Social-emotional classroom climate and academic achievement for Chinese elementary students: The roles of convergent and divergent thinking

Abstract

This study aims to explore the effects of the social-emotional classroom climate on academic achievement in mathematics and literature for elementary students in grades 3 through 6. The research specifically focuses on the indirect role of creative thinking (convergent and divergent thinking). Structural equation modeling techniques were used to examine data collected from 1365 Chinese elementary students. The results indicate that in mathematics and literature classrooms, (1) the social-emotional climate had a positive effect on school achievement, and (2) divergent and convergent thinking play indirect roles between social-emotional climate and academic achievement. The findings suggest that elementary students’ positive perception of social-emotional classroom climate, including the perceptions of teacher support and student cohesiveness, can promote divergent and convergent thinking and ultimately contribute to the output of academic achievement in mathematics and literature.

Keywords

social-emotional climate academic achievement convergent thinking divergent thinking indirect roles

Introduction

Over the past few decades, creative thinking has had a key impact on diverse fields such as science, technology, economics, and education (OECD, 2019). Creative thinking is a higher-order thinking skill that is critical in helping individuals succeed in school and later in their careers (Greenstein, 2012; Tan, 2000; Torrance, 1972). In China, innovation is considered as the driving force and source of a nation’s development, with innovation ability being an important part of quality education (Central Committee and State Council [CPC], 2020). Therefore, the cultivation of pupils’ creative thinking is an important topic for every primary school educator.

Furthermore, creativity is also an important factor affecting students’ academic achievement (Akpur, 2020; Yang & Zhao, 2021). Academic achievement refers to the degree to which students achieve their educational goals, and it is usually measured through ongoing assessments and achievement tests (Ward et al., 1996). Academic achievement can predict student development, serve as an indicator of student’s abilities, and aid in assessing educational excellence (Williams, 2007). Additionally, it plays a pivotal role in cultivating talents, forming national capital, and promoting social economy and progress (Jafari & Asgari, 2020). Mathematics and literature are compulsory courses for Chinese elementary students. Thus, the achievements of these two subjects can well reflect students’ academic levels.

Based on the Development Assets Model, successful development results from a continuous reciprocal interaction between an individual’s active internal assets and multiple supportive external assets (Sesma et al., 2005). Researchers have identified three main aspects that affect academic achievement: student characteristics (internal assets), teacher impact (external assets), and school properties (external assets) (Carter, 2009). Among these, teacher impact (e.g., teacher’s support, responsiveness, and warmth) and student characteristics (e.g., peer coaching, student cohesiveness, and communication) can facilitate the construction of a healthy social and emotional climate (de Kruif et al., 2000; Scanlon et al., 2020). However, how social-emotional climate affects academic achievement, and what the underlying mechanism is, deserve further study.

Social-emotional climate and academic achievement

Social and emotional interactions between teachers and students in a classroom create social-emotional climate (Reyes et al., 2012). Social constructivists believe that a student’s development in a school environment depends on the extent of the student’s opportunity to interact with teachers or collaborate with peers (Daniels & Shumow, 2003). For example, Piaget (1964), a constructivist, believed that teachers should design environments and interact with children to cultivate their ability to think inventively, creatively, and critically. Feuerstein et al. (1991) also posited that teachers’ role should not only be limited to providing tasks, but also to creating a better learning atmosphere for learners through their interaction—an environment that can motivate students to learn and that can make learning easier. Teacher-student support is an indispensable part of the classroom climate. Over the past decades, conceptualizations of classroom climate have focused on student–teacher interactions within classrooms and emphasized the multidimensionality of classroom climate (Danielson, 2011; Hamre et al., 2007; Klieme et al., 2009; Leff et al., 2011; Moos, 1978). For example, Jones et al. (2008) proposed that both classroom teaching practices and teacher-student relationships contribute to the quality of the classroom’s instructional and emotional climates, which in turn affect children’s outcomes. In 2009, Klieme and colleagues investigated the dimensions of instructional or classroom quality, emphasizing the role of cognitive activation, teacher support, and classroom management. Wang et al. (2020) summarized three basic classroom components associated with teacher-student interactions: instructional support, socioemotional support, and classroom organization and management.

The social-emotional climate is one of the most important contextual conditions that affect students’ learning outcomes (Anderson et al., 2004). The results of previous studies have revealed that a warm, friendly and considerate classroom environment and encouraging open interaction between teachers and students are considered to improve students’ sense of belonging and, in turn, impact the degree of their academic performance (Reeve, 2006; Ryan & Patrick, 2001). In classrooms, a positive social-emotional climate is critical in meeting the students’ needs for relatedness. In recent years, a large number of studies have supported a positive relationship between classroom emotional climate and children's academic performance, especially among primary school students (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Fast et al., 2010; Fauth et al., 2014). In primary schools, when the interaction between teachers and children is characterized as positive, students participate more in the learning process and obtain higher grades (Baker et al., 2008). For economically disadvantaged pupils, improving the teacher-student relationship improves the students’ performance in mathematics and reading (Elias & Haynes, 2008). In a longitudinal study, Rudasill et al. (2010) reported that classroom emotional support, which included dimensions of teacher-student relationships and student-student relationships, was associated with reading and mathematics achievement in third grade children. Ali and Siddiqui (2016) studied the effect of learning environment on students’ academic achievement at the secondary school level. They found that learning environment has a positive effect on students’ academic achievement, which was measured through regression analysis. Wang et al. (2020) used a meta-analytic approach to synthesize existing research, aiming to explore the relations between classroom climate and youth’s outcomes, as reported in 61 studies (679 effect sizes and 73,824 participants), and found that the overall classroom climate had small-to-medium positive associations with academic achievement.

Therefore, in the current study, students in more positive social-emotional climate were expected to experience greater academic achievement. In addition, this study also explored the possible mechanism between the two variables.

Indirect role of creative thinking

Creativity is defined as an individual’s ability to produce new, unique, and useful ideas or products (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Guilford (1975) proposed that creativity comprises two types of thinking abilities: convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Japardi et al. (2018, p. 59) describe divergent thinking as ‘the ability to disengage from prevailing modes of thoughts and expressions and generate novel ideas and solutions’ and convergent thinking as ‘the recruitment and interaction of different cognitive processes to find a common solution to a given problem.’ Similar descriptions of convergent and divergent thinking are proposed by many different researchers (e.g., Balka, 1974; Brophy, 2001; Cropley, 2006; Kwon et al., 2006). What all these definitions have in common is that divergent thinking is associated with variability while convergent thinking is linked to orthodoxy (Cropley, 2006). Based on previous definitions, this current study considers convergent thinking as an analysis process, in which information is organized in a unique and logical manner to produce a clear solution for a problem, while focusing on summary and integration. Divergent thinking, which is usually measured in terms of the task that produced the idea, is considered an important predictor of creative thinking (Runco & Acar, 2012).

The development assets model provides theoretical support for the mediating role of creative thinking (Steinmayr et al., 2017; Uka et al., 2021). It presents 40 developmental assets for teenagers, which involve 20 kinds of external assets and 20 kinds of internal assets (Benson et al., 2006). External assets represent the environmental characteristics that can promote healthy development of adolescents, also known as ecological assets, which mainly refer to adolescents’ positive development experience provided by adults through strengthening connections and providing opportunities (Benson, 2002). Social-emotional climate is a kind of external assets developed in classrooms. Further, internal assets represent adolescents’ value standards, competency characteristics, and skills that guide their behaviors (Benson, 2002). Creativity is acknowledged as an essential skill for contemporary children, and it is increasingly becoming important in education and for economic growth (Ros & Nicholl, 2013). Research showed that external assets (environmental resources) were positively related to teenagers’ behaviors, whereas internal assets (personal strengths) were positively associated to academic achievement (Uka et al., 2021). The development assets model connects the characteristics of ecological environment with individual skills (Benson et al., 2006). It not only focuses on the talents, abilities, and advantages of adolescents themselves, but also includes high-quality addition from the social environment, such as support and opportunities, and believes that the interaction between the two constitutes a solid foundation for a healthy development of adolescents.

In summary, the classroom climate, as an external environmental factor, can help with students’ creative thinking and then promote them to solve problems successfully and achieve excellent results.

The relationship between social-emotional climate and creative thinking

School assets should contain a comfortable and safe environment, emotional bonds with teachers and peers, the sense of belonging to the school, as well as the activities and programmes that provide opportunities for the development of socio-emotional competences (Cárcamo-Solís et al., 2017). Substantial research that provides evidence for the development assets model suggests that adolescents who enjoy a greater number of resources or assets present healthier and more positive development (Scales et al., 2000). This kind of school assets contribute greatly to the development of individual cognitive ability (e.g., thinking styles) (Lerner, 2002; Muuss, 1996). Therefore, the social and emotional climate in classrooms should affect individual creativity.

A meta-analysis found that high competition and low friction in a classroom climate, where teachers encouraged creative and reflexive thinking, is conducive to creativity. This classroom climate can improve students’ attitude of openness to new things (Ma, 2009). Han et al. (2013) comprehensively explored the influence of group structure and students’ ability level on fourth-grade students’ completion of creative tasks in situations of varying task difficulty. Results have revealed that students’ cohesiveness and interactive learning style can aid in developing their creative problem posing ability. In Chinese contexts, Cheng et al. (2019) surveyed 1500 Chinese children in grades 3－5 and selected 259 gifted children tested through TONI (Test of Nonverbal Intelligence). This study indicated that gifted children’s positive perception of school climate in literature class could promote their creative thinking. In addition, after investigating 512 students aged 11 to 14, perceived teacher support was verified to positively predict convergent thinking and insight thinking (Sun et al., 2021). Communication and cooperation between students was conducive to the development of students’ creative thinking (Qiao et al., 2017). Based on the empirical evidence gathered, it can be proposed that a positive social-emotional climate may promote creative thinking.

The relationship between creative thinking and academic achievement

Numerous studies on the relationship between creative thinking and academic achievement have obtained various results. Some studies have reported positive correlations (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013; Nuha et al., 2018; Rahardjanto & Fauzi, 2019; Sen & Hagtvet, 1993; Vijetha & Jangaiah, 2010). Marcos et al. (2020) found a moderate positive correlation between creative thinking and academic achievement among fifth-grade students in southern Spain. Wang’s research also supported that the development of creative thinking ability is conducive to improving students’ academic performance in mathematics and literature (Wang, 2004). These results indicated that a higher creative thinking ability contributes to the mastery of subject knowledge.

From a mathematics perspective, studies have shown that primary school mathematics classes are abstract, logical, and widely used, and that mathematics scores are mainly related to mental fluency (Tatag, 2011). When solving and posing mathematical problems, students often use divergent thinking, which is focused on flexibility, fluency, and uniqueness (Haylock, 1997; Krutetskii, 1976; Silver, 1997). Wallace and Russ (2015) found a significant relationship between divergent thinking and mathematics achievement among 31 girls in grades 4 through 8. In addition, children who were better at divergent thinking skills scored higher on the mathematics calculations and concepts/applications tests four years later. Taking Chinese students as participants, Liu et al. (2015) found that students who were higher achievers in mathematics used creative and critical thinking such as high-level cognitive processes more intensively compared to lower achieving students.

Furthermore, studies have shown that creative thinking and literature performance are positively related. Specifically, Marcos et al. (2020) found that reading and writing performance could be enhanced by divergent thinking through cooperative learning in school-age children. Based on 800 middle school students, researchers have found that the relationship between creative thinking and Chinese achievement is positively correlated (Wo et al., 2007; Zheng & Xiao, 1983). In addition, convergent thinking positively affects the literature scores of high school students (Nezhad & Shokrpour, 2013).

Other studies have found little or no correlation between creative thinking and academic achievement (Bentley, 1966; Edwards & Tyler, 1965; Naderi et al., 2009). A study carried out by Gajda (2016) examined 1106 students from different educational stages and found that creative thinking and academic performance are highly correlated at earlier ages (primary school), and this relationship gradually decreases with age. Arya and Prasad (2016) found no significant association between creativity and academic achievement among children from 12 to 16. Notably, some of these uncorrelated or weakly correlated results are from studies conducted in middle schools or universities.

Previous research has primarily considered the relationship between divergent thinking, environment, and performance; however, less attention has been afforded to convergent thinking. In addition, most studies have focused on the relationship between creativity and mathematics performance, rather than literature performance. Lastly, few studies have explored the relationship between environment, creative thinking, and performance in one study. Accordingly, the present study examined the indirect role of creative thinking between social-emotional climate and academic achievement.

The present study

Since the reform of the China National College Entrance Examination in 2017, the Ministry of Education introduced tests for creativity and innovation, which means that creative thinking will play a greater role in screening throughout China's education system. Elementary school students in China spend most of their time in school, and their social contact with teachers and classmates is only less than that with their parents. Further, Chinese elementary school students are usually arranged in fixed classes; therefore, they live and study with the same teachers and classmates for five to six years. Moreover, while previous studies focused more on grades, front-line teachers now recognize the important role of cognition through continuous improvement of teaching methods and practices, and have begun to promote classroom reforms and pay more attention to the development of students’ cognitive abilities. The teacher-student and student-student relationships have become the two main interpersonal relations in this development (Downer et al., 2010; Fraser & Fisher, 1986; Loukas et al., 2010).

Therefore, the current study extends the previous research to examine whether convergent and divergent thinking mediate the relationship between social-emotional climate and academic achievement. The following hypotheses were tested: in both mathematics and literature classrooms, (a) social-emotional climate has a positive effect on academic achievement, and (b) divergent and convergent thinking, as two basic types of creative thinking (Guilford, 1975), are two indirect factors between social-emotional climate and academic achievement. In the conceptual model, the social-emotional climate, as an exogenous variable, directly affects students’ academic achievement as an intrinsic variable. Additionally, convergent and divergent thinking play indirect roles (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The conceptual model of convergent thinking and divergent thinking in the links between social-emotional climate and mathematics achievement (panel A) and literature achievement (panel B).

Methods

Participants

The participants were recruited from a typical public elementary school located in Yaan, a moderate developing southern China city in Sichuan province. The participants comprised 1500 Chinese elementary school students between 8 and 12 years old (M_age = 10.81, SD = 0.98) enrolled in grades three to six, from 11 classes in total. One hundred and thirty-five questionnaires were excluded, as more than a third of the items were left unanswered. Thus, the study included 1365 Chinese elementary students, of which 680 (49.8%) were females and 685 (50.2%) were males. Among these students, 30.0% were third-graders (N = 410), 27.3% were fourth-graders (N = 373), 28.6% were fifth-graders (N = 391), and 14.0% were sixth-graders (N = 191).

Procedures

Prior to its commencement, this study’s protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Renmin University of China. Permission for the study was obtained from the school principal and teachers. The test was conducted in May 2018. Trained graduate students studying Education served as the primary researchers, provided verbal instructions, and answered possible questions from participants in the test. The students’ head teachers assisted researchers to organize the students and implement the test during the research. All involved students filled in an informed consent form to voluntarily participate; they were assured of confidentiality and assured that they could withdraw from participating at any time. The paper-based survey was completed by the participants within a prescribed timeframe. At the end of the survey, students were thanked for their participation and offered small tokens of appreciation.

Measures

Social-emotional classroom climate

This study selected two subscales (Teacher Support and Student Cohesiveness) of the creative classroom atmosphere scale (Cheng et al., 2019) to measure the social-emotional climate in literature and mathematics classrooms. ‘Student cohesiveness’ refers to the perception of help and trust between peers and includes seven items (e.g., ‘Classmates are my friends’), and ‘teacher support’ refers to the perception of teacher’s help and support and includes six items (e.g., ‘The teacher will consider how I feel in class’). Participants rated these items on five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agreed). Thereafter, social-emotional classroom climate was as an observed variable with the dimensions of teacher support and student cohesiveness. To improve the reliability and normality of the resulting measures, parceling method was applied to integrate these two variables as the indicators of the same latent variable (Lawrence & Dorans, 1987; Mahart, 1996; Marsh, 1994; Nasser & Takahashi, 2003). In this study, Cronbach's α was 0.88 in both classrooms. Further, confirmatory factor analytic results demonstrated that the double-factor model fit the data satisfactorily: for math classroom climate, χ² = 204.62, p < 0.01; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.99; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.99; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.02. For literature classroom climate, χ² = 168.80, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.98; and RMSEA = 0.03.

Creative thinking

This study adopted and revised Barbot et al. (2011) Evaluation of Potential for Creativity (EPOC) to measure students’ creative thinking. EPOC measures both sets of micro-processes (divergent and convergent) in diverse domains of expression. The study measured four aspects: (1) divergent verbal (the participants were told the beginning of a story, and they were required to imagine and write as many possible endings of the story as they could), (2) divergent graphics (the participants were given an abstract or concrete graphic, and they were required to paint-draw as many pictures as they could, based on the provided images), (3) convergent verbal (the participants were given related elements, and they were required to write original stories based on these), and (4) convergent graphics (the participants were given eight abstract or concrete graphics, and they were required to select at least four of them to create complete pictures). The divergent thinking score was based on the quantities of effective answers. The convergent thinking score was assessed by Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1982), ranging from 1 = the lowest level of creativity to 5 = the highest level of creativity. Three Chinese graduate students who conducted creativity research for at least one year served as expert judges to evaluate all students’ creativity on these tasks. The Cohen’s Kappa inter-rater reliability scores were more than 0.9. In the present study, divergent verbal and divergent graphics, as well as convergent verbal and convergent graphics were presented as 4 observed variables separately for the latent variables of divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Confirmatory factor analytic results indicated that, the single-factor model fit the data acceptably for creative thinking: χ² = 0.98, p > 0.05, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, NFI = 0.99, and RMSEA = 0.00.

Academic achievement

Academic achievement was measured by the average score obtained in mathematics and literature courses. The midterm and final exam scores for both courses were obtained through the teacher; thereafter, students’ literature and mathematics scores were converted into standard z-scores separately. To ensure the stability of a score, both literature and mathematics scores were based on the average of midterm and final scores.

Data analysis

All statistical analyzes were conducted using SPSS version 21.0 and AMOS version 24.0. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized models; the Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) 24.0 software package was used for data analysis.

To check for non-normality, skewness and kurtosis were evaluated for each variable (West et al., 1995). Based on the two-step SEM approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), the measurement model for the four latent constructs (i.e., Social emotional climate, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and academic achievement) for both math and literature was examined before further testing. Model fitness and regression coefficients were also examined. An acceptable model fit was indicated by Chi-square value χ² , a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.08, a comparative fit index(CFI) ≥ 0.90 (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Bandalos, 2002; Hau & Marsh, 2004; Thompson & Melancon, 1996), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) ≥ 0.90, and an adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) ≥ 0.80 (MacCallum & Hong, 1997).

We included gender in the models as control variables. Parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood method. Bootstrap analysis was conducted to test the significance of direct, indirect, and total effects in the hypothesized model.

Results

Common method bias test

The influence of common methods variance has become a major concern in survey-based research (Podsakoff et al., 2003), particularly for research involving self-reported measures (Spector, 2006). In this study, because the survey on student’s perception on social-environment climate is subjective, Harman’s single-factor test was used to examine the potential common method bias of this self-reported scale. Harman’s single-factor test assumed that common method bias exists if a single general factor explains the variation of most variables in factor analysis. Through exploratory factor analysis, the results revealed that the characteristic roots of the 16 factors were greater than 1, and the variance explained by the first factor was only 23.72%, which was lower than the critical value of 40% (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Therefore, this study has no serious common method bias.

Preliminary analyses

Before examining the hypothesized structural model, some preliminary analyzes of variables in this study were conducted. Table 1 reveals the mean, standard deviation, and correlation matrix for each variable. Significant correlations were found among the study variables. For both literary and mathematics classrooms, social-emotional climate was positively correlated with convergent verbal, divergent graphics, divergent verbal, and school achievement; convergent graphics, convergent verbal, divergent graphics, divergent verbal were positively correlated with academic achievement. Therefore, the variables in this study were significantly correlated, in concordance with the hypothesized structural model.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.

Variable	n	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. SEC(L)	1365	23.455	5.066	—
2. Student Cohesiveness(L)	1365	25.091	5.897	.878***	—
3. Teacher Support(L)	1365	21.820	5.700	.869***	.527***	—
4. School achievement(L)	1365	86.171	9.750	.228***	.224***	.173***	—
5. SEC(M)	1365	23.066	5.138	.755***	.702***	.616***	.220***	—
6. Student Cohesiveness(M)	1365	24.770	5.948	.725***	.828***	.432***	.207***	.867***	—
7. Teacher Support(M)	1365	21.362	5.916	.582***	.386***	.636***	.174***	.865***	.501***	—
8. School achievement(M)	1365	85.019	14.945	.158***	.177***	.097**	.667***	.207***	.186***	.173***	—
9. Convergent graphics	1365	3.293	0.855	0.045	0.029	0.049	.144***	0.026	0.019	0.026	.156***	—
10. Convergent verbal	1365	3.184	1.078	.099***	.101***	.071**	.275***	.071**	.066*	.057*	.240***	.342***	—
11. Divergent graphics	1365	8.652	4.686	.095***	.140***	0.025	.154***	.119***	.140***	.065*	.122***	.095***	.118***	—
12. Divergent verbal	1365	7.897	3.732	.178***	.197***	.114***	.221***	.142***	.155***	.091**	.175***	.185***	.311***	.361***	—
Gender	1365			0.021	0.035	0.002	.174***	0.005	0.009	−0.001	0.020	.070**	.161***	.057*	0.015
Grade	1365			.165***	.137***	.151***	0.000	0.010	0.024	−0.007	0.000	.056*	.219***	0.035	.279***

Note. Abbreviations: SEC = social-emotional climate; M = mathematics; L = literature.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Testing the hypothesized structural model

Once an adequate measurement model of the social-emotional climate was established, the hypothesized structural model was examined. In the structural model, social-emotional climate, convergent thinking, and divergent thinking were latent constructs. Figures 1 and 2 present the hypothesized structural models, which yielded good fit to the sample data (literature: χ²/df = 2.519, GFI = 0.973, NFI = 0.931, CFI = 0.957, RMSEA = 0.033; math: χ²/df = 2.971, GFI = 0.969, NFI = 0.923, CFI = 0.948, RMSEA = 0.038). Given the good fit of the structural model, these models were then used for interpretations.

Figure 2.

Final model for mathematics classrooms. Note. The path analysis shows associations between Social emotional climate and mathematics achievement, controlling for gender, mediated by convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Coefficients presented are standardized linear regression coefficients.

The relationships among social-emotional climate, creative thinking, and academic achievement were examined by testing the mediating models. Whether in mathematics or literature classrooms, mediation hypotheses were tested on the pathways from social-emotional climate to academic achievement through convergent and divergent thinking. The paths from social-emotional climate to creative thinking and from creative thinking to academic achievement should be significant to confirm this indirect effect.

As shown in Figure 2, for the mathematics classrooms, all paths in the structural model were significant. Specifically, social-emotional climate had significant, direct positive relations with academic achievement. The paths from social-emotional climate to divergent and convergent thinking, as well as the paths from divergent thinking to academic achievement and convergent thinking to academic achievement, were significant and positive. Considering the mediators, the structural path from social-emotional climate to academic achievement was still positive and significant.

Bootstrapping procedures were used to test the significance of the indirect effects of convergent and divergent thinking. The bootstrapping method considers original data as a reference and randomly creates multiple samples to estimate the indirect associations for each bootstrap sample. Confidence intervals for the indirect associations can be generated from the bootstrap distributions. If the confidence interval excludes 0, the indirect association is statistically significant (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In this study, bootstrapping with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was utilized. Five thousand bootstrapping samples were generated from the original data set (N = 1365) by random sampling. Table 2 shows the results of the bootstrap analyzes: the indirect association of social-emotional climate in mathematics classrooms bonding with mathematics achievement through convergent and divergent thinking, as well as the indirect effect of creative thinking between literature social-emotional classroom climate and literature achievement were statistically significant.

Table 2.

Bootstrap analysis of indirect associations.

Path	Estimate	95% CI
Path	Estimate	LL	UL
SEC(M)→convergent thinking→mathematics achievement	0.029	0.011	0.058
SEC(M)→divergent thinking→mathematics achievement	0.050	0.028	0.079
SEC(L)→convergent thinking→literature achievement	0.032	0.007	0.069
SEC(L)→divergent thinking→literature achievement	0.043	0.021	0.071

Note. Total N = 1365. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Abbreviations: SEC = social-emotional climate; M = mathematics; L = literature.

As shown in Figure 3, for literature classrooms, all structural paths in the structural model were significant. The social-emotional climate had a significant, direct positive relationship with academic achievement. The paths from social-emotional climate to divergent and convergent thinking, as well as the path from divergent thinking to academic achievement, and the path from convergent thinking to academic achievement were significant and positive. Considering the mediators, the structural path from social-emotional climate to academic achievement was positive and significant. Bootstrapping was used (with a sample of 5000) to estimate the indirect effects of social-emotional climate and academic achievement through creative thinking. The results indicate that indirect relations through divergent and convergent thinking were significant, because zero was not in the 95% confidence intervals. The two mediating effects had no significant differences (p > .05). Thus, both divergent and convergent thinking mediate the relationship between the social-emotional climate and academic achievement in literature classrooms.

Figure 3.

Final model for literature classrooms. Note. The path analysis shows associations between Social emotional climate and literature achievement, controlling for gender, mediated by convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Coefficients presented are standardized linear regression coefficients.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the effects of the social-emotional classroom climate on academic achievement in mathematics and literature for elementary students in grades 3 through 6. Structural Equation Modeling techniques were used to examine the data collected from 1365 Chinese elementary students. Final models for both mathematics and literature classrooms were supported. The results indicated that social-emotional climate and creative thinking had significant positive effects on academic achievement (in literature and mathematics), and an indirect effect of creative thinking was found in the association between social-emotional climate and academic achievement (in literature and mathematics) for the aforementioned elementary school students. Thus, students’ perception of positive social-emotional climate is related to improved creative thinking, which is related to better grades. Therefore, this study may provide reference for educators and schools to improve teaching quality.

Social-emotional climate and academic achievement

Consistent with hypothesis 1, the social-emotional climate had a positive effect on academic achievement for Chinese elementary students in grades 3 through 6. Developmental Contextualism emphasizes the important role of situations in individual development (Zhang & Chen, 2009). The current study focused on the social-emotional climate that may affect students’ academic development. In line with previous findings (Chionh & Fraser, 2009; Liu et al., 2015), the results indicate that students who reported perceiving more positive social-emotional classroom climate had better academic achievement. When students are in a positive climate that is highly related to achievement, they are encouraged to participate in peer discussions and their autonomy needs are met; this is conducive to improvement in academic achievements (Wang et al., 2020). This finding also supports a social construction perspective, which reflects the effect of interactions on student development. Students’ perception of being in classes in which teachers paid attention to their feelings, had a caring attitude toward them, and demonstrated a united and friendly relationship with students had a strong relationship with excellent academic achievement. Second only to family, classroom microsystems greatly affect students (Bronfenbrenner, 1979); therefore, this finding has important implications in the education field.

The indirect roles of divergent thinking

Our study suggests that social-emotional climate not only affects students’ academic performance directly, but also their academic performance through the indirect role of divergent thinking. School provides a rich environment for interactive experiences and expressive possibilities, which may be the best conditions for promoting creative thinking (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014). This argument is supported by Amabile’s (1996) belief that school support can stimulate students’ motivation for thinking actively and participating in group discussions, which improves creative thinking.

The extant work showed that the more developmental assets young people experience, the better off they tend to be across a range of academic, psychological, social-emotional, and behavioral indicators of well-being (Benson et al., 2011).This study answered the question regarding what kind of classroom climate was conducive to the development of pupils’ creative thinking. When teachers support students’ innovative ideas and encourage them to examine multiple perspectives, the level of students’ creativity may increase. Moreover, group discussion can produce a high level of cognitive conflict, thus stimulating students’ positive thinking and producing a high level of thinking interaction (Sylvia, 2009). In a classroom environment with these characteristics, students will show a higher level of divergent thinking. In addition, a higher cohesion of willingness to cooperate in a group can encourage a positive emotional state and form an open environment, which has a significant impact on the improvement of divergent thinking.

Furthermore, divergent thinking and academic tasks may have something in common, such as nonverbal, fluid reasoning, or processing speed (Wallace & Russ, 2015). For example, mathematics and divergent thinking may both entail advanced reasoning and thinking processes ‘outside the box.’ This idea was supported in a recent study demonstrating that one’s divergent thinking ability was particularly associated with fluid intelligence, which is quite necessary in mathematical thinking (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011). Divergent thinking also emphasizes the specificity of thinking; therefore, enhanced divergent thinking can stimulate the imagination of individuals. When children’s divergent thinking gradually matures and they learn to consider multiple aspects of a problem, they become willing to seek multiple answers to questions, especially in literature reading and writing (Marcos et al., 2020). Therefore, more outstanding literature performance is related to an increase in divergent thinking.

The indirect roles of convergent thinking

Similar to divergent thinking, convergent thinking can also play an indirect role in the association between social-emotional climate and academic performance. First, previous studies have shown that students can generate more positive patterns of dialog and emotional communication when they participate in collaborative learning. This can stimulate their spontaneity and variety, and help to cultivate convergent thinking (Gillies, 2014). Vygotsky pointed out that the development of convergent thinking could be understood as a type of scaffolding; it is a type of interactional support, often in the form of cooperative dialog (Vygotsky, 1967). Thus, when teachers promote a positive social-emotional climate, students will show more convergent thinking.

In addition, this study indicated that convergent thinking has a significant association with literature and mathematics performance, which is consistent with existing research (Joshua, 2014). On the one hand, convergent thinking helps to build a clear problem-solving framework in solving mathematical problems, which allows students to solve math problems quickly and well (Tabach & Levenson, 2018). On the other hand, through convergent thinking, students can integrate and construct the existing background knowledge and choose the best and most accurate answer through appropriate logical reasoning (Nezhad & Shokrpour, 2013). This may also lead to the good performance in the literature. The development of convergent thinking could be linked to problem-solving skills, insight, and logical reasoning, which in turn contribute to the improvement of students’ academic performance.

Conclusion

Limitations and future research

There are some limitations in this research. First, the cross-sectional nature of this study limits our ability to determine cause and effect. It could be, for example, that students who perform better academically have better recollections of their classroom climate. In the future, researchers can adopt a longitudinal or quasi-experimental design to understand the contributions of each of these processes better. For example, we could examine the development and changing of students’ academic achievement and creativity over time under different social-emotional classroom climates. Second, for convenience of sampling, the current research only included elementary students in one city in China. Future research can use samples from various areas to promote the representativeness of samples. Third, the mediating role of creative thinking has been demonstrated in our study; however, other mediators or moderators must be identified and tested so that the powerful relationship between social-emotional climate and academic achievement can be further developed. In the future, researchers could strengthen the current analysis by incorporating additional variables, such as personality characteristics and learning motivation (Chionh & Fraser, 2009; Jafari & Asgari, 2020).

Implications

Our study’s results have several important implications for teachers and school psychologists. On the one hand, the current study suggests that the perception of the social-emotional climate has a positive effect on students’ academic achievement in both mathematics and literature classes. To shape an inclusive and caring social-emotional climate, teachers should fully utilize the face-to-face opportunities between teachers and students in classrooms for positive socialized interactions. Specific measures that can be taken include strengthening communication with students, responding timely and positively to students’ needs, organizing lively and interesting group discussion, promoting harmonious relationships between students, and so on. For example, ‘Flipped Classroom,’ characterized by student-centered active learning and cooperative learning, may become the teaching mode worthy of reference for teachers (Zhang et al., 2017). In this way, children are more likely to get largely better classroom experiences and keep pace with their teachers, thus strive for and achieve success.

On the other hand, the present study proposed the indirect role of creative thinking in the association between social-emotional climate and academic achievement. When teachers are supportive of students’ knowledge and emotional needs throughout their classes, and the students feel that they are helping and caring for each other, students may excel in both creativity and academic achievement. In this sense, teachers are expected to give students a platform on which they can innovate boldly and put forward their own ideas. Specially, teachers should focus on cultivating creative thinking in classes, such as advocating project-based learning, to ensure the exertion of students’ subjective initiative and creativity (Liu, 2010; Ummah et al., 2019), encouraging students to solve problems from multiple perspectives by assigning open-ended tasks (Bennevall, 2016; Bingölbali & Bingölbali, 2020; Kwon et al., 2006), and guiding students to summarize and integrate knowledge. If teachers adopt the above strategies, students’ creative thinking may be improved, which can further promote their academic achievement.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University under a Grant from the International Joint Research Project, (grant number ICER201904)

Ethics approval

The Ethics Committee review has been approved. (See figure below)

Ethics Committee Name: Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China

Approval number: 20-032

ORCID iDs

Li Cheng

Junqi Lin

Yan Dong

Xiaowei Zhang

Author biographies

Li Cheng is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at the Beijing Normal University and a director of Educational and Developmental Research Center of Children’s Creativity in the Beijing Normal University. Her research interests are: psychology and education of gifted and talented children, evaluation and cultivation of children's creativity.

Xiaowei Zhang is a postgraduate student in the Faculty of Education at the Beijing Normal University. Now she is working at the Third Kindergarten of Chinese Academy of Science.

Junqi Lin is a graduate in the Department of Psychology at the Renmin University of China.

Yan Dong is a Professor of Social Psychology at the Renmin University of China. Her research interests are: children’s social development, academic emotional, interaction between parenting styles and temperament type, and the effect of emotion on trust in social Cognition and its mechanism.

Jiatong Zhang is a graduate in the Faculty of Education at the Beijing Normal University.

Zhuo Tong is a graduate in the Department of Psychology at the Renmin University of China.

References

Akpur

(2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683

Ali

Siddiqui

M. R.

(2016). School climate: Learning environment as a predictor of student’s academic achievement. Journal of Research & Reflections in Education (JRRE), 10(1), 104–115. https://gfgxya1356eab492549ecsnk0unx0cbcxv6x5k.fiyi.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/login.aspx?direct=true&db=obo&AN=118197724&lang=zh-cn&site=eds-live

Amabile

T. M

. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.

Anderson

Hamilton

R. J.

Hattie

(2004). Classroom climate and motivated behaviour in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-004-3292-9

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Arya

Prasad

(2016). Relationship between creativity, intelligence and academic achievement among school going children. Studies on Home and Community Science, 10, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737189.2016.11885359

Bagozzi

R. P.

Edwards

J. R.

(1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100104

Baker

J. A.

Grant

Morlock

(2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3

10.

Balka

D. S.

(1974). Creative ability in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 21(7), 633–636. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.21.7.0633

11.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5

12.

Barbot

Besanon

Lubart

T. I.

(2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. Open Education Journal, 4(2), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874920801104010058

13.

Beghetto

Kaufman

(2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

14.

Bennevall

(2016). Cultivating creativity in the mathematics classroom using open-ended tasks: A systematic review. http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:909145/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

15.

Benson

P. L.

(2002). Adolescent development in social and community context: A program of research. New Directions for Youth Development, 2002(95), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.19

16.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Hamilton

S. F.

Sesma

Jr. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In Lerner

R. M.

(Ed.), Editors-in-chief: W. Damon & R. M. Lerner. Theoretical models of human development. Volume 1 of handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 894–941). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0116

17.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. In Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Benson

J. B.

(Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 125–228). Elsevier.

18.

Bentley

J. C.

(1966). Creativity and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 59, 269–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1966.10883353

19.

Bingölbali

(2020). Divergent thinking and convergent thinking: Are they promoted in mathematics textbooks? International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(1), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.689555

20.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6

21.

Brophy

D. R.

(2001). Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_20

22.

Cárcamo-Solís, M. de L., Arroyo-López, M. del P., Alvarez-Castañón, L. del C., & García-López, E. (2017). Developing entrepreneurship in primary schools. The Mexican experience of “My first enterprise: Entrepreneurship by playing.” Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.013

23.

Carter

(2009). Review of visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(7), 867–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-011-9198-8

24.

Cheng

Zhang

X. W.

Zhang

Wang

Y. M.

(2019). The effect of creative classroom atmosphere on literary achievement of gifted children in grades 3-5--the mediating role of creative thinking. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 12, 33–39. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZDTJ.0.2019-12-006

25.

Chionh

Fraser

(2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040802591530

26.

CPC Central Committee and State Council (2020). The overall plan for deepening educational evaluation reform in the new era.

27.

Cropley

(2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13

28.

Daniels

Shumow

(2003). Child development and classroom teaching: A review of the literature and implications for educating teachers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(02)00139-9

29.

Danielson

(2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. The Danielson Group.

30.

de Kruif

R. E. L.

McWilliam

R. A.

Ridley

S. M.

Wakely

M. B.

(2000). Classification of teachers’ interaction behaviors in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00051-X

31.

Dotterer

A. M.

Lowe

(2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5

32.

Downer

Sabol

T. J.

Hamre

(2010). Teacher-child interaction in the classroom: Toward a theory of within- and cross-domain links to children’s developmental outcomes. Early Education & Development, 21, 699–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.497453

33.

Edwards

M. P.

Tyler

L. E.

(1965). Intelligence, creativity, and achievement in a nonselective public junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(2), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021899

34.

Elias

M. J.

Haynes

N. M.

(2008). Social competence, social support, and academic achievement in minority, low-income, urban elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 474–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.474

35.

Fast

L. A.

Lewis

J. L.

Bryant

M. J.

Bocian

K. A.

Cardullo

R. A.

Rettig

Hammond

K. A.

(2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0018863

36.

Fauth

Decristan

Rieser

Klieme

Buttner

(2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018863

37.

Feuerstein

Klein

P. S.

Tannenbaum

A. J

. (Eds.). (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications (pp. 3–51). Freund Publishing House Ltd.

38.

Fraser

B. J.

Fisher

D. J.

(1986). Using short forms of classroom climate instruments to assess and improve classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230503

39.

Gajda

(2016). The relationship between school achievement and creativity at different educational stages. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.12.004

40.

Gillies

R. M.

(2014). Cooperative learning: Developments in research. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2014.08

41.

Gralewski

Karwowski

(2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gender moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 47, 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.36

42.

Greenstein

(2012). Assesing skill 21st century. A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning. Crowin A Sage Company.

43.

Guilford

J. P.

(1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In Taylor

I. A.

Getzels

J. W.

(Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37–59). Aldine.

44.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In Pianta

R. C.

Cox

M. J.

Snow

K. L.

(Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 49–83). Brookes.

45.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

Mashburn

A. J.

Downer

J. T.

(2007). Building a science of classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and elementary classrooms. Foundation for Child Development.

46.

Han

W. P.

Jia

X. J.

(2013). The influence of peer interaction group structure on creative problems of primary school students. Journal of Psychological Science, 36(2), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813754

47.

Hau

K. T.

Marsh

H. W.

(2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Nonnormal data and small sample size. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x

48.

Haylock

(1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 29(3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0002-y

49.

Jafari

Asgari

(2020). Predicting students’ academic achievement based on the classroom climate, mediating role of teacher-student interaction and academic motivation. Integration of Education, 24(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.098.024.202001.062-074

50.

Japardi

Bookheimer

Knudsen

Ghahremani

D. G.

Bilder

R. M.

(2018). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of divergent and convergent thinking in big-C creativity. Neuropsychologia, 118, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.017

51.

Jones

S. M.

Brown

J. L.

Aber

J. L.

(2008). Classroom settings as targets of intervention and research. In Shinn

Yoshikawa

(Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 58–79). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327892.003.0004

52.

Joshua

J. M.

(2014). The influence of students’ experience in the past academic success on convergent thinking. IFE Psychologia: An International Journal, 22(1), 159–169. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC150780

53.

Klieme

Pauli

Reusser

(2009). The pythagoras study: Investigating effects if teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In Janik

Seidel

(Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.

54.

Krutetskii

V. A.

(1976). The Psychology of Mathematical Abilities in Schoolchildren. The University of Chicago Press.

55.

Kwon

O. N.

Park

J. H.

Park

J. S.

(2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03036784

56.

Lawrence

I. M.

Dorans

N. J

. (1987, April). An assessment of unidimensionality of SAT-Mathematical. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Washington. DC. pp.1–48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED282898

57.

Leff

S. S.

Thomas

D. E.

Shapiro

E. S.

Paskewich

Wilson

Necowitz-Hoffman

Jawad

A. F.

(2011). Developing and validating a new classroom climate observation assessment tool. Journal of School Violence, 10, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.539167

58.

Lerner

R. M.

(2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603517

59.

Liu

(2010). A case study of online project-based learning: The beer king project. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 43–57. https://sicet.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ijttl-10-01-4_Shin.pdf

60.

Liu

Z. K.

(2015). Critical and creative thinking as learning processes at top-ranking Chinese middle schools: Possibilities and required improvements. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1015501

61.

Loukas

Suzuki

Horton

K. D.

(2010). Examining school connectedness as a mediator of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00504.x

62.

H. H.

(2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633400

63.

MacCallum

R. C.

Hong

(1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5

64.

Mahart

J. J.

(1996). Factor analytic methods for determining whether multiple-choice and constructed-response tests measure the same construct. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.

65.

Marcos

R. I. S.

Fernández

V. L.

González

M. T. D.

Phillips-Silver

(2020). Promoting children's creative thinking through reading and writing in a cooperative learning classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100663

66.

Marsh

H. W.

(1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519409539960

67.

Moos

R. H.

(1978). A typology of junior high and high school classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312015001053

68.

Muuss

R. E.

(1996). Theories of adolescence (sixth edition). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

69.

Naderi

Abdullah

Aizan

Jamaluddin

Kumar

(2009). Creativity, age and gender as predictors of academic achievement among undergraduate students. Journal of American Science, 5(5), 101–112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228352337

70.

Nasser

Takahashi

. (2003). The effect of using item parcels on ad hoc goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using Sarason's Reactions to Tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 75–97. 10.1207/S15324818AME16014

71.

Nezhad

G.R.H.P.

Shokrpour

. (2013). The impact of task type and divergent thinking on reading proficiency. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 124–137. https://archive.aessweb.com/index.php/5019/article/view/692

72.

Nuha

Waluya

S. B.

Junaedi

(2018). Mathematical creative process wallas model in students problem posing with lesson study approach. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11236a

73.

Nusbaum

E. C.

Silvia

P. J.

(2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategies in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002

74.

OECD (2019). PISA 2021 creative thinking framework: Third draft. OECD Publishing.

75.

Piaget

(1964). Development and learning. In Ripple

Rockcastle

(Eds.), Piaget rediscovered (pp. 7–20). Cornell University Press.

76.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

77.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

78.

Qiao

C. H.

Liu

Z. K.

Yan

J. L.

(2017). A correlation analysis of Teenagers’ classroom learning and creative thinking development. Theory and Practice of Education, 37(34), 30–33. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:JYLL.0.2017-34-007

79.

Rahardjanto

A. ,. H.

Fauzi

(2019). Hybrid-PjBL: Learning outcomes, creative thinking skills, and learning motivation of preservice teacher. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12212a

80.

Reeve

(2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1086/501484

81.

Reyes

M. R.

Brackett

M. A.

Rivers

S. E.

White

Salovey

(2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. http://gfhyb391f4815d8064db7sf0v9qnvbof956q5c.fcfg.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/10.1037/a0027268

82.

Ros

Nicholl

(2013). Creativity in crisis in design & technology: Are classroom climates conducive for creativity in English secondary schools? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9(1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.11.004

83.

Rudasill

Gallagher

White

(2010). Temperamental attention and activity, classroom emotional support, and academic achievement in third grade. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.11.002

84.

Runco

M. A.

Acar

(2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

85.

Ryan

A. M.

Patrick

(2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002437

86.

Scales

P. C.

Benson

P. L.

Leffert

Blyth

D. A.

(2000). The contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0401_3

87.

Scanlon

C. L.

Toro

J. D.

Wang

M. T.

(2020). Socially anxious science achievers: The roles of peer social support and social engagement in the relation between adolescents’ social anxiety and science achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(6), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01224-y

88.

Sen

A. K.

Hagtvet

(1993). Correlations among creativity, intelligence, personality, and academic achievement. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 77(2), 497–498. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.77.2.497

89.

Sesma

Jr. Mannes

Scales

P. C.

(2005). Positive adaptation, resilience, and the developmental asset framework. In Goldstein

Brooks

R. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 281–296). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48572-9_17

90.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.77.2.497

91.

Silver

E. A.

(1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x

92.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955

93.

Steinmayr

Meissner

Weidinger

Wirthwein

(2017). Academic achievement. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0108.xml.

94.

Sternberg

Lubart

T. I

. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1996-04968-001

95.

Sun

Zhou

Gong

Cao

(2021). Exploring the effect of perceived teacher support on multiple creativity tasks: Based on the expectancy-value model of achievement motivation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.430

96.

Sylvia

. (2009). Knowledge translation in health research: a novel approach to health sciences education. Medical Education Online, 14(1), 4520. 10.3402/meo.v14i.4520

97.

Tabach

Levenson

(2018). Solving a Task with Infinitely Many Solutions: Convergent and Divergent Thinking in Mathematical Creativity. In Amado

Carreira

Jones

(Eds.), Broadening the Scope of Research on Mathematical Problem Solving. Research in Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99861-9_10

98.

Tan

A. G.

(2000). A review on the study of creativity in Singapore. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(4), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01215.x

99.

Tatag

Y. E. S.

(2011). Level of student's creative thinking in classroom mathematics. Educational Research & Reviews, 6(7), 548–553. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR.9000226

100.

Thompson

Melancon

J. G.

(1996). Using item ‘Testlest’/’Parcels’ in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using the PPSDQ-78. Book of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL: ERIC Document No. ED 404-349.

101.

Torrance

(1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x

102.

Uka

Bërxulli

Hasani

Peci

Taravari

Wiium

(2021). Developmental Assets, Academic Achievement and Risky Behaviors Among Albanians in Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia. In Dimitrova

Wiium

(Eds.), Handbook of Positive Youth Development. Springer Series on Child and Family Studies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70262-5_10

103.

Ummah

S. K.

In’am

Azmi

R. D.

(2019). Creating manipulatives: Improving students’ creativity through project-based learning. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.1.5093.93-102

104.

Vijetha

Jangaiah

(2010). Intelligence, creative thinking abilities and academic achievement of children with hearing impairment - a correlation study. The Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, 29(2), 262–268. http://gfgxya1356eab492549ecsnk0unx0cbcxv6x5k.fiyi.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/login.aspx?direct=true&db=obo&AN=65549565&lang=zh-cn&site=eds-

105.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1967). Imagination and creativity in childhood. (M. E. Sharpe, Inc., Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42, 7–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210

106.

Wallace

C. E.

Russ

S. W.

(2015). Pretend play, divergent thinking, and math achievement in girls: A longitudinal study. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 9(3), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039006

107.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

J. L.

Amemiya

Parr

Guo

(2020). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912

108.

Wang

R. L.

(2004). Experimental research on the cultivation of pupil's creativity. Journal of Kaifeng Institute of Education, 24(3), 64–67. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-9640.2004.03.026

109.

Ward

A. W.

Stoker

H. W.

Murray-Ward

(1996). Educational measurement: Origins, theories, and explications, Vol 1: Basic concepts and theories (A. W. Ward, H. W. Stoker, & M. Murray-Ward (Eds.)). University Press of America.

110.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

(1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Sage Publications, Inc.

111.

Williams

J. M.

(2007). College Student Experiences Questionnaire Research Program. In: 47th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Kansas: MO. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963978.n519

112.

J. Z.

Wang

F. X.

Lin

C. D.

Lin

C. M.

(2007). A research on high and low academic achievement Adolescents’ creativity. Psychological Development and Education, 23(02), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-4918.2007.02.006

113.

Zhang

Ding

Zhang

W. S.

(2017). Flipped classroom: Theory, development history and effectiveness. Journal of Educational Studies, 13(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v8i2.640

114.

Zhang

W. X.

Chen

G. H.

(2009). Developmental contextualism: An instance of development system theories. Advances in Psychological Science, 17(4), 736–744. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XLXD.0.2009-04-015

115.

Zheng

Y. C.

Xiao

B. L.

(1983). A study on the creativity test of middle school students. Acta Psychologica Sinica, (04), 78–85. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XLXB.0.1983-04-009