The Correlation of Intelligence and Creativity with Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students at the University of New York in Prague Thesis by Mária Majerová
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Correlation of Intelligence and Creativity with Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students at the University of New York in Prague Thesis By Mária Majerová Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts In Psychology State University of New York Empire State College 2017 Reader: Ronnie Mather, Ph.D. Acknowledgements: Primarily, I would like to thank my mentor, Ronnie Mather, Ph.D. for his time, support and guidance as well as the fruitful advice provided. Secondly, my great thanks goes to professor Aguilera, who was there for me from the beginning of my statistical analyses. Moreover, I am also forever grateful to mum, who was always there for me and supported me through the entire process of writing this thesis as well as my whole university studies. I would also like to thank my friends, who thought me that with enough persistence one can accomplish anything as well as stood by me through my bachelor’s studies. Table of contents Abstract..............................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................4 2 Literature review ...........................................................................................................7 2.1 Intelligence...............................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Theories of Intelligence.........................................................................................8 2.1.2General/ non-verbal Intelligence............................................................................9 2.1.3 Measuring Intelligence ………………….............................................................9 2.1.4Genera Intelligence and academic performance……..........................................13 2.2 Creativity................................................................................................................15 2.2.1 Theories of Creativity..........................................................................................17 2.2.2 Domain- specific Creativity ...............................................................................19 2.2.3 Measurements of Creativity................................................................................20 2.2.4 Creativity and academic performance................................................................21 2.3 Academic Performance.........................................................................................22 2.4 Creativity, intelligence and academic achievement ……………………………. 22 2.5 Hypothesis to be examined...................................................................................24 3 Methodology ..............................................................................................................26 3.1 Research Design………………………………………………………………… 26 3.2 Participants............................................................................................................26 3.3 Materials ...............................................................................................................27 3.3.1 K-DOCS………………………………………………………………………. 28 3.3.2 Beta III………………………………………………………………………… 29 3.4 Procedure ..............................................................................................................31 3.5 Data analysis .........................................................................................................32 3.6 Protection of Human Rights……………………………………………………...33 4 Results…......................................................................................................................34 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………34 4.2 Results of application of method…………………………………………………34 4.3 Results of the descriptive statistics……………………………………………….34 4.4Normalityassessment of the main variables…….......………….…………………36 4.5Test of hypothesis………………………………………………………………....37 4.6 Discussion...............................................................................................................39 5 Conclusion....................................................................................................................45 6References.....................................................................................................................48 AppendixA (informed consent) ......................................................................................53 AppendixB (questionnaire).............................................................................................55 Appendix C (table & figures )….....................................................................................57 Abstract The aim of my thesis is to determine whether the five domains of creativity (Self/ Everyday, Scholarly, Performance, Mechanistic/ Scientific and Artistic creativity) and non-verbal general intelligence can explain the variance of academic performance. It was hypothesized that intelligence is a good predictor of academic performance. Moreover, that self/ everyday, scholarly and scientific creativity are also positively correlated with academic achievement. Conversely, artistic and performance creativity is hypothesized to either not be related to academic achievement, or to be inversely related. To measure the construct of creativity Kaufman's Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) was administered to students and consequently, each domain was correlated with the academic performance. The IQ of students was measured as general non-verbal intelligence through the Betta III IQ test. Subsequently, the IQ test scores were also correlated with academic performance. The variable of academic success was measured through students’ grade point average (GPA). Former research findings indicated that general non-verbal intelligence did indeed predict academic performance. However, the previous findings of creativity and academic performance association were varied but still indicated a positive significant correlation. Conversely, the results of this thesis indicate that IQ was not associated with academic performance significantly. Moreover, the only domain of creativity that was statistically significantly associated with academic performance was scholarly creativity. I. Introduction Previous studies have been able to identify that both independent variables, creativity, and general intelligence are functionally useful in different areas of human experience. For example; work, education, and entrepreneurship (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996 & Gottfredson, 1997 & Bilton, 2007). Moreover, other research stresses that general intelligence is enormously important in everyday life activities (Gottfredson, 1997). Still, some believe that without creativity, humanity would not progress (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Prior studies have been able to identify that the independent variable, creativity, is functionally useful in different areas of human experience. For example, Bilton (2007) argues that it is essential for managers of business to be high in creativity as the global markets nowadays are complex, stratified and unpredictable. Moreover, Bilton also argues that creativity is one of the most important traits to create strategies that will promote a positive change (Bilton, 2007). According to Csikszentmihalyi (1996), one of the prominent positive psychology figures, if it were not for creativity humans could not advance, and therefore it’s the one quality that lets us grow as a society. Creativity has the power to change society, and make an individual go over his or her comfort zone and explore risks (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Furthermore, people who are high in creativity are adaptable not only regarding novelty but also in the adaptation of the known facts to fit novel solutions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). This all leads to considering creativity as a practical, valuable, and needed characteristic for the individual as well as society. However, it is also one that can be improved or diminished by our environments (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Csikszentmihalyi postulates that environment is a great influencer of creativity and that too much rigidity in a field slowly disempowers creativity by discarding 4 novelty (1996). Therefore, it is essential to study creativity in an undergraduate university context for two reasons. Firstly, to learn if creativity is a trait that can explain the variance in student’s academic performance. Secondly, if creativity does not account for the variance of student’s academic performance while being such an essential quality at both the individual and societal level, maybe the educational system does not give creativity its due value. Similarly, Gottfredson (1997), a life-long researcher of intelligence, argues that a level of general intelligence is necessary for people to be successful in any career, where higher cognitive processing is needed. This may be true of undergraduate study as well. Additionally, Gottfredson postulates that intelligence is necessary for elevating the quality of human life; since, with more complex thinking every aspect of life is also improved, because people are more aware of their health, possibilities in work, as well as free time and family life (1997). Consequently, from the previous research, it is clearly the case that both IQ and creativity have been identified to be crucial for our lives, as well as the society we live in. However,