONALITY TRATIS QUESTIONNAIRE II. On this page, there are statements of PERSONALITY TRATIS that may or may not apply to you. Please use t he rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you by circling that corresponds to the number on the scale indicates 1 = DISAGREE STRONGLY or 7 = AGREE STRONGY You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applied to y ou, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other. I See Myself As 1. Extraverted, Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Critical, Quarrelsome 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Dependable, Self disciplined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Anxious, Easily upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Open to new experiences, Complex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Reserved, Quiet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Sympathetic, Warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Disorganized, Careless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Calm, Emotionally stable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Conventional, Uncreative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree A Little Neither Agree Nor Disagree A gree A Little A gree Moderately A gree Strongly

PAGE 131

131 APPENDIX D CREATIVE PER SONALITY T RA I T S QUESTIONNAIRE III. On this page, there are adjectives describing PEOPLE'S CHARACTERISTICS Please indicate which of the following adjectives that you think best describe you by circling that corresponds to the number on the scale indicate s 1 = VERY INACCURATE or 6 = VERY ACCURATE Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself and generally are now not as you wish to be in the future. The Person I Am : Adjective Very Very Inaccurate Accurate Adjective Very Very Inaccurate Accurate Capable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 Artificial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Clever 1 2 3 4 5 6 Well mann ered 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cautious 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wide interests 1 2 3 4 5 6 Confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 Inventive 1 2 3 4 5 6 Egotistical 1 2 3 4 5 6 Original 1 2 3 4 5 6 Commonplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 Narrow interests 1 2 3 4 5 6 Humorous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reflective 1 2 3 4 5 6 Conservative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sincere 1 2 3 4 5 6 Individualistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 Resourceful 1 2 3 4 5 6 Conventional 1 2 3 4 5 6 Self confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 Informal 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sexy 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Submissive 1 2 3 4 5 6 Insightful 1 2 3 4 5 6 Snobbish 1 2 3 4 5 6 Suspicious 1 2 3 4 5 6 Unconventional 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 132

132 APPENDIX E CREATIVE BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 133

133 IV. On this page, the inventory is simply a list of ACTIVITIES and ACCOMPLISHMENTS that are commonly considered to be creative. For each item, indicate the answer that best describes the frequency of the behavior in your adolescent and adult life. Be sure to answer every question. A = NEVER did this, B = Did this once or twice, C = 3 5 times, D = More t han 5 times In some cases, you should count activities that you have done as a school related assignment. In other cases, you should not. To avoid confusion, the phrase makes it explicit when NOT to count such w ork. A(0) B(1 2) C(3 5) D(5+) 1. Painted an original picture ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 2. Designed and made your own greeting cards A B C D 3. Made a craft out of metal ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 4. Put on a puppet show A B C D 5. Made your own holiday decorations A B C D 6. Built a hanging mobile (excluding school or university course work) A B C D 7. Made a sculpture ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 8. Had a piece of literature (e.g., p oem, short stories, etc.) A B C D 9. Wrote poems ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 10. Wrote a play (excluding school or university course work) A B C D 11. Received an award for an artistic accomplishment A B C D 12. Received an award for making a craft A B C D 13. Made a craft out of plastic, Plexiglas, stained glasses, or a similar material ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 14. Made cartoons A B C D 15. Made a leather craft ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 16. Made a ce ramic craft (excluding school or university course work) A B C D 17. Designed and made a piece of clothing ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 18. Prepared an original floral arrangement A B C D 19. Drew a picture for aesthetic reasons ( excluding s chool or university course work) A B C D 20. Wrote the lyrics to a song (excluding school or university course work) A B C D 21. Wrote a short story ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 22. Planned and presented an original speech (excluding school or university course work) A B C D 23. Made jewelry ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 24. Had art work or craft work publicly exhibited A B C D 25. Assisted in the design of a set for a musical or dramatic production ( excluding school or universi ty course work) A B C D 26. Kept a sketch book (excluding school or university course work) A B C D 27. Designed and constructed a craft out of wood ( excluding school or university course work) A B C D 28. Designed and made a costume A B C D

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX F CREATIVITY FOSTERING TEACHER BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 135

135 V On this page, there are statements describing TEACHING STYLES Different teachers have then, is likely to be your style? When you think about your own teaching style, how important do you believe each of the following behaviors will be? Please use the rating scale below to indicate the importance of each behavior by circling the number, with 1 = NOT AT ALL IMPOR TANT or 6 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Not at all Extremely Important Important 1. I encourage students to show what they have learned on their own. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. In my class, students have opport unities to share ideas and views. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Learning the basic knowledge/skills well is emphasized in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. When my students have some ideas, I get them to explore further before taking a stand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. In my class, I probe stud 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. I expect my students to check their own work instead of waiting for me to correct them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. take them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. I encourage my students to try out what they have learned from me in different situations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. My students who are frustrated can come to me for emotional support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. I teach my students the basics and leave them to find out more for themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Students in my class have opportunities to do group work regularly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. I emphasized the importance of mastering the essentials knowledge and skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. When my students suggest something, I follow it up with questions t o make them think further. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. I encourage my students to ask questions freely even if they appear irrelevant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. I provide opportunities for my students to share their strong and weak points with the class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. When my studen ts have questions to ask, I listen to them carefully. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. I appreciate them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. I help students who experienced failure to cope with it so that they regain their confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. I leave questions for my students to find out for themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Students in my class are encouraged to contribute to the lesson with their ideas and suggestions. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 136

136 21. My students know that I expect them to learn the basi c knowledge and skills well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. I agree or disagree with them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. I encourage my students to think in different directions even if some of the ideas might not work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. My students know that I expect them to check their own work before I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. dismiss their suggestions lightly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. My students are encouraged to do different things with what they have learned in c lass. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. I help my students to draw lessons from their own failures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. I teach students the basic and leave room for individual learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. I encourage students to ask questions and make suggestions in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Moving from one topic to the next topic quickly is not my main concern in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. I comment thoroughly explored. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. I like my students to take time to think in different ways. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. In my class, students have opportunities to judge for themselves whether they are right or wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34. practical or useful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 35. ir own ideas and deviating from what I have shown them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 36. I encourage students who have frustrations to take it as part of the learning process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 37. I leave open ended questions for my students to find the answers for themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. Students in my class are expected to co operatively work in groups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. Covering the syllabus is not more important to me than making sure the student learn the basics well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. I encourage students to do things differently alth ough doing this takes up more time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 41. I allow students to deviate from what they are told to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. I allow my students to show one another their work before submission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43. I listen patiently when my students ask questions that may sound silly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 44. Students are allowed to go beyond what I teach them within my subject. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. I encourage students who experienced failure to find other possible solutions. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 137

137 LIST OF REFERENCES Abrams, L. M ., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Tea chers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice 42 (1), 18 29. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Proces s, 50 179 211. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 27 58. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior (2 ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Ajzen, I., & Fischbein, M. (1980). Unde rstanding attitudes and predicting social behavior New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Aleinikov, A. G., Kackmeister, S., & Koenig, R. (2000). Creating creativity: 101 definitions (what Webster never told you). Midland, MI: Alden B. Dow Creativity Center Press. Aljughaiman, A., & Mowere Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers' conceptions of creativity and creative students. The Journal of Creative Behavior 39 (1), 17 34. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer Verlag. Anderson, D. R. (2002). Creative Teachers: Risk, Responsibility, and Love. Journal of Education 183 (1), 33 48. Aschenbrener, M. S., Terry Jr, R., & Torr es, R. M. (2010). Creative and effective teaching behaviors of university instructors as perceived by s tudents. Jou rnal of Agricultural Education 51 (3), 64 75. Banerjee, S., & Iglewicz, B. (2007). A simple univariate outlier identification procedure designed for large samples. Communications in Statistics Simulation and Computation 36 (2), 249 263. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology 51 (6), 1173. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the mul tiplying factors for va rious 2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 296 298.

PAGE 138

138 Batey, M. D. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of London Batey, M., & Furnh am, A. (2008). The relationship between measures of creativity and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences 45 (8), 816 821. Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creati vity. Learning and Individual Differences 20 (5), 532 535. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal 18 (4), 447 457. Benet Martnez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grand es across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of personality and social psychology 75 (3), 729 750 Bilmes, J. A. (1998). A gentle tutorial of the EM algorithm and its application to parameter estimation for Gaussian mixture and hidden Markov models (Report No. TR 97 021). Retrieved from University of Beckley, Internati onal Computer Science Institute website: ftp://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/techreports/1997/tr 97 021.pdf Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science 9 (1), 8 17. Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. H. H., Heckman, J., & Humphries, J. E. (2011). Identification problems in personality psychology. Personality and Individual D ifferences 51 (3), 315 320. dimensions of personality? Evidence from ipsative, adjectival self attributions. Personality and Individual D ifferences 10 (11), 1165 1171. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple te st for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1287 1294. Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions 154 136 136. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Coln, E. P., & McCallum, C. L (2005). Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation A Comparison With General Teacher Education. The Journal of Special Education 38 (4), 242 252.

PAGE 139

139 Burak, L. J. (1994). Ex intentions to teach HIV/AIDS education. AIDS education and prevention: official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education 6 (4), 310 321. Capp, O., & Moulines, E. (2009). On line ex pectation maximization algorithm for latent data models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 71 (3), 593 613. Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17 (1), 37 50. Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of pers onality theory and assessment; Vol 2 Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135 159). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Cattell, H. E. P., & Schuerger, J. M. (2003). Essentials of 16PF assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1988). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Chvez Eakle, R. A., Eakle, A. J., & Cruz Fuentes, C. (2012). The Multiple Relations Between Creati vity and Personality. Creativity Research Journal 24 (1), 76 82. Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal 16 (2 3), 187 199. Cohen, J., Co hen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. A. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Hallowell, K., Huesman, R., & Gaeth, J. (1992). The Io wa Inventiveness Inventory: Toward a measure of mechanical inventiveness. Creativity Research Journal 5 (2), 157 163. Correa, V. I., Rapport, M. J. K., Hartle, L. C., Jones, H. A., Kemple, K. M., & Smith Bonahue, T. (1997). The Unified PROTEACH early chil dhood program at the University of Florida. Teacher education in transition: Collaborative programs to prepare general and special educators, 84 105. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). Neo PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

PAGE 140

140 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Neo PI R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources 396 653 665. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) : Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Crawley, F. E. (1990). Intentions of science teachers to use investigative teaching methods: A test of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27 (7), 685 697. Cro pley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom : general principles. In M. A. Runco, (Ed.), The creativity re search handbook (pp. 83 114 ) Cresskill, NJ: Hampto n Press. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page. Daba bneh, K., Ihmeideh, F. M., & Al Omari, A. A. (2010). Promoting kindergarten t in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care 180 (9), 1165 1184. Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA : Lexington books. Davis, G. A. (2004). Creativity is forever (5 ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Dempster, A. P., Lai rd, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 1 38. Denny, D. A., Rusch, R. & Ives, S. (1969). In A. Simon & E. G. Boyer (Eds.), Mirrors for Behavior III (pp. 219 222). Wyncote, PA: Communications Materials Center. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. A nnual Review of P sychology 41 (1), 417 440. Digman, J. M., & Takemoto Chock, N. K. (1981). Fa ctors in the natural language of personality: Re analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 16 (2), 149 170. Dillon, P. J., & Gayford, C. G. (1997). A psychometric approach to investigating the environm ental beliefs, intentions and behaviours of pre service teachers. Environmental Education Research 3 (3), 283 297.

PAGE 141

141 Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 37 (2), 99 116. Dollinger S. J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences 43 (5), 1025 1035. creativity revisited. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5 (4), 329 341 Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal 19 (2 3), 91 103. Dollinger, S. J., Dollinger, S. M. C., & Ce nteno, L. (2005). Identity and c reativity. Identity 5 (4), 315 339 Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal 16 (1), 35 47. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mi ni IPIP scales: tiny yet effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment 18 (2), 192 203 Druin, A., & Solomon, C. (1996). Designing Multimedia Environments for Children: Computers, Creativity, and Kids. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc. Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung Herrera, B. G., Nadler, K., & Bradshaw, K. (2009). Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of the Ten Item Personality Inventory. Personality and I ndividual Differences 47 (8), 900 905. Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal 15 (2 3), 121 130. Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review 7 (2), 185 202. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of p ersonality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual D ifferences 12 (8), 773 790. Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research 63 (3), 324 327. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research M ethods 39 (2), 175 191.

PAGE 142

142 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research M e thods 41 (4), 1149 1160. Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal 13 (3 4), 317 327. Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific c reativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273 296) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality 37 (2), 62 88. Feldhusen, J. F. (200 5). Giftedness, talent, expertise, and creative achievement. Conceptions of G iftedness 2 64 79. Feldman, D. H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1982 (17), 31 45. Fe ldman, D. H. (1994). Beyond universals in cognitive development (2 ed.) Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol ogy 44 (3), 329 344. Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review 22 (3), 148 153. Fleith, D. S., Renzulli, J. S., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Effects of a creativity training program on di vergent thinking abilities and self concept in monolingual and bilingual classrooms. Creativity Research Journal 14 (3 4), 373 386. Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management review, 1112 1 142. Forrester, V., & Hui, A. (2007). Creativity in the Hong Kong classroom: What is the contextual practice? Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (1), 30 38. Furnham, A. (2008). Relationship among four big five measure of different length.. Psychological Re ports 102 (1), 312 316.

PAGE 143

143 Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences 45 (7), 613 617. Furnham, A., Zhang, J., & Chamorro Premuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and self estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and academic achievement. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 25 (2), 119 145. Gardner, H. E. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books. Ga rdner, H. E. (2011). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity as seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. New York: Basic Books. Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions Asheboro, NC: Statis tical Associates Publishing. Gerrard, L. E., Poteat, G. M., & Ironsmith, M. (1996). Promoting children's creativity: Effects of competition, self esteem, and immunization. Creativity Research Journal 9 (4), 339 346. Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mappi ng the landscape of high stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory into P ractice 42 (1), 4 11. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6), 1216 1229 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological assessment 4 (1), 26 42. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American psychologist 48 (1), 26 34 Goldber g, L. R. (1999). A broad bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower level facets of several five factor models. Personality P sychology in Europe 7 7 28. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Clo ninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 40 (1), 84 96. Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (8), 1398 1405. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). Manual for the Adjective Check List. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press.

PAGE 144

144 Graham, B. C., Sawyers, J. K., & DeBord, K. B. (1989). Teac playfulness, and style of interaction with children. Creativity Research Journal 2 (1 2), 41 50. Griffin, M., & McDermott, M. R. (1998). Exploring a tripartite relationship between rebelliousness, openness to experience and creativity. S ocia l Behavior and Personality 26 (4), 347 356. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5 (9), 444 454. Hadjam, M. N. R., & Widhiarso, W. (2010). Teaching Efficacy as Mediator the Role of Personality Factors Toward Teaching Performance. Social Science Research Network Hadjam, M. N. R., & Widhiarso, W. (2011). Teaching Efficacy as Mediating Variables Effect of Personality Factors on Teaching Performance. Social Science Research Network Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Ande rson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7 ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Re search in Science Teaching 33 (9), 971 993. Harrington, D. M. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 143 169). Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications. Haugland, S. W. (1992). The effect of computer software on preschool children's developmental gains. Journal of Computing in Childhood E ducation 3 (1), 15 30. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. American Psycho logist, 53, 674 675. Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Predicting creativity and academic success with a Journal of Research in Personality 42 (5), 1323 1333. Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82 (400), 1147 1149. Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statisti cal Association 81 (396), 991 999.

PAGE 145

145 Hocevar, D. (1979). The Development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychologocal Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 350). Hocevar D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence 4 (1), 25 40. Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53 75). New York: Plenum Press. Hofstee, W. K., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (1), 146 163 Ho rng, J. S., Hong, J. C., ChanLin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies 29 (4), 352 358. Hoseinifar, J., Siedkalan, M. M., Zirak, S. R., Nowrozi, M., Shaker, A., Meamar E., & Ghaderi, E. (2011). An investigation of the relation between creativity and f ive factors of personality in s tudents. Procedia social and b ehavi oral s ciences 30 2037 2041. Houtz, J. C., LeBlanc, E., Butera, T., & Arons, M. F. (1994). P ersonality type, creativity, and classroom teaching style in student teachers. Journal of classroom i nteraction 29, 21 26 Howarth, E., & Browne, J. A. (1971). An item factor analysis of the 16 PF. Personality: An International Journal 2 117 139. Hsi ao, H. C., Tu, Y. L., Chang, J. self efficacy on innovative work b ehavior. International conference on s ocial science and h umanity, 233 237. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit inde xes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1), 1 55. Hursh, D. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: the failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race Ethnicity and Education 10 (3), 295 308. Isaksen, S. G., & Aerts, W. S. (2011). Linking problem solving style and creative organizational climate: An exploratory interactionist study. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving 21 (2), 7 38

PAGE 146

146 Isaksen, S. G., Murdock, M. C., Firestien, R. L., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Isaksen, S. G., Puccio, G. J., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). An ecological approach t o creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior 27 (3), 149 170. Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self efficacy, and cross a pplication of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal 19 (2 3), 247 258. Jeffrey, B. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: towards a common discourse and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education 36 (3), 399 414. John, O. P., Robi ns, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3 ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of perso nality: Theory and research 2 102 138. Johnson, J. A. (2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from web based personality inventories. Journal of research in personality 39 (1), 103 129. Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. New Jers ey: Princeton University Press. Jung, J. (1995). Ethnic group and gender differences in the relationship between personality and coping. Anxiety, stress, and coping 8 (2), 113 126. Kaduson, H. G., & Charles, E. S. (1991). Concurrent validity of the creat ive personality scale of the Adjective Check List. Psychological reports 69 (2), 601 602. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35 (4), 401 415. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). S ure, I'm creative but not in mathematics! Self reported creativity in diverse domains Empirical Studies of the Arts 22 (2), 143 155. Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The Construct of Creativity: Structural Model for Self Reported Creativity Ratings. The Journal of Creative Behavior 43 (2), 119 134. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. B oston: Pearson Education, Inc.

PAGE 147

147 Kemple, K. M., Hartle, L. C., Correa, V. I., & Fox, L. (1994). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: The development of a unified teacher education program in early childhood and early childhood special education. Teach er Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 17 (1), 38 51. Kemple, K. M., & Nissenberg, S. A. (2000). Nurturing creativity in early childhood education: Families are part of it. Early Childhood Education Journal 28 (1), 67 71. Kerr, B. (2009). Creativity Theories. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (pp. 216 218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kilgour, M., & Koslow, S. (2009). Why and ho w do creative thinking techniques work?: Trading off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37 (3), 298 309. Kim, K. H. (2009). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship betw een Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior 43 (2), 73 93. Kim, K. H., & VanTassel Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and behavior problems among underachieving elementary and high school students. Creativity Research Journal 22 (2), 185 193. King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five factor model. Journal of Research in Personality 30, 189 203 Kline, P., & Barrett, P. (1983). The facto rs in personality questionnaires among normal subjects. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy 5 141 202. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford press. Kousoulas, F., & Mega, G. (2009). Stude of Creativity: Does Gender Play a Role? The Journal of Creative Behavior 43 (3), 209 222. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20 47). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kozol, J. (2006). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Three Rivers Press.

PAGE 148

148 Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskill ed and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6), 1121. Ledesma, R. D., & Valero Mora, P. (200 7). Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in EFA: an easy to use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 12 (2), 1 11. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multi variate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83 (404), 1198 1202. Loveless, T. (2012). How well are American students learning? Washington, D.C.: Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution. Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W. L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8 ed.) New York: Macmillan Mansfield, R. S., Busse, T. V., & Krepelka, E. J. (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training. Review of Educational Research, 517 536. Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick K. S. (2009). Creative self efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research 48 (1), 21 29. Mayesky, M. (2011). Creative activities for young children. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. McCabe, M. P. (1991). Influ ence of creativity and intelligence on academic performance. The journal of creative behavior 25 (2), 116 122. McCann, S. J. H. (2011). Conservatism, Openness, and Creativity: Patents Granted to Residents of American States. Creativity Research Journal 2 3 (4), 339 345. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of personality and social psychology 52 (6), 1258 1265 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five factor theory of personality. Handbook of person ality: Theory and research 2 139 153. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO PI 3. Journal of Individual Differences 28 (3), 116 128 McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO PI 3: A more readable revised NE O personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 84 (3), 261 270.

PAGE 149

149 McWilliam, E., & Haukka, S. (2008). Educating the creative workforce: new directions for twenty first century schooling. British Educational Research Journal 34 (5), 651 666. Meador, K. S. (1992). Emerging rainbows: A review of the literature on creativity in preschoolers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 15 (2), 163 181. Mills, C. J. (2003 ). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly 47 (4), 272 281. Moran, J. D., Sawyers, J. K., Fu, V. R., & Milgram, R. M. (1984). Predicting imaginative play in pr eschool children. Gifted Child Quarterly 28, 92 94 Morgan, J. C., & Woerdehoff, F. J. (1969). Stability of student teacher behaviors and their relationship to personality and creativity factors. The Journal of Educational Research, 251 254. Murdock, M C., & Puccio, G. J. (1999). Using an ecological approach to creativity assessment: The choice and the challenge. Creativity assessment: Readings and resources, 479 494. Murray, H. G., Rushton, J. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (1990). Teacher personality traits a nd student instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (2), 250 261 Myers, I. B. (1987). Introduction to Type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B. (2003). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and u se of t he Myers Briggs Type Indicator i nstrument. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists P ress Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., & Most, R. (1985). Man ual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists P ress Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392 430). New York, NY: Cambrid ge University Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107 110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (4), 775 782

PAGE 150

150 Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66 (6), 57 4 583. Nowack, K. (1997). Personality inventories: The next generation. Performance in Practice, American Society of Training and Development Winter 1996/97 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory (3 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Behaviours as Determinant of Productivity and Capacity Building in Selected Special Primary Schools in Oyo State, Nigeria. European Journal of Humanities and Socia l Sciences Vol 4 (1) 13 28 Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4 ed.). New York: NY: Open University Press. Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance's (1958 to pr esent) longitudinal data. Creativity research journal 12 (2), 103 114. Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal 20 (1), 53 66. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and individual differences 40 (1), 159 170. Rentner, D. S., Scott, C., K ober, N., Chudowsky, N., Chudowsky, V., Joftus, S., & Zabala, D. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington: Center on Education Policy Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of cr eative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 170 182. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research Related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model1. Gifted child quarterly 38 (1), 7 20. Rhodes, M. (19 61). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42 (7), 305 310. Richards, R. (1999). Four Ps of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 733 742). San Diego: Academic Press.

PAGE 151

151 Rindermann, H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2004). Processing speed, intelligence, creativity, and school performance: Testing of causal hypotheses using structural equation models. Intelligence 32 (6), 573 589. Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and Assessment and personali ty development. Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2), 137 145. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2007). The 39th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappa 89 (1), 33 48. Rose, L. H., & LIN, H T. A. I. (1984). A meta analysis of long term creativity training programs. The Journal of creative behavior 18 (1), 11 22. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47 (3), 317 324. Runco, M. A (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. New York: Academic Press. Runco, M. A. (2008). Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity [Commentary] Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 2, 93 96. Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences 15 (5), 537 546. Runco, M. A., & Richards, R. (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday crea tivity, and hea lth, Stamford, CT: Ablex. Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal 12 (2), 129 139. Saracho, O. N. (2012). Young children's creativity in different contexts. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in early childhood education (pp. 3 27). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Schack, G. D. (1989). Self efficacy as a mediator in the crea tive productivity of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 12 231 249 Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How Much Does Creative Teaching Enhance Elementary School Students' Achievement? The Journal of Creative Behavior 40 (1), 47 72. Schuerger, J. M., Zarrella, K. L., & Hotz, A. S. (1989). Factors that influence the temporal stability of personality by questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (5), 777 783.

PAGE 152

152 Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal 16 (4), 361 388. Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self determination in personality. Creativity Research Journal 8 (1), 25 36. Silvia, P. J., & Kim brel, N. A. (2010). A dimensional analysis of creativity and mental illness: Do anxiety and depression symptoms predict creative cognition, creative accomplishments, and creative self concepts? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 4 (1), 2 10 experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower order, high order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality 43 (6), 1087 1090. Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6 (1), 19 34 Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 386 426). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1990). History, chemistry, psychology, and genius: An intellectual autobiography of historiometry. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 92 115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Simonton, D. K. (1995). Exceptional personal influence: An integrative paradigm. Creativity Research Journal 8 (4), 371 376. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist 55 (1), 151 158 Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology 13 2 90 312. Soh, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. The Journal of Creative Behavior 34 (2), 118 134. Starko, A. J. (1988). Effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly 32 (3), 291 297. Starko, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (4 ed.). New York: Routledge.

PAGE 153

153 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its d evelopment. Human development 34 (1), 1 31 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American psychologist 51 (7), 677 688 Sternberg, R. J., & Dess, N. K. (2001). Creativity for the new millennium. American Psychologist 56 (4) 332. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3 15). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multi variate statistics (5 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Tan A. G. (2001). Singaporean teachers' perception of activities useful for fostering creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 35 (2), 131 148. Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1967). Bi ographical predictors of scientific performance. Science 155 ( 3766), 1075 1080. Thorne, A., & Gough, H. G. (1991). Portraits of type: An MBTI research compendium. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creat ive self efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal 45 (6), 1137 1148. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (2006). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology 52 (3), 591 620. Torrance, E. P. (1963). Adventuring in creativity. Childhood Education 40 79 87. T orrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms Technical Manual Research Edition Verbal Tests, Forms A and B Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can We Teach Children To Think Creatively?*. The Journal of Creative Behavior 6 (2), 114 143. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms Technical Manual Research Edition Verbal Tests, Forms A and B Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

PAGE 154

154 Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori & creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. T orrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York: Dodd, Mead. Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creativity, creative thinking, and critical thinking: In search of definitions. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. MA: Addison Wesley. Tupes E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961 ). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Report No. ASD TR 61 97). Lac kland Air Force Base, TX; USAF. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of personali ty 60 (2), 225 251. Urban, K.K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 177 191. Urban, K.K., & Jellen, H.G. (1986). Assessing creative potential via drawing production: The Test for Creative Thinking Drawi ng Production (TCT DP). In A.J. Cropley, K.K. Urban, H. Wagner, & W. Wieczerkowski (Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing worldwide challenge (pp. 163 169). New York: Trillium Press. Urban, K.K., & Jellen, H.G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking Drawing Product ion (TCT DP) manual. Frankfort: Swets Test Services. Wallach, M. A. (1976). Tests Tell Us Little about Talent: Although measures of academic skills are widely used to determine access to contested educational opportunities, especially in their upper range s they lack utility for predicting professional achievement. American Scientist, 57 63. Watson, E. (2007). Who or what creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity. Human Resource Development Review 6 (4), 419 441. Wiggins, J. S. (1996). The fiv e factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the big five. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psyc hology (pp. 737 765). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

PAGE 155

155 Zhang, L. (2007). Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers? Personality and individual differences 43 (4), 669 679. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal 53 (1), 107 128.

PAGE 156

156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Il Rang Lee was born in Daejo en, South Korea. She graduated from Paichai University with a bachelor degree in early childhood education and then, earned a M.Ed. from the University of Wisconsin Stout While working on the doctoral degree at University of Florida, Il Rang worked as a r esearch and teaching assistant, and a field advisor. She was also an instructor of undergraduate and graduate early childhood courses (i.e., creativity in early childhood and science and social studies) for six years. From 2008 2013 Il Rang was a field adv isor, where she worked with practicum and intern students.