kangnamjoon.weebly.comkangnamjoon.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/6/7/13673728/051… · web view... (co)...

Thesis for the Degree of Master

by

Jong-eun, Yun

A Study on the Perception of Students about

Creativity Enhancing Writing Tasks Tailored to

NEAT

Department of TESOL

The Graduate School

Sookmyung Women’s University

by

Jong-eun, Yun

A Thesis submitted to the Department of TESOL and

the Graduate School of Sookmyung Women’s University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master

In charge of major work: Nam-joon, Kang

July 2013

A Study on the Perception of Students about

Creativity Enhancing Writing Tasks Tailored to

NEAT

This certifies that the degree of master of TESOL of

Jong-eun, Yun is approved by

(Signature)Chair of Committee

(Signature)Committee Member

(Signature)Committee Member

The Graduate School


July 2013

A Study on the Perception of Students about Creativity

Enhancing Writing Tasks Tailored to NEAT

LIST OF CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTENTS...........................................................................i

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................iv

LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................v

LIST OF APPENDICES......................................................................vi

ABSTRACT........................................................................................viii

Chapter 1 Introduction.........................................................................1

Chapter 2 Literature Review...............................................................3

2.1 Creativity.............................................................................................3

2.1.1 Definition of Creativity..............................................................

2.1.2 Characteristics of Creative People..............................................

2.1.3 Activities to Foster Creativity ....................................................

2.2 Writing.................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Definition of Writing................................................................7

2.2.2 Approach to Teaching Writing..................................................7

2.2.3 Wrtiting Strategy......................................................................7

2.3 Output Hypothesis.............................................................................10

2.2.1 Definition of Output Hypothesis..............................................7

2.2.2 Functions of Comprehensible Output.......................................7

2.4 Previous Research.............................................................................10

2.4.1 Studies on National English Ability Test (NEAT)....................7

2.2.2 Creative Writing Classes in High School.................................7

i

Chapter 3 Methodology......................................................................15

3.1 Research Questions...........................................................................16

3.2 Participants........................................................................................16

3.2.1 Overview................................................................................20

3.2.2 Profile of the Participants...........................................................

3.3 Research Procedures..........................................................................18

3.4 Design of the Lessons........................................................................11

3.5 Data Collection and Analysis............................................................21

3.5.1 Survey.....................................................................................20

3.5.2 Interview.....................................................................................

Chapter 4 Results................................................................................35

4.1 The Survey.........................................................................................35

4.1.1 The Pre Survey.......................................................................20

4.1.2 The Post Survey..........................................................................

4.2 The Interview.....................................................................................35

4.2.1 Interview with the Highest Student on the Creativity Self-Check

20

4.2.2 Interview with the Lowest Student on the Creativity Self-Check

20

4.2.3 Interview with the Highest Student on Semi C-SAT 20

4.2.1 Interview with the Lowest Student on Semi C-SAT 20

Chapter 5 Discussion..........................................................................51

5.1 Research Question 1..........................................................................51

ii

5.2 Research Question 2..........................................................................54

Chapter 6 Conclusion.........................................................................55

6.1 Research Findings.............................................................................51

6.2 Implications.......................................................................................54

6.3 Limitations ........................................................................................54

References............................................................................................59

Appendices...........................................................................................64

ABSTRACT IN KOREAN

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Research Procedures

Table 3.2 Lesson Flow of RW Class for NEAT Writing Test Type 1

Table 3.3 Lesson Flow of CEWT for NEAT Writing Test Type 1


Table 3.5 Lesson Flow of CEWT Class for NEAT Writing Test Type 2









Table 3.14 Pre-Survey on Self-examination of Creativity

Table 3.15 Pre-Survey on the Perception of English Writing

Table 3.16 Post-Survey on the Perception of Each CEWT

Table 3.17 Post-Survey on the Comparison between the Six CEWTs

Table 3.18 Interview Questions

Table 5.1 Comparison between the Most & Least Creative Student

Table 5.2 Comparison between the Highest & Lowest Student on English ability

iv

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 3.1 Number of Students’ English Score on Simulate C-SAT

Chart 3.2 Students’ Self-examination Survey on Their Creativity

Chart 4.1 Students’ Self-Examination Survey on Their Creativity

Chart 4.2 Students’ Perception of Writing

Chart 4.3 Post-Survey of Task 1






Chart 4.9 Comparison among Tasks in Interest

Chart 4.10 Comparison among Tasks in Difficulty

Chart 4.11 Comparison among Tasks in Efficiency

Chart 4.12 Comparison among Tasks in Confidence

Chart 5.1 Average of Students’ Perception of CEWT

Chart 5.2 Comparison among the Categories for the 6 CEWTs

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 NEAT Writing Test Type 1






vi

LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Appendix I

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix M

Appendix N

Appendix O

vii

ABSTRACT

A Study on the Perception of Students about Creativity

Enhancing Writing Tasks Tailored to NEAT

Jong-eun, Yun

Department of TESOL

The Graduate School


This thesis examines …

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

viii

Key words: creativity, writing tasks, NEAT, high school, advanced level

ix

Chapter 1 Introduction

The highest priority in high school English education in Korea has always

been to get higher scores on the C-SAT (Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test) to

enter a more prestigious college. Until now, this C-SAT only has dealt with

listening and reading section to evaluate students’ English ability. It is no

wonder that most high school English classes emphasize reading and

listening, which forces students to solve as many questions as possible and get

higher score in this test. As a result, speaking and writing sections in English

are ignored at all. Alongside with it, students lose interest in learning English.

To challenge the typical English education of reading and listening, the

government is planning to radically change the test form. For a few years

recently, it develops a new form of English test as a college entrance exam:

National English Ability Test (NEAT). This test aims to cover the four skills

in English in more balanced way.

Now the new test form of NEAT is going to bring about a large reform

in English class in high school. In reality, however, the class size is too big to

do speaking and writing tasks effectively. Even if students can practice

speaking and writing sections in class at school, it is quite predictable that

most high schools are likely to only focus on the test type of NEAT and train

the students with the required form and expressions, because high school

students are always keen on their scores and short of time to prepare for

NEAT. This type of traditional writing class can easily lower the motivation

and improvement in writing. Even if students get good scores, they may not

use English in their real life as they do not now.

To foster productive skill of speaking and writing in English, students

need more thinking skill as well as English ability. To make students well

1

equipped with good thinking skills, creativity enhancing activities are needed

in regular classes. Creativity enhancing activities are helpful to get students

more engaged in class activities and have them look at things from various

perspectives.

This research started from the concern about test-wise class of English

in high school. To get a good score in speaking and writing test in a new test,

students need to improve their fundamental thinking ability first. To improve

thinking skill, teachers develop more various creativity enhancing activities,

not merely focusing on continuous pattern practice or rote writing class.

As one of high school English teachers, the researcher of the present

study assumes that using creativity enhancing tasks in writing task tailored to

NEAT might be effective in high school English class. To test her assumption,

she investigated the effect of creativity enhancing writing tasks (CEWT) in

class. She devised writing tasks tailored to NEAT writing test types with

creativity enhancing activities. With those tasks, the researcher figured out

how the participants perceived the tasks and investigated their responses.

The findings from this present study might give a new option to teach

high attendees who want to get higher score and also improve their writing

ability as well. To examine this, the researcher posed the following two

questions:

1. How do the students perceive CEWT tailored to NEAT writing

section to get prepared for the test?

2. Does student’s perception of CEWT have something to do with his

English ability or creativity?

2

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Creativity

2.1.1 Definition of Creativity

Since Guilford posed a challenge of creativity and education in his inaugural

address in 1950, many scholars made lots of definitions and research from

various perspectives. Among them, two major criteria have been drawn for the

attributes for judging creativity: novelty and appropriate-ness. (Perkins, 1988)

(Mumford, 2003) Novelty means producing new or original ideas or works. In

regard with appropriateness, an idea or product should be useful, valuable,

beautiful, and acceptable to the given context. (Starko, 2010) As a result, if a

person makes a new idea or product to match his or her social context, it can

be called “creative.”

The term ‘creativity’ is used in describing about a product, a process, a

person or pressure in the course. In many uses, creativity includes not only the

outcome at the final but also the procedural elements of the person who makes

the product and the process itself. (Weisberg, 2006)

2.1.2 Characteristics of Creative People

Plenty of research conducted about creativity has shown the common

characteristics of creative people. Studies observed many creative people in

terms of their cognitive and personality factors (Sternberg, 1998). The

following traits were excerpted from the Tardif and Sternberg’s studies by

Starko (2010).

3

2.1.2.1 Cognitive Characteristics

Cognitive characteristics facilitate people to use their imagination and

produce novel and appropriate ideas. In cognitive area, creative people are

generally good at metaphorical thinking, having flexibility in decision

making, independence in judgment, logical thinking skills, visualization and

finding order in chaos.

One of the most remarkable things is metaphorical thinking, which leads to

finding commonality between unrelated or remote things to make new

synthesis or perspective (Mednick, 1962). Some of them use ‘homospatial

process,’ which brings ideas together in the same physical or psychological

space to create new metaphors, i. e. synectics. (Rothenberg, 1990) After

learning a new idea or concept in class, students are able to apply the new

idea to create a newly combined knowledge of their own, which can be

internally learned and remembered in their long-term memory.

Having flexibility in decision making, creative people can consider a

situation from varied standpoints and produce diverse reactions. In the Talents

Unlimited model developed by Schlicher, Palmer, & Palmer (1993), flexibility

in decision making is a crucial component in creativity. Based on this element,

it is required to make open-ended questions in class than close-ended ones

(Fairweather & Cramon, 2010; Fleith, 2000; Horng et al, 2005).

People who have more independence in judgment tend to determine

situations by their own criteria and are more likely to follow their own

preference to others’ judgment. Besides this factor, creative people need

evaluative skill in finding a problem and producing many creative ideas. At

school, students are required to produce ideas and assess them by their own

criteria.

As opposed to the purest aspects of characteristics of creativity, highly

4

creative people have outstanding logical thinking skill. In focusing on issues

or assessing various ideas, people need to have logical thinking skill. This

skill is needed to have divergent thinking measures to develop creativity.

People with high visualization ability imagine things beyond the given

context to connect the topic with their real life. In class, students can be

trained to bring up any images in the given conditions to enhance their

creativity. To do this, students are asked to visualize their ideas after reading a

book or an article, listening to a song or make posters or advertisements about

a topic.

Mackinnon (1978) found that finding order in chaos is one of the

interesting characteristics of creative people. Disorder provides more

opportunities to make use of flexible and divergent thinking skills than fixed

order to elicit various ideas. According to Barron (1968), creative people

prefer disorder to imposing their own order in chaotic context.

2.1.2.2 Personality Characteristics

In personality factors, creative people have willingness to take risks, intuition

and deep emotion, openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity

(Sternberg, 1988).

Most of creative people are more willing to take intellectual risks than

others. In some measure, they are brave in that they express their own ideas,

not fearing to be taunted or criticized (Mackinnon, 1978). Students have to

learn how to speak up their ideas more boldly and freely. Also, teachers try to

improve the atmosphere of the classroom to give more opportunities to

express students’ own ideas more safely.

Creative people prefer to learn something in more intuitive or indirect

way. As a way to improve this personality for students, Starko (2010)

5

suggested teachers support students with opportunities to show their opinions

about what may not be explainable.

Openness to experience refers to accepting new ideas without rejection

or reluctance in a unfamiliar situation. People in this type are willing to

receive their own inner emotional change as well as any complicated outer

input. With this element, students can find diverse possibilities or ideas to get

evolved into new ideas (Starko, 2010).

Creativity is linked to higher tolerance for ambiguity. Creative people

can produce creative products or ideas after seeking many ways that are

uncertain or confused. This factor is related with openness to diversity and

taking risks, which is crucial in making an innovative idea. For high school

students, however, it is one of the most difficult elements to develop, because

older learners want more explicit explanation to meet their logically direct

thinking needs. In school, it is recommendable to design learning tasks that

can have multiple answers in class (Starko, 2010).

2.1.3 Activities to Foster Creativity

Through many writings of a range of highly creative people, the Root-

Bernsteins (1999) found out that being creative means feeling through

intuition and “gut feelings.” They identified 13 “thinking tools” to mix and

blend imagination and experience. The thinking strategies are as follows;

imaging, abstracting, recognizing patterns, pattern forming, analogizing, body

thinking, empathizing, dimensional thinking, modeling, playing, transforming

and synthesizing. In this research, the researcher developed CEWT based on

imaging, analogizing, empathizing and synthesizing.

Guilford (1976) drew a distinction between convergent and divergent

thinking. While convergent thinking aims for a single, correct answer to a

6

problem, divergent thinking requires to think of many ideas (fluency), think of

varied ideas (flexibility) and unusual ideas (originality) and to add to their

ideas to make them better (elaboration). To promote divergent thinking,

teachers can use brainstorming based on Osborn’s (1953) principle of

deferred judgment. It has variation of popcorn thinking, braining writing,

brainwalking, accumulating brainstorming and reverse brainstorming. In this

study, the researcher employed brainstorming or popcorn thinking with

famous paintings, drawing or a movie in introduction step.

SCAMPER is another way to promote divergent thinking. It stands for

substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other uses, eliminate and rearrange

or reverse any idea to extend to deeper thinking. This can guide students’

thinking or problem solving more actively than brainstorming, which makes

them wait for the new ideas to emerge. In this research, the researcher

developed the lesson plans such as in combine, substitute, modify and

rearrange techniques.

Crawford (1954) suggested attribute listing for generating creative

ideas. This is good in planning projects. First students need to identify the

important attributes of a product or situation. Then they change each item on

the lists one by one through examining each alternative with other students.

This can be used in representing story structure or creating fantasy characters,

inventions or products. It also was applied to CEWT 6 in changing the

personality of characters and the story in a movie.

7

2.2 Writing

2.2.1 Definition of Writing

Byrne (1988) defines writing as making up a whole unit by putting literal

symbols together consistently. Lynch (1996) said that writing is a process of

communication between a writer and a reader, which makes it successful to do

the task, considering the readers. Lee (2005) stated that writing is the process

of thinking to express and modifying the idea of the writer, communicating

with the invisible readers or audience in the course.

2.2.2 Approach to Teaching Writing

There are three kinds of approaches to teaching writing: product-oriented,

process-oriented, and an integrated view of writing approach.

In the product-oriented writing approach viewed writing as the writer’s

knowledge about language and copying the right form in a text provided by a

teacher (Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998). This approach encourages students to

assemble and connect each correct sentence through a model grammar and

syntactic. However, this approach doesn’t give positive motivation to writing

and limit the way to express any ideas fluently (Tribble, 1996).

Process-oriented approach put emphasis on the process in writing:

generating ideas, collecting and organizing data into a unit (Ferris &

Hedgecock, 1998). Therefore, this approach focuses on contents, rather than

linguistic form (Zamel, 1982; Rames, 1985) and divides the process into three

steps: pre-writing, writing, and post-writing. In pre-writing step, a writer has

to consider the audience or the reader (Hedge, 1988), generate ideas, make

priority on them, and structure them to communicate with the reader more

effectively (White & Arndt, 1991). Writing step includes reading the draft,

8

judging it and rearranging words or sentences. In the following step of post-

writing, the writer has to check the clarity, logics or efficiency of the writing,

punctuations, word order or grammatical elements (Hedge, 1988), including

revising and editing (O’Malley & Valdez, 1996).

An integrated view of writing approach postulates that the aim of writing

process is to consider each writer’s development in writing ability (Celce-

Murcia, 2001). Writers are to be independent readers to create, modify and

revise their own ideas while completing writing tasks. This approach supports

students’ work on meaningful tasks through extended cycles of planning,

drafting and revising.

2.2.3 Writing Strategy

To achieve a goal of writing, learners use various writing strategies based on

their English proficiency. Raimes (1983) states that the more proficient

learners are, the more interaction with syntactic knowledge they make,

focusing on expressing their own ideas and meanings. They constantly repeat

planning, rehearsing, rescanning, revising and editing. Learners with the most

proficiency place priority on revising and editing, which illustrates proficient

writers bear their readers or audience in mind to carry out these steps.

Zamel (1982) found that ESL learners did repetitive revising and editing

and checked their own errors or mistakes in writing process. While less

proficient learners focus on grammatical and peripheral errors in drafting step,

proficient ones spend more time on organizing their idea as a whole, putting

aside marginal mistakes afterwards. As this research was done for advanced

students, generating and expressing students’ ideas was more focused on.

Tsai (2004) investigated that ESL students use cognitive and meta-

cognitive strategy in their writing process. Cognitive strategy (O’Malley &

9

Chamot, 1990) includes psychological operation and material modification in

comprehending and memory-retrieving process. Meta-cognitive strategy

(Purpura, 1999) is applied in planning, considering the audience, monitoring

and evaluating products. Writers use different strategies in various process of

writing.

2.3 Output Hypothesis

2.2.1 Definition of Output Hypothesis

Swain and Lapkin (1995) states that language learning takes place when a

learner encounters a gap in his or her linguistic knowledge of the target

language while producing one’s own output. Through noticing this gap, the

learner becomes aware of it and may be able to modify the output so that (s)he

learns something new about the language. Swain developed this compre-

hensible output hypothesis, observing French-immersion students high

listening/comprehension skills, but low speaking/writing skills. This hypothesis

put a light on language learners, as active participants in the process of learning

through meaningful thinking and communicating with others.

2.2.2 Functions of Comprehensible Output

Although Swain does not insist that comprehensible output is solely

responsible for all or even most language acquisition, she claims that, under

some conditions, comprehensible output (CO) facilitates second language

learning in ways that differ from and enhance input due to the mental

processes connected with the production of language. (1995, 371~391) Swain

defines three functions of output as follows:

10

2.2.2.1 Noticing/ Triggering Function

Learners run across gaps between what they want to say and what they are

able to say, and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially

in this language. This is related with the Noticing Hypothesis, which states

that learners cannot learn the grammatical features of a language unless they

notice them (Venkatagiri & Levis. 2009). Here the output is presented in more

frequent and salient way (Gass. 1997).

2.2.2.2 Hypothesis-Testing Function

When a learner says something, there is always an at least tacit hypothesis

underlying his or her utterance, e.g. about grammar. By uttering something,

the learner tests this hypothesis and receives feedback from an interlocutor.

This feedback enables reprocessing of the hypothesis, if necessary (Swain &

Lapkin. 1995). The claim here is that output may sometimes be, from the

learner’s perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say (or

write) their intent. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in

their output would not be expected following feedback. However, research

has shown that learners do modify their output in response to such

conversational moves as clarification requests or confirmation checks. In

other words, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so

successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is closely related to the need

hypothesis (Krashen. 2003), which states that we acquire language forms only

when we need to communicate or make ourselves understood. If this

hypothesis is correct, then language acquirers must be forced to speak.

2.2.2.3 Metalinguistic Function

Learners reflect on the language they learn, and thereby the output enables

11

them to control and acquire linguistic knowledge (Swain & Lapkin. 1995). In

other words, learners internalize their learning about a target language, while

using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates

second language learning. This idea originates with Vygotsky’s sociocultural

theory of mind. Sociocultural theory is about people operating with mediating

tools (Wertsch 1985) such as studying the collaborative dialogue and private

speech of learners.

2.4 Previous Research

2.4.1 Studies on National English Ability Test (NEAT)

Recently there has been striking attention to NEAT as a replacement for C-

SAT English test. With this concern, there have been many studies on this new

test so far. Most of them focus on the perception or awareness on the test

itself. Koh (2012) investigated about high school students’ and teachers’

perception on NEAT. She found that although many of the respondents heard

of the test, but not familiar with the test or prepared for it. She proposed more

preparation of teachers and schools with proper teaching materials and testing

facilities, coupled with the support from the government with small-sized and

level-classified class. Oh (2012) studies on high school English teachers’

perception and preparation for NEAT test in Incheon area. Through this study

he found that teachers were well aware of the necessity of the test, but not

fully ready to have class to get students prepared for it. He suggested more

active promotion and constant teacher training program with more measures

to enhance the reliability and validity of the test itself. Ban (2013) conducted

another research on high school teachers’ perception and preparation for

speaking test of NEAT in Busan. She found that most of the teachers

answered positively about the necessity of the speaking test with a great

12

concern about the reliability and testing environments of NEAT speaking test.

She also pointed out that most of the respondents did not conduct speaking

class due to the big class size, focus on C-SAT and lack of time to prepare for

NEAT speaking and writing test. As solutions, Ban suggested more reliability

of the test, with teacher training program and testing environments in enough

preparatory time.

Jung (2012) compared NEAT level 2 with C-SAT to find correlation

between the two tests. She figured out that they have high correlation in

listening and reading sections, while low correlation in speaking and writing

parts. In other words, indirect measuring on speaking and writing ability

through C-SAT was not reliable or valid, which implies that new direct

measurement on productive skills is to be implemented. This finding also

implies that teachers should carry out speaking and writing classes to get

students prepared to practice more productive skills. She also recommended

more interaction between students and teacher to improve more integrated

skills.

Jin (2012) analyzed writing test of NEAT on the basis of communicative

functions and language forms. He revealed that the writing tests needed more

focus on communicative functions likely to be used in real life situations. He

suggested this test need more various form and practicality to expose students

to more communicative tasks. Students need accuracy and vocabulary in

using productive skills, compared with listening/reading tasks.

Jung (2012) compared and analyzed high school textbooks and NEAT,

focusing on writing activities. She figured out that most textbooks had

controlled and guided writing, similar to that in NEAT. She also found that

NEAT required less vocabulary in writing sections, which writing tasks in

textbook can easily tackle this national test. However, not only controlled or

13

guided writing but also more integrated free writing is needed to fully develop

learners’ writing ability (Celce-Murcia, 2001). She proposed that writing tasks

have to provide in more various types as pair, group or project work. She also

suggested more opportunities to use online writing as achievement tests in

school to make students more familiar with the test implementation.

Moon (2013) studied on the high school teachers’ perception on NEAT

writing test, which revealed that more writing class and achievement test

should be developed for the NEAT to be successfully implemented as a new

test to get students more proficient in productive skills.

2.4.2 Creative Writing Classes in High School

While there have been plenty of studies on reading or listening classes in high

school level, there has a few studies on writing or speaking classes so far.

Ahn (1989) conducted a research on how to teach English writing skills

for intermediate students in middle school. She found that writing in a

paragraph was more helpful than writing sentences to organize and express

coherent idea. She also proposed starting from guided and controlled writing

to free writing at higher level. In controlled writing, familiar topic integrated

with other language skills were more effective to implement.

Noh (2006) used English poetry to activate students’ thinking and

motivation on her study. Based on good poetry, she developed 13 class

activities in teaching vocabulary, reading and writing in that it was good to

show human being’s thoughts, emotion and reality in life and easily memorize

due to its rhythmical rhymes. Poetry can be good material to enhance

students’ creativity as well because it generally has good metaphor and visual

images which encourages students’ understanding.

Lee (2011) suggested how to use English learning and teaching

materials to help improve students’ creativity in communicative language

14

teaching (CLT) classrooms. She designed by using integrated skill activities

with authentic audio-visual aids including movies, advertisements, and

artworks for high school students. To develop activities to promote students’

creativity, she suggested using a variety of authentic communicative materials

as pair or group work about personally familiar topics, considering students'

proficiency level, and asking with open-ended questions which have no right

answers, to make the learning integrated and meaningful for the students.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

This study was designed to investigate how students perceive the writing

activities with the creativity enhancing writing tasks (CEWT) of the similar

type of the National English Ability Test (NEAT). To conduct this study, this

research poses the following two questions:

1. How do the students perceive CEWT tailored to NEAT writing section to

get prepared for the test?

2. Does student’s perception of CEWT have something to do with his

English ability or creativity?

15

3.2 Participants

3.2.1 Overview

For this research, experimental lessons were conducted with one class of 25

boys in a high school in Seoul, Korea. This school is located at the center of

Gangbuk area in Seoul. The economic and social status of the partents’ of the

participants is not as high as that of those in Gangam area, which is well-

known for their high dependence on private education. Thus, most of the

participants rely heavily on public education including English subject.

Chart 3.1 Number of Students’ English Score on Semi C-SAT (unit: number)

100~95 94~90 89~85 84~75 (point)02468

10

59 8

3

3.2.2 Profile of the Participants

The 25 participants belong to the highest one in afterschool class for C-SAT

preparation. The students are within almost 4 percent of the whole graders with

the highest scores in the total of Korean language, math, and English, which are

the compulsory subjects in C-SAT. However, their English score ranges from

75~100 with wide variations. Their scores in reading section in semi C-SAT for

college entrance exam range from 75 to 99 with wide variations. Yet, the

participants are enough proficient to do writing class. They are also much

interested in and concerned about NEAT test, which is known as the alternative

form of English test in C-SAT now.

16

Most of the participants in this research are generally attentive and

serious in class. In general, they are well-focused and engaged in class flow.

The researcher has taught English reading and listening sections for 9 months

in afterschool class. As the afterschool class has no official test, they are more

likely to be distracted and less immersed in class activities than they do in

regular class for their GPA.

To find how students perceive English writing activities, a pre survey

on writing were conducted before the experimental class (see Table 3.1).

Since most of students didn’t learn English writing in regular class for GPA,

this survey was done to investigate the participants’ perception or preference

about writing in English. Eight questions were provided to ask about students’

preference or previous experiences in English writing. A four point scale for 8

questions was used to get more exact results: strongly agree, agree, disagree,

and strongly disagree. Scale 1 and 2 were interpreted negative, while scale 3

and 4 were positive. A five point scale was avoided to prevent students from

checking in the middle, which are usually equivalent with no answer.

Table 3.1 Pre Survey on the Perception of English Writing

No Questions1 I am interest in and like writing in general. (in Korean)

2 People like my writing.

3 I have fluent ideas in writing.

4 I find it interesting to write in English.

5 I want to do better in writing in English.

6 I have ever practiced English writing before. (more than a week)

7 English ability is related with English writing.

8 I have no fear in English writing.

17

As is shown in Chart 3.2 below, the participants tend to like writing

(Q1, 52% of positive answer) and have confidence (Q3, 60%) and no fear in

writing (Q8, 64%). Especially, 15 students (60%) answered they don’t have

much difficulty in coming up ideas for writing (Q3). Though, they were more

negative (64%) in writing in English (Q4, Q5). There were more students

(60%) who didn’t keep writing in or out of class than those who kept writing

more than a week (40%). 14 students (56%) had already had writing classes in

private educational institutes for more than one week consecutively. The other

11 respondents (44%) had never been in writing classes in neither public nor

private education before.

Chart 3.2 Students’ Perception of Writing (unit: percentage)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q80

1020304050607080

PositiveNegative

3.3 Research Procedures

This research was conducted for 10 months from June, 2012 to March, 2013.

The class was done at afterschool class every three days, except the one week

before mid-term or final-term exam periods. The researcher chose the

participants and did a survey of self-examination on students’ creativity and

perception of English writing as pre survey. Then, the researcher started to

18

develop lesson plans for CEWT tailored to the six types in NEAT writing

section. In this process, she referred to the findings from the previous research

on creativity and writing activities. Also she probed each type of NEAT

writing test on KICE website (www.neat.re.kr).

From August to November, six experimental creativity enhancing

writing task (CEWT) classes were conducted after the corresponding

traditional test focused (TTF) classes focusing on syntactical function directly.

After each writing task, students answered on the survey about their

perception of the task. After the six experimental CEWT classes, the

researcher carried out another post survey to compare the six creativity

enhancing writing tasks overall.

The researcher had interviews with four participants: the most and least

creative student, and the highest and lowest student in English test score.

Table 3.2 below shows the research procedures of the experiment.

Table 3.2 Research Procedures

Step Procedures PeriodPreparation chose participants

chose a research topicstudied previous researchdeveloped lesson plan of CEWTconducted pre surveys on self-examination on the students’ creativity and perception of English writing

June, 2012 ~July, 2012

Application

conducted experimental lessons with TTF and CEWT for the six NEAT writing test typesconducted a post survey after each taskconducted a post survey on comparison among the 6 CEWThad interview with students

August, 2012 ~December, 2012

Analysis analyzed datacame to a conclusion of the research

January, 2013~March,

2013

19

3.4 Design of the Lessons

For this research, lessons for each type of NEAT writing test were conducted

through two ways: traditional test-focused (TTF) and creativity enhancing

writing task (CEWT) class. s and typical writing lessons focused on the

question type. For each type of NEAT writing test, TTF class was followed by

CEWT class to provide the participants with information about NEAT writing

test types because they don’t know specific types or forms of the NEAT,

although they are much interested in it.

3.4.1 NEAT Writing Test Type 1

The first type of NEAT writing test is to write about one’s daily life. Test-

takers are supposed to write about topics closely related to their daily lives

such as their favorite teacher, places, or movies according to three required

prompts within 60 ~ 80 words for 10 minutes.

Figure 3.1 NEAT Writing Test Type 1 (example)

Think about your favorite teacher and write about him or her including the three contents below. (60~80 words)

· the name of the teacher· the description of teacher· the reasons why you respect the teacher

As is seen in the Table 3.3, in traditional test-focused (TTF) writing class,

students had to describe their favorite teacher. In the introduction period, students

thought about their favorite teachers as brainstorming. In the development period,

they developed their ideas by learning related vocabulary and expressions to

describe a person. The researcher focused on teaching words and sentence

structures, helping the students make sentences and organize a whole paragraph.

20

In the experimental CEWT class, students were asked to draw a

visualized picture as an image of their favorite teacher at first (see Appendix

A). This task followed the visualization activity as a creativity enhancing

activity. Then they described the reason why that image came into their mind

and started to write the whole paragraph (see Appendix B). Through

visualized pictures, students had more chance to think about the featured

personality or reason why they liked the teacher.

Table 3.3 Comparison between TTF and CEWT class for NEAT Writing Test Type 1

Steps TTF CEWTIntroduction To greet and review

To warm-up introduce the topicDevelopment To teach related words and

sentences To help students write and organize sentences on their own

To make students draw a picture of an image related with their favorite teacherTo help students connect the image and their teacherTo help students write and organize sentences

Closing To make students edit each otherTo give feedback and make a comment for best work


The second type of NEAT writing test is to write an essay on a debatable issue such

as the advantage or disadvantage of online shopping or paper book, or pros and

cons about college education or using cellphones in school. This is assumed as the

most difficult one among the 6 NEAT writing test types, which requires the typical

essay form in English writing. Though two reasons for each argument are given as

a form of phrase, students are required to think about the last reason on their own

and organize a whole paragraph based on those three groundings. This test lasts for

20 minutes within the limit of 80 to 120 words in time.

21


Choose one position on whether middle and high school students should be allowed to use cellphones in schools or not. Support your position with a clear introduction, the two reasons provided in the chart, and additional reason, and a conclusion by following the chart below. (80-100 words)

Advantages Disadvantagesintroduction

↓1. contact with adults in urgent cases

2. use other useful functions3. __________________________

↓conclusion

introduction↓

1. distract from studying2. cost a lot of money

3. _____________________↓

conclusion

As is shown in the Table 3.4, in the TTF class the researcher gave

students some time to think about the issue of using cellphones in schools. In

the introduction period, students had some time to think about the issue on

their own. In the development period, the researcher showed the two reasons

that already existed in the given prompt and then wrote the third reason from

students’ answers on the board. With these three reasons written in phrasal

forms, the researcher showed how to connect them using proper transition

words and form a structure of a typical essay. As this task was the most

difficult to do, students worked as a group, assigned one sentence

respectively, and made an entire paragraph by connecting the whole sentences

in the group.

Contrary to the TTF class, in the experimental CEWT class as in Table

3.4, the researcher used abstract paintings (see Appendix C). While debatable

issues have predictable answers in some measure in general, abstract paintings

are less stereotyped and can be interpreted in unusual ways. Observing the

features of an abstract painting, students can activate their thinking to make

up a title, linking the features more coherently. This task followed the listing

activity. As a group, students decided the best painting and observe the

painting with great care. Then they came to a conclusion and made their own

22

title and the reasons why they made up the title for the painting. Each student

in a group made a sentence and connected them using the transition words

(see Appendix D). To complete this task, students had to infer the title of the

painting as freely as possible by considering diverse features in it. This task

can help students develop flexibility in thinking and the ability to judge

independently.

Table 3.4 Comparison between TTF and CEWT class for NEAT Writing Test Type 2

Steps TTF CEWTIntroduction To greet and review

To warm-up introduce the topicDevelopment To teach transition words

and expressions for essayTo help students write the assigned sentence in their own group

To choose one abstract painting, find features in it and relate them together in each group of five studentsTo synthesize and make a title of their own in their groupTo write a sentence for each studentTo connect the sentences with suitable transition words and compose a whole paragraph



This test type requires test-takers to choose one option in a given situation

such as deciding a club, refusing a friend’s invitation or suggesting a weekend

plan to a friend. Test-takers have to make sentences with the one or more

provided phrases, expressing the purpose of the task. For this test, students

have five minutes to use 15 ~ 25 words to organize the scene.


You're going to ask your friends to come and join your club. Choose one club from the pictures given below and write a message to your friend in 1 or 2 complete

23

sentences, using the given words or phrases. (15 words)

In the RW class as in Table 3.6, students had some time to think about the

situation and thought of their own solution in the introduction period. Then the

researcher showed them the pictures of the solutions and made the students

choose one of them. Then each student made sentences with the given words. The

researcher taught how to connect the cued words or phrases to make a sentence.


Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo provide the situation and ask students’ ideas

DevelopmentTo choose one of the options in the picture and show a sample work to the studentsTo help students write on their own


As is shown in Table 3.7, in the experimental CEWT class, this task

followed the empathizing activity from 13 thinking tools (see Appendix ). At

first students guessed what kind of feeling a person might have in the

picture. They expressed their own idea and the reason from the picture in the

introduction period. In the development period, students thought about

animals’ feeling in the picture and made their own story about how the

animals came to have that feeling. Then, the researcher showed the students

pictures of familiar objects in their daily lives and made them imagine the

feeling of the objects. Students imagined what it felt like and made up the

story about why it felt like that way (see Appendix ). In this way, students

24

were trained to cope well with novelty and activate their imagination.


Step Activities

IntroductionTo greet and reviewTo show pictures of objectsTo ask students how the object feels

DevelopmentTo show students sample writingTo present words about feeling To help students make sentences with “I feel ~.”



This test type is to describe a person’s action in a scene, using present

progressive form. It generally uses a scene with many people and has test-

takers complete 4 sentences about each person in the picture. Test-takers have

to write the sentences within 10 ~15 words for 5 minutes, using present

progressive form for the action of the person in the given picture.


Based on the given example, write a sentence describing the picture. (10-15 words)

In this movie theater, a man is buying a movie tickets at the box office. Five people (1)are waiting in line and talking with one another_________r. Next to them, two ladies (2)are looking at the notice of the movie schedule.The girl and the boy at the front (3)_______________________________.The girl in front of the computer (4)_______________________________.

25

In the RW class as in the Table 3.8, students came upon verbs related to

the action of each person in the picture. Then they made each separate

sentence using present progressive form. The researcher focused on teaching

the right action verb and how to make present progressive form as a sentence.


Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo show a picture and ask students to focus on the action of the people

Development To show students how to make a present progressive formTo help students write sentences, using present progressive form


As is shown in the Table 3.9, in the experimental CEWT class, students

were prompted to reorganize some elements from famous paintings (see

Appendix ). This task followed combine, substitute and rearrange activities in

SCAMPER technique. First, they chose two people separately from different

paintings among all of the paintings. Then they made a line drawing with the

two figures being together in one scene to make interaction with each other.

At this point, students described the people using present progressive form

and made interaction between the selected characters (see Appendix ). In this

task, students synthesized two people among many paintings and created a

new context on their own, using present progressive sentences (see

Appendix ).

26


Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo show students many famous paintings

Development

To make students choose two figures from the paintingsTo have students make a lining drawing with the selected figures and make interaction between themTo help students describe the people and the interaction using present progressive form



This type requires test takers to write a letter to invite their friends to an event

such as a school festival, a movie or a party. The test already provides all the

information about time, place and things to do in the event. All students need

to do is make sentences by using the given information, following the

structure of a letter. This test allows 15 minutes to finish the task within 40 ~

50 words.


The following is an invitation card. You want to send it to invite the students in other schools to your school festival. Look at the invitation poster and complete the invitation card. (about 40~50 words)

For this test type, first of all, students have to be familiar with the

27

structure of invitation letter. In the RW class as in the Table 3.10, students

learned how to write an invitation card by making sentences about all the

information given in advance.


Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo introduce the topic

Development To teach the form of a letter and related words and sentencesTo help students write an invitation card on their own


In the experimental CEWT class as in the Table 3.11, the participants

drew two separate pictures of objects in their daily lives at first. (see

Appendix ). Then they randomly chose two other pictures in a box among all

the works done by others. With the two selected objects, they write an

invitation letter from one object to the other (see Appendix ). During the task,

students can develop metaphorical thinking to enhance their creativity.


Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo make students draw pictures of two objects familiar in their life

DevelopmentTo randomly choose two different pictures drawn by othersTo make students imagine about one object inviting the other objectTo make students think about needed information of the invitationTo write an invitation letter as an object


28


The last type of NEAT writing test is to complete a story by inferring the last

scene following the two related ones. This type usually provides pictures in a

problem situation such as a cruise on a sea in changing weather, leaving a

book at a subway or finding other’s purse on the street. This requires students

to correlate the cause and result between the two given pictures, infer the

ending from the previously suggested in the given pictures and organize a

complete story using the whole three parts. In general, the pictures are

provided to predict and describe easily. For this test type, students are given

15 minutes. They can use 40 ~ 50 words in total.


Describe picture (1) and (2), and write a possible conclusion which could be shown in picture (3). (about 40 words)

As is shown in the Table 3.12, in the RW class, students saw the

pictures and thought about what happened in the pictures in the introduction

period. Then they imagined about the following scene and made a whole

story, connecting all the scenes from the picture and their inference. Then they

used vocabulary to describe the pictures and compose their story, asking any

unknown one to the researcher. At the same time, they learned the proper

transition words such as then, next, however etc. to link the sentences as a

whole story.

29


Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo see the picture and imagine what happened in the picture

DevelopmentTo describe the picture one by one To infer the following last scene in the pictureTo connect the sentences and make a whole story

ClosingTo post their story on the wall To get around to read the story of other groupsTo give feedback and make a comment for each work

As is seen in the Table 3.13, in the experimental CEWT class, students

reorganized famous scenes from the movie ‘Shrek 3’ (see Appendix ). This

task followed the attribute listing as Crawford (1954) suggested, and adapting

and modifying activity from the SCAMPER technique. First of all, students

adapted the characteristics in the movie and listed the new features of them in

the introduction period. After changing the characters in their own way, they

modified the two scenes. At the same time, they imagined the following scene

and wrote about their adapted story, making connections between the whole

three scenes. At the closing step, all students read the adapted story of other

groups and gave their own comment as feedback (see Appendix ).

Table 3.13 Lesson Flow of CEWT Class for NEAT Test Type 6

Step Activities

Introduction To greet and reviewTo see the video clip for the given scene in a movie

DevelopmentTo think of the characters and adapt themTo make a list of the adapted characters in the storyTo predict what happened with the new characters in the storyTo describe and write a whole story based on the characters

ClosingTo post their story on the wall To get around to read the story of other groupsTo give feedback and make a comment for each work

30

3.5 Data Collection and Analysis

This study used survey, interview, and diary studies to answer the research

questions. The following is an explanation of how each of them was applied

during the experiment.

3.5.1 Surveys

The participants responded to ten surveys in total during the whole research

period. As pre-survey, first of all, they examined their own creativity through

28 questions about themselves. At the same time, students answered eight

questions about their perception or preference of English writing. The other

six surveys were conducted after each pairs of ordinary and experimental

class for each type of NEAT writing test. After doing the 6 pairs of writing

classes for NEAT, students answered one post-survey of their preference and

efficiency among the writing tasks. To get more exact results, students were

told to write down their names in all of the survey, although the responses

were analyzed anonymously.

The pre-survey on students’ own perception of their creativity was

quoted from the research of Kim (2002). The 28 questions were used to check

how students perceive their own creativity. They were made for each factor in

creativity with 5 scales.

31

Table 3.14 Pre Survey on Self-examination of Creativity

Category Questions

Concentration

I observe objects carefully. I am absorbed in my work regardless of surroundings.I focus on one thing among many other things.I apply basic knowledge or principles.

Uniqueness

I try to find the core essence of a problem.I try to find the truth.I am interested in new things.I try to prove something by experiment.I have intuition about things.

Originality

I have many ideas.I am good at analyzing things.I express my ideas openly.I try to solve a problem in my own way.I resist to any unfair behavior.

Flexibility

I am active.I try to find new ideas. I try to find new possibilities.I ignore others’ criticism.I have strongly inquiring mind.

Closing

I am good at inferring or deducing. I try to predict and infer things. I combine different ideas. I can predict things.I am good at finding any contradiction or inconsistency.

The pre and post surveys were conducted to find out how they perceive

the given creative enhancing writing task (CEWT). The researcher used a four

point scale for 4 questions to make more exact result: strongly agree, agree,

disagree, and strongly disagree. A five point scale was avoided to prevent

students from checking in the middle.

32

Table 3.16 Post Survey on the Perception of Each CEWT

No Questions1 Is this task effective for practicing the NEAT writing test?

2 Does this task make you interested in NEAT writing test?

3 Is this task helpful in coming up new ideas to your mind?

4 Does this task provide you with more confidence in writing?.

After finishing all of the 6 ordinary and CEWT writing tasks for NEAT, a

post-survey was conducted to the whole participants. This survey was to

compare the CEWT in terms of liking and efficiency. They were asked to

choose the most likely one among the six tasks according to each question as

below.

Table 3.17 Post Survey on the Comparison between the Six CEWT

No Questions1 Which task was the most interesting for you to accomplish?

2 Which task was the most difficult for you to accomplish?

3 Which task was the most suitable to get prepared for NEAT writing test?

4 Which task improved your confidence in English writing most?

3.5.2 Interviews

To compensate the findings from the surveys, the interview was conducted by

asking more in-depth questions about the perception. For this reason, the

interview questions were made up based on the survey questions that needed

more detailed explanation in person (see Table 3.15).

Table 3.18 Interview Questions

33

No Questions1 What was your most favorite task? And why?2 What was your least favorite task? And why? 3 What do you think the characteristics of these tasks? 4 What differences do you find in these tasks?5 Is it efficient to do this kind of task to prepare for NEAT in the future?

The researcher had this interview with four different types of

participants: was conducted four times: a student with the highest / lowest

score on the creativity self-survey and a student with the highest / lowest

score on semi C-SAT. Through this interview, the researcher investigated the

relationship between the perception and the score on each category.

Chapter 4 Results

4.1 The Survey

For this research, many creativity enhancing writing tasks were developed and

conducted in writing class to get prepared for NEAT. However, the phrase of

‘creative activities’ was not explicitly used to the participants to avoid

influencing students’ perception of the tasks.

4.1.1 The Pre Survey

The results of the pre-survey questions were analyzed to know the students’

perception of their own creativity and English writing ability. Throughout

these two surveys, the researcher understood the students’ disposition and

writing ability.

As shown in Chart 4.1, on the self-examination survey of the students’

perception of their own creativity, the average was 104 point (74.29%). This

34

shows 40 percent (ten students) of the respondents thought their creativity to

be as high as 70~80 point. The lowest index was within the range of under 55

point with four students (16%). In general, students thought themselves

considerably creative, which came to above the average level in the chart.

Only seven students (28%) answered under the average point, which showed

almost above 50% in the whole scale.

Chart 4.1 Students’ Self-Check Survey on Their Creativity (unit: percentage)

140~125 124~110 109~95 94~80 under 7905

101520253035404550

0

3240

12 16

4.1.2 The Post Survey

There were two types of post-survey in this research. The first type was

conducted after each rote and experimental class for NEAT test type. The

researcher analyzed the six results and investigated the response in total. The

second type was done after finishing the six types of classes. The researcher

carried out this survey to compare the students’ preference and efficiency

among the tasks.

35

4.1.2.1 The Post Survey after Each CEWT

After each CEWT tailored to NEAT writing test, students answered 4

questions about the task they did. These represented students’ perception of

the CEWT and efficiency of each task (see Table 3.16).

About the first task, students showed their answers as in Chart 4.3. This

task followed the visualization activity (see Appendix ). Most of all, 23

students (92%) perceived this task as suitable to conceive the idea of writing.

It also showed highly satisfaction about its effectiveness and boosting

confidence in practicing NEAT writing test. However, in the category of

arousing interest to do the task got the lowest positive answer (52%). Since

the negative answer for this category was a little less (48%) than the positive

one, the first task was perceived positive in general.

Chart 4.3 Post Survey of Task 1 (unit: percentage)

effec-tiveness

interest conception confidence0

20406080

10080

52

92 84

20

48

8 16PositiveNegative

As is seen in Chart 4.4 below, task 2 got the lowest positive answer in the

category of boosting confidence. That is, this task was perceived as difficult

one to carry out. However, except the category about confidence, this task got

more positive answer in the other three categories: effectiveness (60%),

arousing interest (52%), and conceiving ideas (56%). This results implies that

36

although it is difficult to do, students seem to perceive this task as valid one in

practicing for NEAT writing test type.


effec-tiveness


20406080

100

60 52 563640 48 44

64

PositiveNegative

As is shown in Chart 4.5, 19 students answered negatively (76%) about the

effectiveness of this task for preparing NEAT writing test type. In the other

three category, students showed a little more positive answers, but with a

slight difference from the negative ones. This task followed the empathizing

activity to imagine the feelings of familiar objects (see Appendix ). To

increase the effectiveness, this task has to be modified to be more similar to

the NEAT writing test type 3 (see Figure 3.3).


effec-tiveness


20406080

100

24

56 48 5276

44 52 48PositiveNegative

As is shown in Chart 4.6, 14 participants (56%) were negative about the

37

effectiveness of the task 4, which required them to make a line drawing and

organize interaction between the two figures from famous paintings (see

Appendix ). However, compared with task 3 in the above table (see Table

4.5), task 4 got more positive response in the category of arousing interest

(64%), and giving confidence (72%). That is, this task was more interesting

and easier for the students to accomplish, although it was not as effective as

the others to prepare for NEAT writing test.


effec-tiveness


20406080

100

4464 56

7256

36 4428 Positive

Negative

As is seen in Chart 4.7, 19 students showed positive answer (76%) to

the effectiveness of the task 5 in preparing NEAT writing test. Overall, this

task also got over 70 % of positive answer to the other categories of arousing

interest (80%), conceiving the idea for the writing (84%) and giving

confidence (72%). This task followed the empathizing activity to write a letter

of an object to the other, making up a situation of invitation (see Appendix ).

38


effec-tiveness


20406080

10076 80 84

72

24 20 1628 Positive

Negative

As is shown in Chart 4.8, 11 students answered positively (44%), while

56 % of those showed negative answer to the effectiveness of this task. In the

category of interest and conception, it showed 56 % and 60 % of positive

answers respectively. However, in the category of boosting confidence, this

task got the lowest positive answer, which means it was not easy to carry out.

This task followed attribute listing and combining and adapting activity in

SCAMPER technique (see Appendix ). While using the famous movie ‘Shrek

3,’ this task seemed little difficult to do, which decreased confidence of the

students while the task.


effec-tiveness


20406080

100

4456 60

3256

44 40

68

PositiveNegative

39

4.1.2.2 The Post-Survey after CEWT Writing Class

This survey was carried out to analyze the students’ preference in different

aspects.

As is shown in Chart 4.9, for the first question about choosing the most

interesting task to do, 9 students (36%) chose the task 5, which made them write an

invitation letter between two objects (see Appendix ). Task 1 and task 2 ranked 2nd

and 3rd respectively. On the other hand, one student (4%) chose task 3 and task 6

respectively. Task 3 was developed to make the students imagine about the feelings

of familiar objects and write a story about it (see Appendix ), and task 6 made use

of a movie to reorganize the characters and the story (see Appendix ).

Chart 4.9 Comparison among Tasks in Interest (unit: percentage)

Task1 Task2 Task3 Task4 Task5 Task605

10152025303540

2420

412

36

4

In the second category about difficulty of the tasks as is shown in the Chart

4.10 below, 8 students chose task 6 (32%), and 7 of them chose task 2 (28%) as

the most difficult task to do. While students had some difficulty in accomplishing

these two tasks in class, students perceived task 2 as interesting, but task 6 as least

interesting (see Chart 4.7). From this finding, task difficulty has not necessarily

much to do with task interest rating. On the contrary, task 1 and task 5 showed the

least difficulty (4%), while they ranked the 2nd (20%) and 1st (36%) respectively

40

in terms of task interest (see Chart 4.7).

Chart 4.10 Comparison among Tasks in Difficulty (unit: percentage)


101520253035

4

28

1612

8

32

As is seen in Chart 4.11, of the comparison among the efficiency of the tasks

aiming NEAT writing test, 13 students (52%) chose task 1 as the most efficient

task. is task is almost the same as NEAT test type, students are likely to feel more

comfortable and safe with the form of a test. However, students regarded task 3

(0%) and task 6 (4%) as the least efficient one. Compared with the Chart 4.10,

these two tasks were difficult and ineffective to give confidence. On the other

hand, task 2 got more positive answer (12%) in this category of efficiency, while

it was perceived as the second difficult task with task 3 and 6.

41

Chart 4.11 Comparison among Tasks in Efficiency (unit: percentage)


102030405060 52

120

8

24

4

In the category of boosting confidence, 11 students chose task 1 (44%) as

the best task in boosting confidence as in Chart 4.12. With the same context as

in the efficiency (see Chart 4.11), task 1 was thought to be the best one to

increase students’ confidence in preparing NEAT writing test. Task 2 and 5

ranked the following with 5 percentage respectively. These tasks were

evaluated relatively highly in efficiency and interest rating (see Chart 4.10) as

well. However, task 3 and 6 (4% each) got the most negative answers in

increasing confidence. With the analysis of Chart 4.10, these tasks were

perceived as difficult and less efficient in preparing NEAT writing test.

Chart 4.12 Comparison among Tasks in Confidence (unit: percentage)


1020304050 44

20

4 820

4

From this post-survey of the comparison among the tasks, the

researcher found the efficient task tailored to NEAT writing test should be

42

interesting, similar to the test form and relatively challengeable to complete.

Besides, even difficult task can be suitable for NEAT writing test, if it fits the

interesting rate and the similarity to the test form.

4.2 Interview

The following is the result of the interviews with four participants joined in

the research. The interviewees were each chosen according to their score in

English exam or creativity on the self check survey (see Table 3.14). The

highest and lowest students in each category were asked the five questions.

The researcher asked these questions to tackle the second research question,

which investigated relation between students’ perception about CEWT and

their English ability or creativity.

4.2.1 Interview with the Highest Student on the Creativity Self-Check Survey

The student who had the highest score on the creativity self-survey had

relatively good English score.

To the first question, which was about the most favorite task, he chose the

task 2. It was about making a title and connecting the features for an abstract

painting as a group work (see Appendix 3). He liked it the most with the two

reasons. One is that because he was able to share and compare different ideas

about the same painting with the group members. Another reason is that

because it was a new writing task he had not tried before. Unfamiliarity of the

task made him feel difficult and challenging to do the task at first, but as it

was a group task, he found it quite attractive to carry out in a group as he

states below.

“This task was quite challenging at first, but interesting to carry out. While doing the task, I

found it interesting and totally new to write this way. As a group work, it was less difficult to

43

do. Also I was happy to share other various opinions with my friends. It was interesting to find

that people think so different way on one painting.”

He chose task 1 for the least favorite task. Task 1 was to describe his favorite

teacher after visualizing an image related to his teacher (see Appendix A). The

reason was its being almost the same as the NEAT writing test form and the

topic was too commonly used in writing activity as is quoted below.

“The task was too easy and familiar to me. I wrote on this topic several times before.

It was not so much different from other writings except drawing an image and

explaining about it in the writing. But listening to what other students think about

their favorite teacher with images at the end was interesting.”

To the question about the characteristics of CEWT, he answered he liked

these tasks in that they made him think about various unusual ways. He also

mentioned that he enjoyed thinking about familiar objects or famous paintings

in different perspectives.

For the differentiation of this task compared to other writing activities,

he thought it good to focus on contents, not on the form. He said it would be

good to just write one’s own idea freely and straightly.

For the efficiency of the task in NEAT writing test, this interviewee

answered positively. He thought that writing as much and freely as possible

would be ultimately as efficient as writing to the given form.

(선생님 여기서는 다른 종류의 sources 를 활용해서 쓰는 것이 굉장히

강조됐는데 본문에는 빠졌네요. )

“Compared to other writing activities, this activity was more interesting to use other

materials from paintings, drawing or movie, not only the textbook or reading

material. Ultimately, writing as much as possible will be of great use in preparing for

44

NEAT writing test as well.”

This interviewee with high creativity on self check survey enjoyed unusual

ways to think about one thing with more challenging task than familiar one.

He also focused on contents more than the form and enjoyed free writing in

writing process. (As his creative score to be higher than other class members,

it is seemingly that he likes to do cognitively challenging tasks similarly to the

characteristics of creative persons (000, ). )참조로

4.2.2 Interview with the Lowest Student on the Creativity Self-Check Survey

The student who showed the lowest score on the self-survey of creativity had

English score above the average among the participants. His self-checked

score was 76, which means his creativity is within around 58% on the self-

check survey form. Also his English score on semi C-SAT was about 90 point,

which ranged within 11 percent among the entire group of the test-takers.

To the first question about the most favorite task, this interviewee said task

1 was the most favorite because it was the most familiar topic and he thought

of many ideas in this task. This task was about describing their favorite

teachers using a related image (see Appendix A).

On the other hand, for the second question about the least favorite task and

the reason, he chose task 6. This task was to adapt characters’ personality and

reorganize famous scenes from the movie ‘Shrek 3’ (see Appendix K). The

reason for choosing task 6 was that the storyline of the movie was already too

well-known to make any likely adaptation from it and furthermore, he didn’t

like to be forced to think of an idea as is stated below.

“I feel comfortable in doing the task to write about my favorite teacher. It was not as

difficult for me to come into an idea about what to write as doing other tasks with

45

changing painting or modifying scenes from a movie. However, I like the original

story of the movie Shrek 3 in task 6. I cannot imagine more interesting story than the

original. They were much demanding and hard to think of. I didn’t like to be forced to

think of an idea.”

For the third question about the characteristics of CEWT, the interviewee

said that he didn’t know how to handle the task at first. However, gradually he

got to have some fun doing the task and making new stories.

The interviewee responded positively at the differentiation of the task,

because this task focused on contents rather than the form or grammar. He

said that especially this kind of task would be more helpful to students in

advanced level in English.

For the efficiency of the task in NEAT writing, the student said it was

efficient and useful for NEAT writing, because it made students think more

liberally and prolifically. And this thinking would lead to fluent writing in

NEAT test as well.

“Though I felt a little awkward and uncomfortable at first, I got used to it a little

more. Writing this way without much care about grammatical elements, I think it will

be useful to prepare for NEAT writing test as well.”

From these answer, the researcher realized that it is important to develop

any task challengeable enough to give moderate confidence for the students

with lower creativity. These kinds of students feel more comfortable with

familiar and available task to accomplish, without being forced to think about

too challengeable topic at first. The researcher also learned that task topics for

less creative students are better not to start from already too much well-known

ones at first. These kinds of topics have less possibility to make adaptation

46

and increase affective anxiety of students too much. After students get used to

this kind of creativity enhancing tasks and thinking, they can be ready to

modify or reform this kind of famous task, too. This interviewee also liked to

write focusing on contents more than form like the first interviewee.

4.2.3 Interview with the Highest Student on Semi C-SAT

The student who had the highest semi C-SAT score seemed to have little

difficulty in undertaking the tasks. His score on creativity self-check survey

was 94, which went a little under the average score on creativity of 104 in the

group of the entire participants.

For the question about the most favorite task, he chose task 2 (as same as

Student A ?), because he found it addressable doing in a group. This task used

abstract paintings to activate students’ thinking (see Appendix C). Though he

thought this task was not easy, he found it most interesting and attractive to

write, because the form of the writing was the most challenging (? Like?) to

try.

“I thought writing an essay form was most interesting to do. It was challenging enough to

arouse my interest. While the other tasks made me describe or explain in simple ways, this

task required me to connect each part and features of the painting to organize a whole

paragraph. I think making a paragraph is more helpful in doing writing activities.”

For the question about the least favorite task, he checked task 1, which

made him describe his favorite teacher after visualizing as an image (see

Appendix A). It was because this topic was too much covered already in many

writing classes. He mentioned it was not so attractive to draw much attention

from him.

For the third question about the characteristics of CEWT, the

47

interviewee said that he liked free writing with various materials such as

famous paintings or movies. Compared to rote writing in classroom activity,

he preferred informally writing about a given topic. To him, writing does not

seem to be a big burden, rather a joy to express his own idea.

“I thought it was good to think in various ways and express in painting or drawing while

doing writing activity. Not focusing on the grammar was good for me. I felt more

comfortable and confident, while writing freely about my idea. It is better to write about any

given form or information. I want to freely write my idea.”

For the differentiation of the task, the interviewee pointed to free

writing in a considerable length would be helpful to increase English writing

ability, because it made learners do enough writing to develop their writing

skills. He preferred focusing on contents more than forms in writing as well

like the first and second interviewee with the highest and lowest score on

creativity.

For the efficiency of the task in NEAT writing, the student responded

positively because he thought that it was highly related with the NEAT writing

test types in many ways. To get accustomed to English writing would be the

most important thing to get prepared for NEAT.

“I think almost all the tasks are quite similar to the type of NEAT writing test. Most of

all, this task is good to provoke ideas to write about. It is better to come up to an idea

with drawing or seeing paintings. To prepare for NEAT writing test, we need many

ideas to write about.”

The interviewee with the highest score on the English test on semi C-SAT

48

liked more challenging topic to try his English ability. He also didn’t like too

simple or easy task. He seemed to evaluate his English ability and test his

writing through the tasks. He liked to write focusing on contents more than

form in writing process.

4.2.4 Interview with the Lowest Student on Semi C-SAT

The student who had the lowest semi C-SAT score was not so confident in

doing the task in class. He had never been in writing classes before. His score

on creativity self-check survey was 90, which was a little below the average

point of the entire group of the participants.

For the question about the most favorite task, he chose the first task. To

him, it was the most challengeable enough to write about. He thought it was

enough easy and familiar for him to write about.

For the question about the least favorite task, the interviewee chose the

task 2, which used abstract paintings to activate ideas for writing (see

Appendix C). Although it was processed as a group work, he felt a big burden

because he didn’t want to lagged behind and damage the other group

members. What is interesting is that this answer makes a contrast with that of

the interviewee with the highest student on semi C-SAT. While the student

with highest level in English ability liked this task because it was

challengeable, the lowest student felt a great burden to accomplish it because

it was too difficult for him.

For the third question about the characteristics of CEWT, the student

said that he liked free writing not focusing on grammar or linguistic form,

because he was not confident.

“I felt less confident in writing, so I don’t want to focus too much on grammar. With

this task, however, I was comfortable to do it with a less burden of English grammar.”

49

For the differentiation of the task, the interviewee pointed to the

difficulty to express his own idea in English. Although he can make sentences

by using given words and information, he cannot freely organize a paragraph,

which makes the greatest burden for him.

“I don’t know what to do when writing a paragraph. It is very different from writing

in Korean. Even after I think about an idea, it was little more difficult to organize it in

more systematic way.”

For the last question about the efficiency of the task in NEAT writing, the

interviewee preferred NEAT writing form to CEWT. The reason for his

decision was that though he admitted the relatedness and efficiency to some

degree, he preferred the traditional class to CEWT. Focusing on form made

the interviewee feel more safety and comfort.

“Although these tasks felt free and interesting to do, I feel less comfortable doing

only these in preparing for NEAT writing test. I think I need more grammatical things

to get prepared for it.”

This interviewee with the lowest level in English among the participants

felt a more burden on English language itself than the content of the task. He

found it more available and confident to do easier and familiar tasks to do.

Though he felt more comfortable in writing without too much focus on

grammatical elements, he wants to focus on linguistic form more than

contents during writing classes. For these kinds of students with low level in

English, too much burden of both task and language should be eliminated

50

when teachers develop tasks for writing class.

Chapter 5 Discussion

5.1 Research Question 1

The first research question purposed to find students’ perception of creativity

enhancing writing task (CEWT) tailored to the NEAT writing test. As is

shown in Chart 5.1, research indicated that students have positive perception

about CEWT in all of the four categories in general: its effectiveness, arousing

interest, provoking conception, and boosting confidence.

Chart 5.1 Average of Students’ Perception of CEWT (unit: percentage)

effec-tiveness


20

40

60

80

100

54.68 60 6658.68

45.32 40 3441.32 Positive

Negative

Among these categories, 66% of the students gave positive answer in the

category of provoking conception, while 34% of them said negatively. This

implies that CEWT has more strength in provoking ideas in writing, compared

51

to that in RW classes. Moreover, CEWT was perceived remarkably positive in

the category of arousing interest. 60% of the participants responded positively,

while 40% of them said the opposite.

On the other hand, in the category of effectiveness to prepare for NEAT

writing test and boosting confidence, the gap between the positive and

negative answers is not as noticeable as in the other two categories. In its

effectiveness, CEWT got 54.68% of positive answers, which means CEWT

needs to be modified to fit the NEAT writing test type. In the category of

boosting confidence, CEWT got 58.68% of positive answers. This indicates

that giving creative task makes students as confident as giving rote writing

task does to prepare for the NEAT writing test.

From the analysis of comparison among the 6 tasks conducted after

finishing all of the CEWT classes, the researcher found correlation among the

interest, difficulty, efficiency and confidence. Chart 5.2 below shows the

comparison result among the tasks.

Chart 5.2 Comparison among the Categories for the 6 CEWTs (unit: percentage)


102030405060

24 20

412

36

44

28

16 12 8

32

52

12

08

24

4

44

20

4 8

20

4

Interest Difficulty Efficiency Confidence

52

The analysis of comparison among the 6 tasks reveals that students

perceives the easiest task as the most effective and best one to increase

confidence. Task 1 got the most positive answer in efficiency and confidence

category. This task got the second most positive answer (24%) in the category

of interest as well.

This is similar to task 5, which had the most positive answer in interest and

the second most positive in efficiency and confidence. The task had the

similar form to that of NEAT writing test. Students felt this task was not

difficult (8%) and good to increase efficiency and confidence for NEAT

writing test.

From these two tasks, it was found that the more similar the task is to the

NEAT writing test type, the more efficient and confident the students

perceive. It implies that to make students prepared for NEAT writing test

teachers have to develop from comparatively easy task to give more

confidence and interest for writing classes in high school.

On the other hand, however, task 3 and task 6 got the least positive answer

in interest, efficiency and confidence. These two tasks were perceived

difficult (16%, 32% respectively). These tasks were relatively different from

those of NEAT writing test, which made students feel them difficult and least

efficient to practice for the test. It also implies that any writing task has to be

similar to the test type, in being developed as a class activity for the test.

What is remarkable is that task 2 had better response in interest and

confidence, while it was perceived as the second most difficult one. This is

contrasting with the perception about task 6 which was perceived the most

difficult and least interesting and lowering confidence. Task 2 was conducted

as a group work, while task 6 was done individually. Although this test type is

the most difficult one in the NEAT writing test (Oh. 2013), it can lower the

53

difficulty level through collaborative work in group. From this contrast, it can

be suggested that the more a task is, the more collaborative work is needed in

class activity.

Task 4, which used synthesizing and rearranging famous paintings like task

2, had relatively positive answer in interest, but negative in the category of

difficulty, efficiency and confidence.

5.2 Research Question 2

The second research question sought to investigate the relationship between

the perception of CEWT and English ability or creativity. This question was

investigated in-depth through the interviews with 4 students.

As is seen in Table 5.1 below, students who had the highest and lowest

score on the self-check creativity survey answered the opposite about task 1,

which is to write about their favorite teacher. While the highest creative

student likes this task least, the lowest creative one likes it most. The highest

creative student like the most challenging task, which needs much thought

and provokes various ideas in a group. He does not like too familiar task,

whereas the least creative student likes the familiarity because it was easy to

accomplish. The least creative student does not like thinking different way

about a well-known movie. Both students, however, perceive that CEWT was

effective to prepare for NEAT writing test. They like this task because of low

focus on grammatical elements. Considering their level in English ability,

higher proficient learners focus on writing contents more than the form as

Raimes (1983) pointed out.

Table 5.1 Comparison between the Most & Least Creative Student

the most creative student the least creative student

54

the mostfavorite task

Task 2It was interesting to compare others’ various opinions about the same painting

Task 1 It was most familiar and easiest to do.

the leastfavorite task

Task1 It was too familiar and easiest to challenge.

Task 6 It was a too well-known story to think about in different way.

feature of CEWT It was easy and interesting to think of. It was difficult at first, but making up a

story became interesting later.

difference from others

Focusing on the contents was good and effective in writing.

It made less burden not to focus in grammar, but on contents

efficiency for NEAT

It is very effective to make students think in many ways.

It is effective to generate an idea to write with.

The result of the interviews based on English ability is shown in Table

5.2 below. The students were chosen based on their C-SAT English score,

which indirectly measures high schoolers’ writing ability for now.

As is seen in the table, the student with the highest score easily

accepted the challenging task, while didn’t like the easiest one. He also liked

writing as freely and as much as possible and wanted to write more to get

prepared for the NEAT writing test. On the other hand, however, the student

with the lowest score on English did not like the most difficult and

challenging task. He preferred easy task to carry out and had some difficulty

writing his own idea. He wanted to express his idea more freely, but was

afraid of his English ability at the same time. As a result, he wanted to

practice more rote writing task in preparing for the NEAT writing test.

This result reveals that more proficient learners enjoy more challenging

task, whereas less proficient students feel more comfortable with easier task.

Then, teachers should develop creativity enhancing writing task, considering

students’ English ability as they do in developing other class activities.

Table 5.2 Comparison between the Highest & Lowest Student on English ability

the highest student on English the lowest student on English

55

the mostfavorite task

Task 2It was challenging but interesting to make a paragraph connecting features of a painting.

Task 1 It was the most familiar topic in daily life and easiest to write about.

the leastfavorite task

Task1 The topic was too frequently used in writing activity that the student got bored.

Task 2 It was too difficult to make up a title based on features of a painting.

feature of CEWT

It was interesting and less burdensome to write freely, focusing on the contents.

Focusing on the contents, not on grammar was good and comfortable. (이 부분은 low and high student 모두 같은 생각같은데 포함이 안됐음)

difference from others

Writing the length of a paragraph was better than writing a few sentences.

It was a burden not to write his own idea at his command.

efficiency for NEAT

It is very effective to write as freely and as possible to get prepared for NEAT writing test.

It can be effective but needs to be more similar to the form of NEAT writing test.

Chapter 6 Conclusion

6.1 Research Findings

This research investigated the perception of high school students about

creativity enhancing writing task (CEWT) developed to fit each writing type

of National English Ability Test (NEAT). There were two findings from this

research.

Above all, students perceived CEWT positive in its efficiency and

boosting confidence to get prepared for the NEAT writing test. Compared to

these two categories, more students showed positive answers in arousing

interest and provoking conception. Especially, 66 % of the students perceived

CEWT was suitable in making them conceive ideas for writing. Among the

six tasks, task 1 got the most positive response, which was the most familiar

and similar to the test type of NEAT writing test type. The more similar the

task is to that of NEAT writing test, the easier and more confident students felt

it. Even a CEWT is difficult, students saw it as more interesting and

confident, when accomplishing it in a group.

56

Secondly, students’ perception about CEWT had something to do with

their creativity or English ability. Students with lower score on self-check

survey on creativity or C-SAT English test preferred more familiar and similar

task to NEAT writing test type. Especially, the student with lowest score on

English test felt uncomfortable and uneasy to do CEWT, because he felt more

comfortable and safe to practice on the form, even though he didn’t like it. On

the other hand, students with higher level on creativity or English ability had

smaller burden on doing CEWT. Rather, they seemed to enjoy completing the

task, taking advantage of their ability. These students wanted more

challenging and longer writing task, focusing on the contents, not on the form.

6.2 Implication

Participants in this research found the CEWT helpful to get prepared for

NEAT writing test. Especially, CEWT was perceived better in arousing

interest and provoking ideas in writing. As writing is a process of expressing

and organizing one’s own idea, CEWT seems to encourage writers’ ideas in

more interesting and various ways. If students get familiar with CEWT in

usual writing classes, they will have more confidence and proficiency in

English writing. In the long run, CEWT will be more helpful in stimulating

students’ thinking than doing rote writing tasks just fit to NEAT writing test

form. However, for lower level students in creativity or English proficiency,

teachers need to develop more familiar and easier tasks to carry out at first.

Even students with low creativity perceived CEWT was efficient in preparing

for NEAT writing test, because it focused on the contents, not on the form.

57

6.3 Limitation

There are some limitations in this research to be more effectively investigated

in later further studies. First of all, this research was conducted with 25

students on advanced level. More participants with different language

proficiency level are needed to get more valid and general findings in further

studies. Second, the researcher conducted a self-check survey to measure the

participants’ creativity developed by previous researcher to fit to students’

cognitive level (Kim, 2002). Although there have been several attempts to

develop a creativity quotient of an individual, still measuring creativity is not

successfully developed. To find more clear relation between creativity and

perception of writing tasks, it is needed to employ more objective and

quantifying methods such as TTCT (Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) or

TCAM (Thinking Creativity in Action and Movement). Thirdly, the

participants did not know about NEAT writing test type before this research.

This might make them not easy to present exact opinion about the writing

tasks. With the participants more familiar with the NEAT writing test type,

further studies might have more reliable answers. Finally, the researcher had

interviews with only four students classified on their creativity or proficiency.

Considering the interview is a good way to get answers in-depth, more

interviewees are needed. Further studies with more interviewees or

descriptive answers on survey questions will guarantee more objective and

general answers.

58

References

Guilford, J. P.(1950). Statement in the inaugural address to the American Psychological Association, p.444

Guilford, J. P.(1976). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Perkins, D. N. (1988). Creativity and the quest for mechanism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120.

Kim, J. H. (2002). A Study on the Guidance Method to Integrated Reading and Writing for Extension of Creative Thought. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Jeonju University

Starko, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. New York: Routledge.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity, pp.125-147. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, pp.220-232.

Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness: new findings and old stereotypes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Runco, M. (1993). Creativity as an educational objective for disadvantaged.

59

Fairweather, E., & Cramon, B. (2010). Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum together. In R. A. Beghetto & James C. K (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the classroom (pp. 113-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148-153.

Mackinnon, d. W. (1978). In research of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.

Barron, F., & Welsh, G. S. (1952). Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style: Its measurement by a figure preference test. Journal of psychology, 33, 199-203.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). "Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language Learning." Applied Linguistics, 16:371-391

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). “Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning.” Applied Linguistics 16: 371-391, p. 372 f.

Venkatagiri, H. S. & Levis, J. M. (2009). "Phonological Awareness and Speech Comprehensibility: An Exploratory Study" Language Awareness. 16(4).

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1998), Sparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World's Most Creative People. Mariner Books

Crawford, R. P. The techniques of creative thinking; how to use your ideas to achieve success. New York: Hawthorn Books

Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

60

O'Malley, J. M, & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'Malley, J. M., & Valdez, P. L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Applied Linguistics, 10, 418-437.

Hedge, T. (1988). Writing: Resources books for teachers. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language(3rd). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

De Bono, E. (10970). Lateral thinking: creativity step by step. NY: Harper & Row. p. 300.

Ferris, D., & Hedgecock, J. C. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.

Tsai, C. (2004). Investigating the relationship between ESL writer's strategy use and their second language writing ability. Doctoral Dissertation. Columbia University.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of Discovering Meaning. Tesol Quarterly, 16( 2), 195~209

Schlichter, C., Palmer, W. R., & Palmer, R. (1993). Thinking smart: A primer of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press

Lee, J. Y. (2008). Teaching English writing for creativeness focused on highschool students. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Chongshin University.

Lee, O. H. (2011). A study of the practical use of English learning materialsto help improve students’ creativity in communicative language teaching

61

classrooms-based on comparison between general high schools and an international high school. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Sangmyung University.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: update to the social psychologyof creativity. Boulder, Co: Westview.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discoveryand invention. New York: HarperCollins.

Choi, I. S. (2011). Discovery of Creativity. Seoul: Sam & Parkers.

Ahn, E. O. (2013). Effects of Creative Thinking Enhancing Activitieson Underachievers in Technical High School. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Sookmyung Women’s University.

Suk, K.Y. (2011). Students’ perceptions about creativity involved Englishlessons. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Sookmyung Women’s University.

Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching writing skills (New ed.). London : Longman.

Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the language classroom. Oxford: oxford University Press.

Lee, J. E. (2005). A Study on L1 Use in L2 Writing Process of Korean University Sudents. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Ewha Women’s University.

Gass, S. M. (1997). The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3) p. 299–307.

Koh, D. H. (2013) A study of students’ and teachers’ perception on NEAT – level 2 & 3. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Sookmyung Women’s University.

Oh, Y. S. (2012). A Study on High School English Teachers' Perception and Preparation of National English Ability Test. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Inha University.

Jin, Y. G. (2012). An Analysis of Writing Tests of National English Ability Test - on the basis of communicative functions and language forms according otherevised7thcurriculum. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Korea University.

Jung, H. S. (2012). A comparison and analysis of the NEAT(National English

62

Ability Test) and the High School English textbooks : focusing on writing activities. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Kyunghee University.

Jung, S. H. (2012). A comparative analysis of the college scholastic ability practice test and the national English ability test. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Yonsei University.

Ban, Y. M. (2013). A study on high school teachers' perception and preparation for speaking test of National English Ability Test. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Hanyang University.

Moon, J. H. (2013). A study of the NEAT and english writing education in high schools. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Hanyang University.

Oh, H. N. (2013). A study on middle school students' perception of English writing and national English ability test. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Sookmyung Women’s University.

Bong, J. Y. (2012). A Study on the State of Middle School English Writing Education and the Awareness of Students and Teachers. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Chungang University.

Song, J. Y. (2006). An Analysis of Writing Activities of High school English Composition Textbooks. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Korea University.

Noh, S. M. (2006). A Study on English Teaching Methods Using English Poetry. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

http://www.neat.re.kr/loginSubMain.do?mainFrameUrl=/p

http://www.crezone.net

63

http://www.crezone.net/

http://www.neat.re.kr/loginSubMain.do?mainFrameUrl=/p

Appendices

Appendix A : Lesson Plan of CEWT 1

Topic 자신이 존경하는 선생님에 대해 묘사하고, 존경하는 이유를 설명할 수 있다.

Form 비유를 표현하는 As ~ , be like 등을 활용해 사람을 묘사하거나 설명할 수 있다.Aim 선생님과 관련된 이미지를 떠올리고, 이를 연결하여 글쓰기를 할 수 있다.

Process Learning

Intro-duction

Step 1. Suggesting related images with good teachers and Introducing the topic

-Look at the images of the things. They show one person in your life. Who can he or she be? How do you think these pictures symbolize teachers?

Step 2. Connecting with the topic-Your teachers guide and help you to be what you are now… Among many teachers for you, who is the

most unforgettable or respectable one? Then think of one image about him or her. You can have more images related with your own favorite teacher than these ones.

Develop-ment

Step 1. Direction

-Think of the best teacher you have had. Describe him or her in personality or appearance. Draw the image relate with your best teacher. Why do you think he or she was like that image? Connect your image with your teacher and explain what influences he or she had on your life.

64

What is the name of your favorite teacher?His/ Her name is Kim Jun-Ho.

What is he or she look like? (Draw the image related with your teacher.)He is like a tree.

Why do you think of that image related with him or her?As a tree gives everything that it has, my teacher gives everything that he has.

Describe the personality or appearance of your teacher.He was very generous and energetic in teaching. As a tree gives everything that it has, he was

dedicated to teaching and caring students. He was also kind enough to guide the studies and visions of each student after school.

Why do you respect him or her most?I respect him most because he is ready to help his students at every moment. He is like a tree for

me in my life.

Closing Step 2. Peer Evaluation and Presentation - Each student is going to pass their writing around in a group. Then the best work will be presented.

Appendix B: Student Work of CEWT 1

65

Appendix C: Lesson Plan of CEWT 2

Topic abstract painting

Form 1.to explain the previous sentence: ,which ~ 2. to express the similarity: be/ look like

Creativity listing and analogizing

Process Learning Activity

Intro-duction

Step 1. Expressing ideas about an abstract painting

Step 2. Making a title and explaining

Develop-ment

Step 1. Direction

Step 2. Making sentences in a group

<example of the first painting in introduction>[S1] Seeing the red circular shape in the painting, I think its title is "Heart." Its color and the shape looks like a man's heart.

[S2] What is the first feature that can be related with your title for the painting?The red part is surrounded with the black line.

What does the red part look like? It looks like blood vessels that flow throughout our body.

66

[S3] What is the second part that can be related with your title for the painting?The black line on the top right looks like a torch to brighten up our life.

Describe the second part in detail.The fire from the black line is burning bright, which means the strong life.

[S4] What is the third part related with your title for the painting?The tree means vitality, which gives life to other living things on the earth.

Describe the second part in detail.Though it has no leaves, it stands high to support other life.

-The last student will conclude the whole passage with the reason and each part.

So I think each part of this painting shows the heart, which is the center of our life.

Step 3. Organizing a paragraph with the right transition word

HeartSeeing the red circular shape in the painting, I think its title is "Heart." Its color and the shape looks like a man's heart. First, the red part is surrounded with the black line. It looks like blood vessels that flow throughout our body. Second, I think the black line on the right top looks like a torch to brighten up our life. The fire from the black line is burning bright, which means the strong life. Third, the tree means vitality, which gives life to other living things on the earth. Though it has no leaves, it stands high to support other life. So I think each part of this painting shows the heart, which is the center of our life.

Closing Step 1. Gallery Walk and Presentation -Post the writing on the wall and students get around to see other group’s work. One student gives a presentation in front of their writing.

Step 2. Peer Evaluation and Feedback-According to the given rubric, each group evaluates the work of other groups while they are presenting in front of the class. (worksheet)

67

Appendix D: Student Work of CEWT 2

68

Appendix E: Lesson Plan of CEWT 3

Topic Infer a given situation and make a story.

Form 1. express one’s emotion: I feel ~ , 2. feeling and result: I am ~ to V -

Creativity Empathizing and imagining

Process learning activity

Intro-duction

Step 1. Inferring people’s emotion

Step 2. Observing animals’ feeling and making a story

69

embarrassed

?

wonderful? doubtful? abashed?

DevelopStep 1. Direction

70

I feel lonely. I feel

excited.

I feel

jealous.

I feel

peaceful.

-ment -Choose one picture that is familiar with you in your daily life. How does it feel if it has life? Make a

sentence to express its feeling.

I feel comfortable/ tired/ dizzy/ excited/ busy …

Step 2. Imagining a situation and making up a possible story

I feel excited because I always take part in many adventures with my master. I go every-where with him to see and learn new things. Alongside, I can learn many new things that make me special. So I feel always thankful to my master. I am very lucky to have such a good master.

Step 3. Peer Evaluation and Presentation

-Students who choose the same object gather together and compare their stories related with the object.

Then students understand the different ways that people feel about the same object.

71

Appendix F: Student Work of CEWT 3

72

Appendix G: Lesson Plan of CEWT 4

Topic Rearranging figures in famous paintings and describing

Form 1. to describe a person’s action: be Ving ~

Aim Modifying and rearranging figures’ actions Process learning activities

Intro-duction

Step 1. Observing and describing figures in famous paintings-Have you ever seen these pictures? Would you please tell me what you know about these pictures?

Develop-ment

Step 1. Making a line drawing

Step 2. Reorganizing and making interaction between the figures

A man with bald hair is walking across a bridge. Suddenly another man appears who has his ear cut.

The wounded man is smoking through a pipe. The absent-minded man on the bridge is screaming loudly.

Closing Step 1. Peer evaluation and Presentation

73

-Share your work with your partner. Give a presentation with your line drawing at the front.

Appendix H: Student Work of CEWT 4

74

Appendix I: Lesson Plan of CEWT 5

Topic Imagining a situation for invitation and writing an invitation

Form 1. to invite: happy to invite to ~ , 2. To recommend: Why don’t you join ~ ?

Creativity Inviting between objects and writing an invitation

Process learning activities

Intro-duction

Step 1. Information on invitation

Step 2. Drawing familiar objects in daily life

Develop-ment

Step 1. Direction

- Choose two pictures randomly and write an invitation letter between the two objects.

Step 2. Writing

<example>

Hi, Mr. Tree! I’m happy to invite you to my trip. I have been searching a company to take a world trip for a

year and I think you’ll be a perfect friend for me because you are peaceful and restful all the time. Why don’t you

join me traveling around the world? You can join me on 0:00 am Jan. 1 st at my garage . My house is at #47

Hwanil Street, Jung-Gu, Seoul. I want you to have a good time visiting many wonderful places around the world!

It will be fantastic to be with each other. Please let me know if it’s possible until Nov. 15 th. Have a good day!

75

Closing Step 1. Peer Evaluation & Presentation

Appendix J: Student Work of CEWT 5

76

No Checklist Yes No1 Had a greeting part.2 Wrote a purpose for the letter. 3 Described time. 4 Described place.5 Described what to do together. 6 Had a closing part.

total

Appendix K: Lesson Plan of CEWT 6

Topic Adapt and changing famous movie story

Form 1. expressing situation: Ving ~, Ved ~(participle)

77

Creativity Attribute listing, adapting and modifying Process learning activities

Intro-duction

Step 1. Characters and story of a movie

Step 2. Setting a new characters-Now change the name, appearance and personality of these characters in your group. For example,

what would happen if Shrek is handsome but mean, and Fiona is ugly but warm-hearted? Or the vice

versa? Make your own character of Shrek and Fiona. Draw them and describe some features.

Develop-ment

Step 1. Direction

Step 2. Adapting and Completing a Story

Closing Step 1. Peer Evaluation and Presentation

- Each student is going to present their new story in a role-play. Each student takes the role of each

character and act. Choose the best story and action.

Step 2. Teacher’s Feedback

- Teacher gives feedback to the students on the contents.

Appendix L: Student Work of CEWT 6

78

Appendix M: Pre Survey on Self-examination of Creativity

영 역 내 용 5 4 3 2 1집중성 사물을 면밀하게 관찰한다

79

주변환경과 상관없이 자기 일에 몰두한다. 여러 일이 있을 때 한 가지 일에 몰두한다. 기초지식이나 원리를 잘 활용한다.

참신성

문제의 본질을 찾으려고 노력한다. 진실을 찾으려고 노력한다. 새로운 것에 관심이 많다. 실험하여 검증하려 노력한다. 직감력이 있다.

독자성

새로운 아이디어가 많다. 사물을 분석하는 능력이 있다. 자기가 발견한 것을 자신있게 말한다. 문제를 자기 방식으로 해결하려고 노력한다.부당한 행동에 저항한다.

민감성

새로운 상황을 접하면 흥미를 갖는다. 새로운 문제에 관심이 많다. 새로운 경험에 흥미를 갖는다. 새로운 사실에 예측을 한다.

적극성

매우 활동적이다. 아이디어를 찾으려고 노력한다. 새로운 가능성을 찾는다.남의 눈을 의식하지 않는다. 탐구적인 태도를 갖는다.

추리성

추리를 많이 해 본다. 추측하고 예측을 위해 노력한다. 상이한 아이디어를 조합한다. 예측 능력이 있다. 모순을 잘 찾아낸다.

Appendix N: Pre Survey on Students’ Perception on English Writing

No 내 용 5 4 3 2 1

1 평소 글쓰기에 관심이 있고, 좋아한다. (국어)

2 내 글에 대해 사람들이 좋은 반응을 보인다.

3 글을 쓸 때, 아이디어가 잘 떠오르는 편이다.

4 영어로 글쓰기에 관심이 있고, 재미있다고 생각한다.5 영어로 말하기보다 글쓰기를 더 잘하고 싶다.

80

6 영어쓰기를 꾸준히(일 주 이상) 해본 경험이 있다.

7 영어쓰기와 영어실력이 관계가 있다고 생각한다.

8 영어쓰기에 두려움이 별로 없다.


No 내 용 4 3 2 1

1 창의성 신장 프로그램이 neat 유형 익히기에

많이 도움됨 조금 도움됨 별로 도움안됨 전혀 도움안됨

2 창의성 신장 프로그램이 많은 흥미줌 조금 흥미줌 별로 흠미없게함전혀

흥미없게함

81

neat 쓰기에 대해

3창의성 신장 프로그램이 neat 쓰기를 하는 데 필요한 아이디어 구상에

많이 도움됨 조금 도움됨 별로 도움안됨 전혀 도움안됨

4 창의성 신장 프로그램이 neat 쓰기에 대해

많은 자신감줌

조금 자신감줌

별로 자신감없게함

전혀 자신감없게함

계


82

ABSTRACT IN KOREAN

[논문제목, 14p]

[저자명, 11p]

숙명여자대학교 테솔대학원 테솔전공

이 연구 논문은 …

83

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬주제어: 주제어 1, 주제어 2, …

84

kangnamjoon.weebly.comkangnamjoon.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/6/7/13673728/051… · web view... (co)...

Documents