Copyright 2020 The Author(s). Published by vgtu press

3. Results
The findings for this research will be presented according to the research questions. The 
quantitative findings will be presented first, followed by the qualitative findings.
Answering research question 1
– determining students’ creativity as measured by the cre-
ativity test.
Table 3 shows the result from the four different schools. It can be observed here that the 
data were obtained only from 106 students where 90 were in the treatment group and an-
other class of 16 in the comparison group. The number of creative students increased from 
Table 3. The number of creative children (pre- and post-intervention) from both the treatment and the 
comparison group (source: created by authors)
School
Gender
Treatment
Number of creative
Comparison
Number of creative
pre-
post-
pre- 
post-
SMKSS
– Male
7
2
5
– Female
7
2
6
SMKTS
– Male
14
0
10
11
5
6
– Female
11
3
8
5
0
1
SMKHC
– Male
9
1
6
– Female
13
0
9
SMKSG
– Male
15
0
2
– Female
14
0
1
Total
– Male
44
8
23
11
5
6
– Female
46
5
24
5
0
1
Grand total
90
13
47
16
5
7
Note
: if the creativity index score is 100 and above, students are considered creative.

---

Creativity Studies, 2020, 13(2): 270–291
281
13 to 47 (262%) in the treatment group as compared to an increase from 5 to 7 (40%) from 
the comparison group. Using the marks as scored from the creativity index and satisfying 
the condition of significant correlation between the pre- and post-, paired sample t-test was 
executed (Table 4). The result in Table 3 shows a significant difference between the post- and 
pre-creativity index for the treatment group. This suggests that the intervention has led to 
significant increase in students’ creativity.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was also executed for the creativity index data (it satis-
fies the condition for fairly similar values for the pre TTCT between treatment and compari-
son group and the homogeneity of regression). The result shown in Table 5 is not statistically 
significant. Hence, we cannot assume that the difference between the marks from the pre and 
post-test is due to the intervention. However, as a note of caution; this test was performed 
with very small sample in the comparison group. Hence, although the result seems to suggest 
that the intervention did not affect students’ performance in creativity, we need to be careful 
when conclusion is being made. The R-Squared seems to suggest that the treatment affect 
only 9.1% on the performance.
Table 4. Paired sample t-test comparing post- and pre-test scores in creativity (treatment and compari-
son group) (source: created by authors)
Paired differences
t-test
de-
gree 
of 
free-
dom
Sig.
(2 tail-
ed)
Mean
Stan-
dard 
devia-
tion
Stan-
dard 
error
95% confidence 
interval of the 
difference
Lower Upper
Pair com-
parison
Pre-creativity index –
Post-creativity index
–10.69 29.79
7.45 –26.56 5.19
–1.44
15
.17
Pair 
treatment
Pre-creativity index –
Post-creativity index
–27.76 23.22
2.45 –32.62 –22.89 –11.34
89
.00
Table 5. Analysis of covariance testing the significance of the intervention (treatment and comparison 
group) (source: created by authors)
Dependent variable: Creativity Index B
Source
Type III sum 
of squares
Degree of 
freedom
Mean 
square
F-test
Significant