An Investigation into the Factors Affecting Student ...

Thammasat Review 177

Thammasat Review2015,18(1):177-198

An Investigation into the Factors Affecting Student Creativity in Higher Education in Thailand

JohnBrianPower

Humanities and Languages DepartmentMahidol University International College

[email protected]

Abstract

Themain purpose of this study is to investigate factors affecting learnercreativityinhighereducationinThailand.ThepaperexaminessomeoftheissueswitheducationalpolicysincetheintroductionofthepivotalNationalEducationActThailand1999,whichemphasizedtheneedfor learnerstodeveloptheircreativeabilities inordertosucceedinanever-changingglobalenvironment.Final-yearundergraduatestudentsatfouruniversitiesinThailandweresurveyedbymeansofaLikertquestion-naireandresultswereexaminedthroughSPSSanalysis(StatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences)usingDunnett’sT3testforcorrelationalfactors.Resultsfromthisexploratorystudyindicatethat,whilestudentsare,ingeneralterms,positiveabouttheopportunitiesforcreativity,theThaigovernmentneedstodomoretoencouragecreativityineducation.Thepaperconcludeswithspecificrecommendationsforpolicymakersandclassroompractice.

Keywords: NationalEducationActThailand,Thailearners,creativity,Thaicultural norms

178 Thammasat Review

Background

The promulgation of theNational EducationAct (NEA) of 1999 inThai-land(NationalEducationActofB.E.2542(1999),OfficeoftheNationalEducationCommission,Officeof thePrimeMinister,Thailand)wasa response towhatwasperceived as a continuous decline in the country’s international competitiveness(Sangnapaboworn,2003),aviewheavilyinfluencedbytheimpactoftheAsianfinancialcrisisof1997.1Sweepingreformswereproposedtoallareasandlevelsofeducation.In particular, learning reform,with thegoal of enabling learners to be creative, todevelopandexpressthemselvesattheirownpaceandtothebestoftheirpotential,wasseenascentral toeducation reform (Sangnapaboworn,2003).TheNEAwasseenasawatershedinprovidingaroadmapforhighereducationreforminThailand,whosephilosophyhasunderpinnedtheframeworkofsubsequenteducationalpolicies. Nevertheless,asearlyas2001,itwasnotedthatthelackofcoordinationamongministriesanddepartmentswasbecominganobstacletoimplementingNEAreforms(Atagi,2002).Subsequently,thediversificationofpoliciesledtothe“differentiationofstandardsinvariousaspectsamonghighereducationinstitutions”(Sangnapaboworn,2003:2).InHigherEducation,theEducationReformSteeringCommitteeestablishedvarious ‘task forces’ in order to provide roadmaps for strategy and policy. Keystrategieswere outlined, including the reformof teaching and learning, aimedatenablinglearnerstodevelopappropriateskillstoharnesscreativityandinnovation,throughcurriculumreformandteachingpedagogy.Severalprojectstopromotethe“cultivation of students’ intellectual creativity” (Sangnapaboworn, 2003: 10)werelaunchedbytheHigherEducationCommission.By2004,apolicypaperbytheMinistryofEducationdeemeditas‘critical’thatThailandbecomemoreinvolvedininnovationin education (NationalReport 2004,Ministry ofEducation,Thailand).Since2005,educationalpolicieshavecenteredonpromotingmodern thinkingandcreativity inThailearners(Pimpa,2012). Suchreformsandstrategieshavebeenhampered,however,bycontinuingpoliticaluncertaintyandturmoil,whichhasledtoahighturnoverofeducationministersandtheirindividualpolicyagendas.Forexample,politicalunrestin2013andearly2014resultedinacaretakergovernmentforanextendedperiod,withallministerialworksandprojectseffectivelysuspended.Otherfactorshavealsocontributedtowhatisgenerallyacknowledgedasadeclineinhighereducationstandards.Theseincludelowpayandpoorworkingconditionsforteachers(Sangnapaboworn,2003),thepoorqualityofhumanresources(Pimpa,2011)andthetop-downnatureofstrategyre-

1 Inthecurrencycrisisof1997,theThaibahtsufferedacatastrophicdevaluationagainsttheUSdollar.


form(Hallinger&Moosung,2011).Bureaucracyishighlycentralized(Fry,2002)andmosthighereducationinstitutionsandinternationalschoolsareclusteredaroundtheBangkokmetropolitanarea.Toasignificantextent,theproblemliesnotwithlackofpoliciesbutwithexcess:thiscouldwellbebecauseThaipolicy-makershavetendedtoviewthemainobstaclestoeducationreformas“structuralandpolitical(e.g.form-ingneworganizationalandlegalframeworks)sicratherthansocio-cultural”(Hallinger&Bryant, 2013: 3).Subsequently, although theMinistry ofEducation (MOE) hasrecognizedtheimportanceofreforminteaching,littlehasbeendonetoconsultorsupportthoseonthefrontlineofeducationorprovidethemwithadequatetraining. Lack of financial support has not been the problem, however.Althoughsuccessivegovernmentshavedoubled thebudgetoneducationsince2002, therehas not beena corresponding improvement in the level andquality of educationprovided,bothinabsolutetermsandrelativetoothercountries(Economist,2012).OnlyoneThaiuniversity,KingMongkut’sUniversityofTechnologyinThonburi,waslistedinthetop400universitiesrankedbyTheTimesHigherEducationWorldUniversityRankings2012-2013.Thailandconsistentlyperformspoorlyineducationalrankings:aglobalindexrankingbyPearsonPublishingUKplacedThailand37outof40countriesassessed for cognitive skills and educational attainment (Pearson, 2012), and itranked55outof60countriesassessedforEnglishproficiency(EnglishProficiencyIndex,2013). EmphasisonthevalueofinnovationandcreativityineducationisarelativelynewconceptinThaisociety(Pimpa,2011).AlthoughtheNEA1999highlightedtheimportanceofcreativityandself-development ineducation,noclearroadmapwasprovidedonhowtheseconceptswouldbepromoted.Similarly,a160-pagereportonnationaleducationaldevelopmentin2003bytheThaiOfficeoftheNationalEducationCommission(ONEC),didnotbroachtheissueofcreativity;infact,theword‘creativity’appearedonlyonce,inreferencetothethemefortheSeventhAsia-Pacificconferencein2002.

The nature of creativity

ThepositionofcreativityasakeyconceptattheheartofeducationalreforminThailand(Rojanapanich&Pimpa,2011)isareflectionoftheimportanceassignedtoitbyeducationalinstitutionsworldwide.Thisemphasisoncreativityisdrivenprimarilybytheneedtodevelopknowledge-based,creativeeconomies(Craft,2001;McGoldrick,2002;Seltzer&Bentley,1999;Sternberg,1998),ascountries increasinglyseektomoveupthevaluechain.Despitecreativity’spositionasacentralplankofeducational


policyinternationally,thetermitselfisvagueandunclear(Negus&Pickering,2004)andCrafthashighlightedtheparadoxinattemptingtodefinesomethingwhoseverynaturewould imply resistance tosuchconfinement (Craft,2003).Disagreement intheliteratureontheexactnatureofcreativityhasbeenhighlightedbyKampylisandValtanen,whoidentifiedover42explicitdefinitionsofcreativityfromtenkeystudiesonthesubject(Kampylis&Valtanen,2010).Althoughithasbeensuggestedthatnosimplecharacterizationofcreativityispossible(Maitland,1976),wecanfindbroadconsensusintheliteratureonsomecommoncharacteristicswhichareclearlyprerequisitesforcreativity;principallytheelementsofnewness, individualityandusefulness,(whethertotheindividualorsociety)(Averill,1999;Craft,2003;Csikszentmihalyi,1997;Poincaré,1970;Runco,2008).Learninginitselfisacreativeact(Power,2012).Yet,studentsoftencommentthateducationteachesthemknowledge,butneverteachesthemhowtolearn(Bentley,2000).Therefore,intheevery-dayeducationalandclassroomcontext,creativityshouldbeseenmoreasaprocessthanasingleeventoroutcome.Itisaconsistentapplicationofbehaviorstowardsovercomingobstaclesandanincreasedawarenessof theeffectivenessof thosebehaviors.Learners,therefore,needtobeguidedtowardsincreasinglymoreconsciouscreativebehaviors.Creativepeoplehavetheconfidencetobeindividual,differentandexpressthemselves. Thekeyhere is to recognizeand fosterwhatallowscreativity, rather thanseekingaprecisedefinition.Weareallcreative,andindeed,creativitypermeatesoureverydayactions(Duch,2007).Butthesetalentsareoftenburieddeep(Robinson,2010), and the challenge for educational institutions is to provide appropriateenvironmentsandskillsforlearnerstodiscoverandmaximizetheircreativepotential.

Thai cultural norms and creativity

Alargebodyofliteratureandresearchhasshownthatsocio-culturalfactorshaveasignificantimpactonlearnercreativity(Albert&Runco,1999;Csikszentmihalyi,1997; Dacey & Lennon, 2000; Hennessey &Amabile, 1998; Robinson, 2006;Ryhammar&Brolin,1999).InThailand,anumberofculturalnormshavetraditionallybeenseenasbarrierstoThailearners’abilitiestobecreative.Earlierstudiessuggestedthat factorssuchasthecollectivenatureofThaisociety, theeffectsofhigh-powerdistance relationships (Hofstede, 1991), and the strong connections to traditionalwaysofthinking(Mulder,1996)havelimitedtheimaginativecapacityofThaipeople.ThesenseofbeingThaistems,toalargeextent,fromastrongBuddhistculture,withrespectforeldersandthoseinauthority(Rojanapanich&Pimpa,2011),expressedintheconceptofkwamkreng jai,orrespectanddeferencetoothers.Thisstrongrespect


forauthorityandthevirtueofobeyingparentsandteachersisseenasakeyfactoraffectingcreativity(Rojanapanich&Pimpa,2011;Thanasankit,2002),and,perhapsasaresult,Thaistudentsareoftendescribedasbeingpassive(Deveney,2005).Inparticular,rote-learninginschools,whichisstillprevalent(especiallyintheprovinces),isconsideredbymanytobeakeyobstructiontocreativethinking.Overall,theindi-vidualissubsumedinthecollective,withtheaimofdoingthebestaccordingtoagroupstandard,withoutstandingout(Pimpa,2012),resultinginreluctancetoexpressideasorbedifferent.Themostimportantissueisthatoflosing‘face’,wherebya‘wrong’answertoaquestionwillresultinastudentlookingfoolish.Thaiteachersthemselvesmayfeelthreatenedinthiswayiftheyareaskeddifficultandchallengingquestions.Pimpagoesas faras tosuggest that theultimategoalofThaiorganizations is to“controleverythinginordertoeliminateoravoidtheunexpected”(Pimpa,2012:37). TheviewthatThaiculturalnormsareresistanttochangeregardlessoftheextent of political and economic upheaval (Hallinger,Chantarapanya,Sriboonma&Kantamara, 2000) is open to question, however.The understanding about therelationshipbetweenthesefactorsandcreativityinThailandisunclear,andcreativityamongThaistudentshasbeenasmuchaffectedbythewhirlwindoftechnologicalinnovationandglobalizationas youngpeople elsewhere (Rojanapanich&Pimpa,2011).Theeducational landscapehas been rapidly changing,with an increasingfocuson internationalization.At the turnof thecentury therewere58 internationalschoolsregisteredinThailand(Fry,2002).By2014,therewereover100internationalschoolsregisteredwiththeInternationalSchoolsAssociationofThailand(ISAT,2014),andthereiseveryindicationthatthisupwardtrendwillcontinue.This, inturn,hasledtotheincreaseinrecruitmentofnon-Thaiteachers,or‘farangs’(foreigners),withmoreschoolsbecoming‘bilingual’andincorporatingwesterncurriculaandpedagogy.Prestigious colleges suchasMahidol,Chulalongkorn,Kasetsart,Thammasat andChiangMai, havewell-established international programs servingThai, regionaland international students (Tomita,Srivatananuklkit &Fry, 2002).The upcomingeconomicintegrationofSouthEastAsiancountriesunderASEANin2015hasbeenhighontheagendainallareasofeducation,leadingtowidespreadrecognitionoftheneedtoinstillcreativityandinnovationinlearning,inordertomaintainthenation’scompetitiveedge.Nevertheless,aswehaveseen,thesechangeshavetodatedonelittletoimproveThailand’soveralleducationalranking,andtheextenttowhichtheyaffectThailearners’creativityisunknown.Itisagainstthisbackdropofavarietyofseeminglycontradictoryfactorsthen,thattheresearchwasconducted.


Purposes of the Study

WehaveestablishedthatlittleattentionhasbeengiveninThaieducationalpolicy to fostering creativity despite successive governments’ realization of itsimportanceinpromotingstrategyobjectivesofinnovationandlifelonglearning.Theindividual andexpressivenatureof creativity could be seenasat oddswithThaicultural values.We have already observed that policy implementationmay behamperedbysocioculturalratherthanstructuralobstacles(Hallinger&Bryant,2013).Thiscanresultinaculturaldispositiontoimplicitlydefertothosewhoaremoreseniorinrank(Hofstede,1991).Thesefactors,coupledwithalackofclearlydefinedroadmapsandpossible‘reformfatigue’(Hallinger&Bryant,2013),havecontributedtotherelativeslowprogressoftheimpactofthesereformsonteachersandstudents. Giventhesefactors,andthebackgroundtotheissueswithcreativityoutlinedabove, I considered it salient to explore the current situationwithThai universitystudents.Whatwouldemergeasthekeynarrativeforexamination infuture,moredetailedinvestigations?Bycanvassingtheopinionsoflearnersatuniversitiesfromdifferent regions ofThailand, I hoped to provide some insights into the extent inwhichthenumerouspolicyinitiativesstemmingfromtheNEAhadcontributedtothepromotionanddevelopmentofcreativityatuniversitylevel.Toasignificantdegree,such‘ontheground’feedbackontheeffectsofThaieducationalreformoncreativityislacking.

Methodology and Procedure

Themethodologyandprocedurecanbedividedintofourmainstages.Inthefirststage,aheuristicapproachwasinitiallyusedtodeterminetheitemstobeincludedinthequestionnaire.AttheEnglishlanguageprogramintheuniversitywhereIteach,allundergraduatestudentsontheirfirstdayofanewsemesterarerequiredtoprovidewritingsamplesforpurposesofcomparisonatlaterstagesofthecourse,withteachersfreetoselectthetopic.Overaperiodoffoursemesters,studentsinfourofmyclassesatdifferentlevelswroteessaysonthethemeofcreativityinThailand.Thisfittedinwiththethemeofeachparticularcourse.Intotal,over90essayswerecollected.ThesesampleswerethenanalyzedbythreeexperiencedcolleaguestodeterminetheoriginalLikertquestionnaireitems.Instageone,thesedataweresupplementedbyfeedbackand input fromthree focusgroupswithfinal-yearundergraduatestudents instagetwo.Thesefocusgroupswereinstrumentalindevelopingthenarrativeofthequestionitems,bytracingtheinfluenceofcreativityfromparentsthroughuniversityeducation.


Instagethree,apilotwastrialedwithover50studentsoveraperiodofthreemonthsandsubsequentadjustmentsweremade. Stagefour involvedpreparationofethicsapprovaldocuments.Appropriateethicsclearanceandparticipantconsentformswerepreparedaccordingtouniversityguidelinesandwereapprovedby theuniversity’sEthicsCommittee.Anumber ofinstitutionsacrossThailandwereinvitedtoparticipateinthestudy.Constraintsoftimeandadministration,coupledwithlackofresponsefromsomeinstitutions,contributedtothefinalselectionoffouruniversities.OneisapublicuniversityincentralBangkok,oneaprivateinternationalcollegeuniversityinthesuburbanareaofBangkok,andtwoarepublicuniversitiesintheprovinces(oneinthenorthandoneintheeastofThailand.)Duringthefifthandfinalstage,datawerecollectedfromthefouruniversitiesbetweenJanuaryandAugust2013.Ivisitedthreeoftheinstitutionsinpersontoconductthesurvey. Theprocessof data collection varieddependingon theuniversity: in oneuniversity, Iwasable to collect thedatawithin oneday, by visiting classeseitherbeforeorafterlectures;inanother,asuccessionofvisitswasrequiredoveraperiodofaweek,astheparticipantsineachgroupsometimesnumberedaslittleasfive,andmy‘ideal’targetwas100participantsfromeachinstitution.IneverycaseIwasablyassistedbyadministrationandfacultystaffwhowentoutoftheirwaytoaccommodatemyneeds.Anadded(andunforeseen)benefitofthisapproachwastheopportunitytoclarifyanystudentqueries,andinsomecasesthepossibilityofdiscussingtheissueofcreativity,informally,witharangeofstudents.Duetostrictethicsandadministrationproceduresatthefourthuniversity,thequestionnairesweredeliveredanddistributedby theuniversity staff, and later collected.Resultswereexamined throughSPSSanalysis,usingDunnett’sT3testforcorrelationalfactors.Around50percentofthequestionnaireswereinThaiandresponsesfromtheseweretranslatedintoEnglish.

Participants

Thetargetgroupwasundergraduatestudentsintheirfinalyearatcollege,irrespectiveof theirmajors. All participatinguniversities kindly compliedwith thisrequestbyidentifyingrelevantstudentsamplesandliaisingwiththeresearcherontimetablesandscheduleswhenthesestudentswouldbeavailable. Itwas felt thatthesestudentswouldbeabletodrawonsignificantexperienceastheyapproached(forsome,atleast)theendoftheirjourneythroughtheThaieducationsystem.Atotalof391studentsparticipatedinthequestionnaire,ofwhich57percentwerefemaleand47percentweremale.Thedistributionofparticipantsfromeachinstitutionrangedfrom19percentto32percent.


Results summary

Theresults inTable1showthatparticipantsstronglyagreedthat theThaigovernmentshoulddomoretosupportcreativityineducation( =4.32,SD=4)andtechnology,suchastheinternet,wasakeyfactor( =4.02,SD=0.81)inallowingthemtobecreative.Thestatementmy parents encourage me to express myself elic-itedthehighestpercentageof‘agree’response(60.61percent, =3.98,SD=0.78).Although30percentofstudentsagreedthatbeingThaipreventedthemfromexpress-ingthemselvesindividually( =3.09,SD=1.08),almost26percentdisagreed,withover6percentstronglydisagreeing.Less than50percent feltpositively that theirteachersathighschoolencouragedthemtobeindividualanddifferent( =3.31,SD=0.90),althoughparticipantsweresignificantlymoreinagreementthattheiruniversityteachersencouragedthemtobeindividualanddifferent( =3.73,SD=0.86).Justunder50percentconsideredthemselvescreative,with7percentstronglyagreeing( =3.53,SD=0.77).Over75percentwereinagreementthattheiruniversityshoulddomoretosupportcreativityineducation( =3.96,SD=0.79).Finally,responsestostatementswhereselectionof‘agree’or‘stronglyagree’indicatedapositiveposition(1,2,3,4,5,6and10),demonstratedthat67percentofstudentswerepositiveoverallabouttheencouragementandopportunitiestheyhadtobecreative.


Table 1 Resultssummary(N=391)

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

Mean

( )

S.D.

1. Myparentsencourageme

to expressmyself and be

individual

1.28% 3.84% 12.53% 60.61% 21.74% 3.98 0.78

2. Myeducationalbackground

hastaughtmetothinkout-

of-the-box

2.56% 13.30% 25.58% 49.36% 9.21% 3.49 0.93

3. Myteachersathighschool

encouragedmetobe indi-

vidualanddifferent

1.79% 17.90% 34.02% 40.15% 6.14% 3.31 0.90

4. My teachers at university

encourageme to be indi-

vidualanddifferent

1.53% 8.44% 19.44% 56.52% 14.07% 3.73 0.86

5. My courses at university

allowme to develop my

creativeabilities

1.28% 8.95% 14.32% 59.08% 16.37% 3.80 0.86

6. Myuniversity needs to do

more to develop creative

thinkingandexpression

0.51% 3.32% 19.95% 52.43% 23.79% 3.96 0.79

7. Thegovernmentshoulddo

moretosupportcreativityin

education

1.02% 3.07% 10.23% 34.02% 51.66% 4.32 4

8. Being Thai prevents me

from expressing myself

more

individually

6.39% 25.83% 28.90% 29.92% 8.95% 3.09 1.08

9. Accesstotechnology,such

astheinternet,allowsmeto

bemorecreative

0.77% 5.12% 12.02% 55.50% 26.60% 4.02 0.81

10 Iconsidermyselfacreative

person

1.28% 6.65% 36.57% 48.59% 6.91% 3.53 0.77


Correlation in parental income

Parents’estimatedincomewasdividedintofourcategories:10,000-25,000baht;*25,000-50,000baht;50,000-100,000bahtand100,000bahtandabove.Asapointofreference,thesalaryrangefrom25,000-100,000isconsideredthelower-to-uppermiddleclassincomerange.Thelowestincomerange(10,000-25,000baht)hadtheleastrepresentationinthesample(21percent)whilethe25,000-50,000bahtrangehadthehighestrepresentationatalmost30percent.Analysisshowedthatparentalincomewasasignificantfactorinstudentresponsestothreequestions:My teachers at high school encouraged me to be individual and different (p=.038);the government should do more to support creativity in education (p=.024);andBeing Thai prevents me from expressing myself individually (p=.011).Studentswhoseparents earnedbetween50,000-100,000 baht (considered to be amiddle-class upwards incomebracket)weremoreinagreementthattheirteachersathighschoolencouragedthemtobedifferentthanthosefromincomebracketsunder50,000(p=.010).Studentswithparents’estimated income (100,000baht-above, 50,000-100,000bath and25,000-50,000bath)stronglyagreed that thegovernmentshoulddomore tosupportcreativity ineducation,whilethosewithinthelowestincomebracket(10,000-25,000baht)agreed,butnotstrongly (p=.024).Those fromparentalbackgroundswith incomebetween25,000-50,000bahtagreethemostthatbeingThaipreventsthemfromexpressingthemselvesindividually,whereasthosewithincomesof100,000andaboveagreetheleast(p=.005,seeTable3below).

*BahtistheThaicurrency(1USdollar=approx.30Thaibaht)

Table 2 BeingThaipreventsmefromexpressingmyselfmoreindividually,according toparentalincome(inThaibaht)

Parentalincome (Est.)

25,000-50,000

10,000-25,000

50,000-100,000

100,000-above

Level

1

2

3

4

Mean

3.08

3.08

2.80

2.65

1

-

2

.976

-

3

.055

.072

-

4

.005*

.008*

.329

-

*Significanceatp-value<0.05


Correlation between different high school backgrounds

Students’highschoolbackgroundwasdividedintofourcategories:Interna-tionalschoolsinThailand,schoolsoutsideThailand,governmentschools(inThailand)andother.Themajorityofparticipants(74percent)werefromgovernmentschools,withjustover10percentfrominternationalschools,7percentfromschoolsoutsideThailandandtheremainderfromother,unidentifiedschoolbackgrounds.Anumberofvariableswerefoundtobestatisticallysignificant(p=<.05),andtherewasasignificantdifferenceoverall between responses fromstudents from international schools inThailandandthosefromgovernmentschools.Forexample,thosefrominternationalschools inThailandweremore in agreementwith the statementsmy educational background has taught me to think out-of-the-box(p=.001)andmyteachersathighschool encouragedme to be individual and different (p=.003),than those fromgovernment schools. However, students from government schools felt morestrongly that theiruniversitiesneededtodomore todevelopcreative thinkingandexpressionthan those from international schools (p=.037),while participants fromschoolsoutsideThailandfeltmoststronglythatthegovernmentshoulddomoretosupportcreativityineducationthanthosefromgovernmentschools(p=.035).StudentsfrominternationalschoolsandschoolsoutsideThailandweremoreinagreementthatbeingThaipreventedthemfrombeingcreativethanthosefromgovernmentschools(p=.002andp=.014respectively).

Table 3 Variablescoresaccordingtohighschoolbackground

Background Level Mean 1 2 3 4InternationalschoolThailand

1 3.38 - .558 .064 .010*

SchooloutsideThailand 2 3.33 - .275 .161Other 3 3.23 - .998Governmentschool 4 3.23 -

*Significanceatp-value<0.05


Correlation between different university backgrounds

In total, sevenof the tenquestion itemsshoweda correlation (Sig.<0.05)betweenthedifferentuniversities.Overall,studentsfromtheinternationalcollegeinthecapitalcity,Bangkok,hadamorepositiveresponsetomanyoftheitemsinthequestionnaire.Forexample,respondentsfromtheinternationalcollegeweremoreinagreementthattheireducationalbackgroundhadtaughtthemtothinkout-of-the-box(p=.012),comparedtothosefromtheprovincialuniversities.Similarly,theyagreedmorestrongly that theiruniversity teachersencouraged them tobe individualanddifferent(p=.001),comparedtotheuniversityincentralBangkok,andp=.015tooneofthoseintheprovinces.Inresponsetothequestion:My courses at university allow me to develop my creative abilities,studentsfromthreeoftheuniversitiesrespondedpositively,withonlytheuniversityincentralBangkokneitheragreeingnordisagreeing.In contrast, respondents fromboth provincial universities feltmore strongly thatbeingThaipreventedthemfromexpressingthemselvesmoreindividually.Internationalcollegestudentsweremoreinagreementthattechnologyallowedthemtobemorecreative,comparedto theircounterparts in theWesternprovince(p=.019)andtheuniversity in centralBangkok (p=.015).Both the university from centralBangkokandinternationalcollegeinthesuburbsagreedthatbeingThaipreventedthemfromexpressingthemselvesmore individually,asopposedtothetwouniversities intheprovinceswhichwereneutral(p=.001).

Table 4 Showsthedifferentresponsestothestatement:My teachers at university encourage me to be individual and different in relation to university background

UniversityPrivateinternationalSuburbBkk*PubliceastPublicnorthPublicBkk

Level1

234

Mean3.97

3.853.613.25

1-

2.730

-

3.015*

-

4<.001**

<.001**.098-

*Bkk=Bangkok

**Significanceatp-value<0.05


Additional student comments

The questionnaire encouraged students towrite additional comments ontheirviewsofcreativity.AselectionofrelevantpointsispresentedinTable5.ThesecommentsmainlyfocusontheextentinwhichThaicultureandteachingstylesareseen as impacting on creative development. It should bemade clear that theseremarks,althoughrevealing,representasmallsampleoftheoverallpopulation.Informaldiscussionswithstudentsduringmyvisittotheuniversitiesprovidedmorenuancedresponsestothoselistedhere.Acommonthemeintheseconversationswasrecogni-tionofeffortsbyfacultyandstafftoimprovetheenvironmentforcreativity.Onestudentpraisedthelayoutofthenewlibrary,withitscreativepodsormeetingspacesseenasanexampleofefforts toencouragecreativity.Anothersuggested that the largeclasssizes(almost40students)madeitdifficult for lecturerstoencouragedebateandexpression.

Table 5 Additionalstudentcomments(language errors as written)___________________________________________________________________ • University instructors doesn’t foster student to be themselves.This is

becausewhenstudentsexpresstheiropinionoransweraquestionwrongly,theinstructorasofresult,useaggressiveorabusiveverbal.

• Ithinksomeoftheinstructorshouldchangetheirteachingstyletoonewheretherearediscussionandexchangeofopinionsinsteadofrestrictingstudentopinions.

• University teacherwho allow for discussions among studentswill helpstudentsunderstandwhethertheirthoughtprocessislogicalorillogical.Thisalsogivesstudentmoreopportunitytolearnandbecreative.

• ThaiCulturehasanegativeaspecttostudentorpeopleatayoungerageexpressingtheiropinionsandideas.Theoldergenerationsoftenassociatethiswithbeingrudeandunmannered.Thisputspressureandborderonchildreninbeingthemselvesandexpressingtheirthoughts.TheseobstaclesinThaiculturealsocausechildrentolackcreativity.

• Creativityislimitedintermsofeducation,social,culture,andindividual.ThislimitationisinfluencedbytraditionalThaicultureandconformity.Peoplearenotwillingtoexceptcreativityornewideas.

• Creativityandexpressingonesideaareallverypositive,butonlyifit’sdoneinagoodway

• IthinkIamcreative,butIamnotsureinwhatway___________________________________________________________________


Discussion

What does this survey tell us about the factors affectingThai students’creativityinhighereducation?Firstofall,giventheobstaclestofosteringcreativityinThailandoutlinedintheliterature,thefindingsaresurprisinglypositiveoverallabouthowlearnersfeelencouragedtobecreativeandexpressthemselves.Inparticular,asignificantmajorityofstudentsfeltthatparentsencouragedtheminself-expressionand individuality,whichwould seem to run counter to the perceivedwisdomofreverenceandobedience foreldersand thecultureof collectivismasopposed toindividualism.Someadditionalobservationsonthisthemeemergedduringthefocusgroup sessions.Oneparticular group containeda number of studentswhowereplanning to eventually run their family businesses.Discussions centered on thefollowingapparentcontradiction:Parentswantedstudentstodeveloptheircreativityatuniversityinordertoensurethefuturesuccessoftheirrespectivebusinesses;atthesametimetheywereexpectedtoconformtotheirparents’wishesforthemtofollowintheirfootsteps. BeingThaiwasconsideredahindrancetocreativitybylessthan40percent,withover30percentdisagreeing,suggestingthat,forsomelearners,beingThaidoesnotnecessarilymeanbeingsubjecttoThaiculturalnorms.OrperhapsThainormsarelessmono-culturalthanthoserepresentedintheliterature.Intermsofparentalincome,studentsfromlowermiddleclassincomebackgroundstendedtofeelmoststronglythatbeingThaiwasahindrancetotheirindividualexpression.Educationalbackgrounddoesmatterwhenitcomestocreativity,accordingtothestudy.Studentsfrominternationalschoolbackgroundswereconsiderablymorepositiveabouttheireducationalbackgrounds,allowing them to thinkout-of-the-boxandalso that theirteachersencouragedindividualexpressionanddevelopment.Ingeneral,allstudentsweremorepositiveabouttheiruniversityteachersanduniversitycoursesinrelationtocreativeencouragement,asopposedtohighschool.Itsuggeststhattheacademicenvironmentinuniversityismorereceptivetofosteringcreativity,orpossiblythatlearn-ers’collegeexperienceswerefresherintheirminds.Thefactthatstudentscamefromawidevarietyofhighschoolbackgrounds,comparedtothenumberofuniversitiesinthestudy,mayhavealsobeenafactorinresponsestocreativityinhighschool(itisworthnotingherethatinThailandtheterm‘international’islooselyappliedtohighschoolsofdifferingstandardsandcurricula).Lesspositively,littlemorethanhalfoftheparticipantsconsideredthemselvescreative,andadditionalcommentsraisedbylearnersfocusedheavilyontherestrictivenatureofThaicultureandteachingstylesinfosteringcreativeenvironments.Somefocusgroupparticipantssuggestedthattheheavyworkloadandpressuretogetagoodgrademeantthattheywerereluctanttotakecreativerisks.


Strongagreementthatthegovernmentanduniversitiesneedtodomoretofostercreativityisnotsurprising,giventhelackofdirectioninThaieducationalpolicyand implementation, although it could beargued that these sentiments are prob-ablyechoedbyuniversitystudentsinmanyothercountries.Whilemostofthemostprestigiouseducational establishments cluster aroundBangkok-almost 50percent-therewasnotasmarkedadifferenceinresponsesasexpected,althoughstudentsfromtheuniversitiesoutsideBangkokfeltmorestronglythatbeingThaipreventedthemfrombeingcreative.Technology isoverwhelminglyseenasbeingpositive inhelpingcreativity.

Implications for policy makers

ResultsfromthisstudysuggestthatthreeareasinparticularneedattentionfromThai educational policymakers: the government should domore to supportcreativityineducation;universitiesneedtodomoretodevelopcreativethinkingandexpression;andmorecanbedonetoteachstudentstothinkout-of-the-box. First and foremost, creativitymust be seenas central to theNEA1999’spromotionoflife-longlearning.Policyformulationshouldspelloutkeystrategiesthatspecificallytargetthepromotionofcreativityandcriticalthinking.Formulationofthesepoliciesshouldbeginthroughconsultationwiththoseonthefrontlineofeducation,takingintoaccounttheeverydaycontextsinwhichteachersfindthemselves.Expertsoncreativedevelopment,bothnationaland international,shouldbe involved inallstagesoftheprocess.Executionofthesestrategiesneedstobeintheformofadequatetrainingforteachers,andfocusonthepracticalimplementationofpolicy. Curriculumassessmentcriteriashouldacknowledge the learnerbehaviorswhich fostercreativity,suchascuriosity,perseverance,goal-settingandreflection.Fundingofprojectstofostercreativityshouldbetargetedtowardsearlyyearswhereeducational supportmakesmost difference (Bentley, 2000) andwhere learnerhabitsaremostsusceptibletoabsorbingbestpractice.Teachersneedtobeallowedtheflexibility toadapt these initiativesaccording to the rapidly changingnatureoflearners’needs.Similarly,policymustallowforflexibilityofimplementationinordertoaccommodatethedifferentneedsandskillssetsoflocalschools.Thepivotalroleofthefamilyinfosteringlearnerdevelopmentneedstoberecognizedbyincreasingparentalinvolvementinschoolpolicyanddecision-making.Attheuniversitylevel,morewaystoinvolvestudentswiththeirlearning,suchas‘openplan’syllabi,wherestudentsareconsultedincurriculumdevelopmentandmaterials,andwhichofferstudentsdirectcreativeinput,shouldbeexplored.Forexample,intheStudentAsProducerprojectat


LincolnuniversityintheUK,undergraduatestudentsworkalongsidestaffinthedesignanddeliveryoftheirteachingandlearningprograms(LincolnUniversity,2014). These criticisms should notmask the fact that progress hasbeenmade.Norshouldthescaleofthetaskbeunderestimated.TheThaieducationsystemisgoing throughthecomplexprocessof reorienting its focus fromquantity toquality(Hallinger&Bryant,2013;Natthapoj,2011).Projectssuchasthesuccessfulintegratedpestmanagement (IPM)program,wherestudent-centered learningand integratedcurriculumprovideobservablemodelsofprogressinencouragingcreativelearning(Hallinger&Bryant,2013;Kantamara,Hallinger&Jatiket,2006).Recentstrategiesto‘returnteacherstothestudents’,increaseteachers’welfareandfosterreadingonthenationalagenda(FocusonQualityImprovement,2009)areallstepsintherightdirection,butmoreconcreteproposalsarestilllacking,andprogressontheselatestinitiativeshasnotbeenreported.

Practical implications for classroom practice

The research results identified the need for teachers at high school todomoretoencouragestudentstobeindividualanddifferent.Classroomactivitiesareinvariablyinfluencedbyaccesstofacilitiesandclasssize.ItisnotunusualforruralclassesinThailandtoaccommodate40ormorestudents.Therefore,whatisnecessaryisasetofmethodologicalprincipleswhichcanreplicateacreativelearningenvironment.Section7 ofNEA targets thepromotionof “self-reliance; creativity; andacquiringthirst for knowledgeand capability of self-learningona continuousbasis” (OfficeoftheNationalEducationCommission,1999:5).Power(2014)putforwardasetofcreativebehaviorswhichcanbeimplicitlyandexplicitlyencouragedtofosterlearnercreativity.Thesebehaviorscanengagelearnersinthelearningprocessandpromoteself-reliance,inlinewiththeNEA’sprinciples: 1. Curiosity-the learning journey beginswith curiosity. Learnerswho are

interestedaskquestions,thewhysandwhynots.Readingiscentral toengagingstudentsinthelearningprocess(Adair,2009;Watson,2010).By encouraging readinghabits, in linewith the aimsof the ‘FocusonQuality Improvements’ guidelines, students’ interest in subjects isstimulated.Learnersneedtobeencouragedtoembraceawiderangeofreadingmaterials,beyondthatofthecurriculum.Curiositytendstodimin-ishwith age (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) so teachers need to encouragequestioning and interest whenlearners’mental energies are at theirsharpest(Power,2014).


2. Perseverance-recognizingattitudeasmuchasability.Creativepeoplearedeterminedandrefusetogiveupinthefaceofadversity.Tough(2012)referstothisas‘grit’.Gladwell’s(2008)observationthatinnovatorssuchasBillGatesandtheBeatlesput10,000hoursormoreintotheircreationssuggeststhatsimplehardworkisacornerstoneofcreativity.Students’per-sistenceneedstoberecognizedaswellasintelligence(Mueller&Dweck,1998)bothintheclassroomenvironmentandthroughassessment.

3. Goal setting-Ihavefounditsurprisingthatevenatundergraduate levelmanystudentsdonotplanandprioritizetheirwork.Creativitydoesnotsimply‘showup.’Itrequirespatienceandapplication.Focusingwithgreaterintensityonaspecificrangeoftasksisahallmarkofcreativepeople(Hen-nessey&Amabile,1998).Studentsneedtobemadeawareofthebenefitsofsimplechecklistsandtimeframestothecreativeprocess(Kahneman,2012).Mostimportantly,studentsshouldbeencouragedtosettheirown,independentlearninggoals,irrespectiveofthoseofthecurriculum.

4. Reflection-reflectionhasbeenwidelyacknowledgedasbeingfundamen-tal to thedevelopment of critical thinkingand creativity (Ghaye, 2007;O’Connell&Dyment, 2011;Power, 2012;Sutton,Townend&Wright,2007;Thorpe,2004).Theprocessofreflectionincreaseslearners’abilitytodistinguishinsightfrommereinformation.Studentscanbeencouragedtokeeplearningjournalsthatrecordtheirobservationsandinsightsintotheirownlearningprocess.Thisallowsthemtopersonalizeexperience,tomakeit‘theirown’(Power,2014).Thesejournalsshouldbepartofastudent’sportfolioofassessedwork.

Conclusion FifteenyearsonfromtheNEA,althoughtheresultsofreformhavebeenseenasmixed(Fry&Bi,2013),thereisclearlyroomforoptimismabouthowcreativityisencouragedinThailand.Theextenttowhichchangeisoftenviewedasaneventratherthanaprocess(Hall&Hord,2002)suggeststhatsystem-widereforms,suchasthosebytheNEA,maybeslowlyfilteringthroughunnoticed.Myownoverall impressionaftervisitingtheuniversities,andafterdiscussionswithThaiundergraduatesonthetopic,isthatstudentsrecognizetheimportanceofcreativityineducation,andthereisahealthylevelofenergyandyouthfulimpatienceabouttheirdesirestofindoutletsfortheircreativeexpressiontohelpthemgetoninlife.Inparticular,Iwasstruckbytheinformalnatureoftheteacher-studentrelationshipfromtheclassesIobserved


duringthedatacollectionprocess-somethingverydifferentfromwhatIhadbeenledtoexpectfrommyresearchintoThaiculturalnorms.Indeed,thisexperiencewasnotablydifferentfromthatofmyintroductiontouniversitylifeinThailand,whenfirstIworkedhereover15yearsago.Inthisrespect,changeisclearlyafoot.Giventhateducationaltransformationissynonymouswithculturaltransformation(Hallinger&Bryant,2013),thereisthereforeaneedtoreassesstheeffectofThaiculturalnormsoncreativityandindividuality(themostsignificantofwhichdateback20yearsormore)inlightoftheacceleratingpaceofchange.

Thefollowingpointssummarizemyrecommendations: • Educationalpolicymusttargetspecificpoliciestofostercreativitywithinputfromallstakeholders. • Teachers should recognize, encourageand reward the behaviors thatenhancecreativity.

References

Adair,J.(2009).The Art of Creative Thinking.London:KoganPage.Albert,R.S.,&M.A.Runco. (1999).AHistoryofResearchonCreativity. InR.J.

Sternberg(Ed.),Handbook of Creativity(pp.15-31).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Atagi,R. (2002).The Thailand Educational Reform Project: School Reform Policy. ADBandONEC.

Averill, J.R. (1999). Individual Differences in Emotional Creativity: Structure andCorrelates. Journal of Personality,67(2),331-371.

Bentley, T. (2000). Learning beyond the Classroom. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 28(3),253-264.

Craft,A.(2001).AnAnalysisofResearchandLiteratureonCreativityinEducation.Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,1-37.

Craft,A. (2003).TheLimits toCreativity inEducation:Dilemmas for theEducator.British Journal of Educational Studies,51(2),113-127.

Csikszentmihalyi,M.(1997).Creativity,Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.NewYork:HarperPerennial.

Dacey, J.,&K.Lennon. (2000).Understanding Creativity: The Interplay of Biologi-cal, Psychological and Social Factors. Buffalo,NewYork:CreativeEducationFoundation.


Deveney,B.(2005).AnInvestigationintoAspectsofThaiCultureanditsImpactsonThaiStudentsinanInternationalSchoolinThailand. Journal of Research in International Education,4(153),153-170.doi:10.1177/1475240905054388

Duch,W.(2007). Intuition,Insight, ImaginationandCreativity. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine,40-52.

Economist. (2012, June 16). Let Them Eat Tablets: Trying to Stop the Rot inThailand’sSchoolsbyGivingoutTabletComputers.Economist.Retrievedfromhttp://www.economist.com/node/21556940

EnglishProficiency Index (EFEPI). (2013).English First.RetrievedMay12,2013fromwww.ef.co.uk/epi/

FocusonQualityImprovement(2009).MOEThailand.RetrievedJanuary15,2012fromwww.moe.go.th/en/

Fry,G.W.(2002).The Evolution of Educational Reform in Thailand. PaperPresentedattheSecondInternationalForumonEducationReform:KeyFactorsinEf-fectiveImplementationtotheOfficeoftheNationalEducationCommission,Thailand.

Fry,G.W.,&H.Bi.(2013).TheEvolutionofEducationalReforminThailand:TheThaiEducationalParadox.Journal of Educational Administration,51(3),290-319.

Ghaye,T. (2007). IsReflectivePracticeEthical?(TheCaseof theReflectivePort-folio).Reflective Practice,8(2),151-162.doi:10.1080/14623940701288859

Gladwell,M. (2008).Outliers:The Story of Success.NewYork: Little,BrownandCompany.

Hall,G.,&S.Hord.(2002).Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes.Boston,MA:AllynandBacon.

Hallinger,P.,&D.A.Bryant.(2013).SynthesisofFindingsfrom15yearsofEduca-tionalReforminThailand:LessonsonLeadingEducationalChangeinEastAsia.International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 16(4),399-418.doi:10.1080/13603124.2013.770076

Hallinger,P.,P.Chantarapanya,U.Sriboonma,&Kantamara(2000).TheChallengeofEducationalReform inThailand. InT.Townsend&Y.C.Young (Eds.),Educational Change and Development in the Asia Pacific Region: Challeng-es for the Future(pp.332-339).Amsterdam:Swets&Zeitlinger.

Hallinger, P., & L. Moosung. (2011).A Decade of Education Reform in Thailand:Broken Promise or Impossible Dream?Cambridge Journal of Education,41(2),139-158.doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.572868

Hennessey,B.A.,&Amabile,T.M.(1998).Theconditionsofcreativity.InR.J.Stern-berg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 11-38). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.


Hofstede,G.(1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.Maidenhead:McGraw-HillBooks.

ISAT.(2014).InternationalSchoolsAssociationofThailand:InternationalschoolsinThailand.RetrievedMarch20,2013from:www.isat.or.th/schools

Kahneman,D.(2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. NewYork:Penguin.Kampylis,P.G.,& J.Valtanen. (2010).RedefiningCreativity-AnalyzingDefinitions,

Collocations,andConsequences.Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(3),191-214.

Kantamara, P., P. Hallinger & M. Jatiket. (2006). Scaling-up Educational Reformin Thailand: Context, Collaboration, Networks and Change.Planning and Changing,37,5-23.

Lincoln University, (2014). Student as Producer, Retrieved May 5, 2014, fromwww.studentsasproducer.lincoln.ac.uk

Maitland, J. (1976). Creativity.The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34(4),397-409.

McGoldrick,C. (2002).Creativity and Curriculum Design: What Academics Think. LTSNGenericCentre.

Ministry of Education Thailand National Report. (2004).Paperpresentedatthe47thInternationalCongressonEducation,Geneva,8-11September,2004.

Mueller,C.M.&C.S.Dweck.(1998).PraiseforIntelligencecanUndermineChildren’sMotivationandPerformance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1),33-52.

Mulder,N.(1996).InsideThaiSociety:An Interpretation of Everyday Life: PeriplusEditions.

Natthapoj,V.T.(2011).Thailand:EducationalEqualityandQuality.InC.B.L.Symaco(Ed.),Education in South-East Asia(pp.197-219).Oxford:SymposiumBook.

Negus, K. &M. Pickering. (2004).Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value.London:SAGEPublications.

O’Connell,T.S.,&J.E.Dyment.(2011).TheCaseofReflectiveJournals:IstheJuryStillOut?Reflective Practice,12(1),47-59.doi:10.1080/14623943.2011.541093

Office of the National Education Commission. (1999). National Education Act ofB.E.2542(1999).Bangkok:OfficeoftheNationalEducationCommission.

Pearson. (2012). Index of Cognitive Skills and EducationalAttainment. RetrievedOctober 9 2013, from http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking

Pimpa, N. (2011). Strategies for Higher Education Reform in Thailand. Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific,36,273-289.


Pimpa,N.(2012).AmazingThailand:OrganizationalCultureintheThaiPublicSec-tor.International Business Review, 5(11),35-42.doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n11p35

Poincaré,H.(1970).MathematicalCreation.InP.E.Vernon(Ed.),Creativity(pp.77-88).Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks

Power,J.B.(2012).TowardsaGreaterUnderstandingoftheEffectivenessofReflec-tiveJournalsinaUniversityLanguageProgram.Reflective Practice,13(5),637-649.doi:10.1080/14623943.2012.697889

Power,J.B.(2014).BehavingCreatively:AnExplorationoftheEnablingBehaviorsthatcanEnhancetheCreativeJourney.The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities, 26,45-56.

Robinson, K. (2006). Schools Kill Creativity. Paper presented at the TED Talks,Monterey,CA,USA.

Robinson, K. (2010). Bring on the Learning Revolution.(Video file). RetrievedFebruary4,2012fromwww.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.

Rojanapanich,P.,&N.Pimpa.(2011).CreativeEducation,GlobalizationandSocialImaginary.Creative Education,2,327-332.doi:10.4236/ce.2011.24046

Runco,M.A.(2008).CreativityinEducation.New Horizons in Education,56(1),96-104.Ryhammar,L.,&C.Brolin. (1999).CreativityResearch:ConsiderationsandMain

Lines of Development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3),259-273.

Sangnapaboworn,W.(2003).Higher Education Reform in Thailand: Towards Qual-ity Improvement and University Autonomy.PaperpresentedattheShizuokaforumonapproachestohighereducation,intellectualcreativity,cultivationofhumanresourcesseeninAsiancountries.

Seltzer,K.&T.Bentley.(1999).The Creative Age: Knowledge and Skills for the New Economy.London:Demos.

Sternberg,R.J.(Ed.).(1998).Handbook of Human Creativity. Cambridge:CUP.Sutton,L.,M.Townend&J.Wright.(2007).TheExperiencesofReflectiveLearning

Journals by Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapy Students. ReflectivePractice,8(3),387-404.

Thanasankit,T.(2002).RequirementsEngineeringExploringtheInfluenceofPowerand ThaiValues.European Journal of Information Systems,11,128-141.doi:10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000423

Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective Learning Journals: From Concept to PracticeReflective Practice,5(3),327-343


Tomita,T.,S.Srivatananuklkit&G.Fry.(2002). International Cooperative Learning: an Innovative Approach to Intercultural Service.PaperpresentedattheTokaiInstituteofSocialDevelopmentforAsiaandthePacific,Nagoya,Japan.

Tough,P. (2012).HowChildren Succeed: Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character.Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflinHarcourt.

Watson, R. (2010). Future Minds: How the Digital Age is Changing our Minds, Why this Matters, and What We can do about It.London:NicholaBrealeyPublishing.

An Investigation into the Factors Affecting Student ...

Documents

Transcript of An Investigation into the Factors Affecting Student ...