本研究旨在探討臺灣大一新生的英語能力、創造力和創意動機對於他們覺察與運用英語創意隱喻的預測力，同時亦檢視不同英語創意隱喻能力的大一新生在英語創意態度上的差別。研究對象為215名就讀於北部一所公立大學的大一生，所有參與的學生須完成包含英語閱讀測驗、英語寫作測驗、陶倫斯創造思考能力測驗、英語創意動機問卷、英語創意隱喻辨識活動和英語創意隱喻創造活動共六項活動，爾後研究者根據二十八名學生對於一份創意態度問卷的回應，探討回應者對於理解和使用英語創意語言的態度。
　　詳細地說，首先，本論文探討英語能力、創造力和創意動機對於覺察與運用創新英語隱喻的預測力，英語能力包括閱讀和寫作能力；創造力包含流暢力、變通力、創新力和整體創造力；創意動機則以「期望價值論」為理論依據，包含對成功的期望和主觀任務價值兩項指標；英語創新隱喻覺察能力意指正確解讀創新隱喻的能力；而英語創新隱喻運用能力則包括隱喻流暢力、隱喻變通力、隱喻創新力和隱喻精密力四項能力。有關上述所獲得的資料則透過統計計量法分析，藉以瞭解變項間的關聯性及自變項對依變項的預測能力。就此點來說，本論文主要發現概述如下：
1. 英語創新隱喻覺察能力和整體英語能力、創造力和創意動機有顯著相關，然而僅整體英語能力和創意動機能有效地預測英語創新隱喻覺察能力。
2. 英語創新隱喻運用能力與整體英語能力、創造力和創意動機有顯著相關，然而僅整體英語能力和創造力能有效地預測英語創新隱喻運用能力。
3. 在三項預測變項中，整體英語能力對於英語創新隱喻覺察能力和運用能力具有最大的預測能力，而創造力和創意動機分別對於英語創新隱喻覺察能力或隱喻運用能力的預測能力則較低。
　　另一方面，本論文亦透過創意態度問卷以瞭解不同英語創新隱喻能力的學習者在創意動機上的差異，研究者將填答問卷的學生分為高英語創新隱喻能力組和低創新隱喻能力組，並分析兩組在創意態度上的不同。研究結果顯示兩項態度上的差異可能會影響受試者運用創新隱喻的能力，首先，高成就受試者較強調英語能力和創新隱喻運用能力的關聯性，而低成就者普遍認為英語能力和創新隱喻運用能力無關，高成就受試者對於英語能力的重視，在加上他們實際上較高的英語能力，能提升他們創造英語隱喻時對語言的敏銳度和文字使用上的正確性和多樣性。第二，低成就者運用創新英語隱喻的能力容易受限於他們薄弱的英語程度和學習動機，而高成就者較易感受自我對於創造錯誤或笨拙的表達方式的擔憂，然而高成就者對於文字使用上的擔憂在實際語言創造過程卻能有正向的助益，能提升他們對於語言使用的嚴謹度。
　　透過量化及質化研究方法，本論文共有對理論、實務教學和測驗工具發展上的貢獻：第一，本論文提供了實證資料，驗證了以往創造力理論對於創意思考認知過程的論述，更重要的是，它發現個人領域知識對於創意表現具有最大的影響。第二，在實務教學方面，本論文亦發現改善學習者的英語能力對於提升他們覺察與運用創意英語隱喻的能力可能具有最實際的成效，而創造力和運用創意隱喻能力的關聯性亦顯現出融合創造力訓練活動於英語課堂中的重要性。第三，本論文亦發展出包括英語創意動機問卷等數項研究工具，這些測驗工具能幫助研究者或英語教師更了解學生創意動機以及創意英語隱喻能力。總括而言，本論文除證實了英語能力、創造力和創意動機對於大一新生理解和使用英語創意隱喻能力可能的影響外，同時亦期望能鼓勵更多第二語言習得研究者從事相關研究，以釐清第二語言創造力的多樣性。

This dissertation aimed to investigate the predictability of Taiwanese freshmen’s English proficiency, creativity and creativity motivation in their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. It also intended to explore the creativity attitudes held by Taiwanese freshmen of different creative metaphoric competences. The participants were 215 university freshmen studying in a public university in North Taiwan. All the participants were required to complete six activities: English Reading Proficiency Test, English Writing Proficiency Test, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Questionnaire on Motivation Toward Verbal Creativity in English, Recognition Task of Creative Metaphors, and Production Task of Creative Metaphors. After that, according to 28 informants’ responses to a creativity attitude survey, this study would also clarify the students’ attitudes toward verbal creativity in English.
To be specific, this dissertation first explored whether English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation were valid predictors for EFL learners’ abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. English proficiency includes reading and writing skills. Creativity specifically refers to fluency, flexibility, originality and general creativity. Creativity motivation, which is theoretically grounded in the Expectancy-Value Theory, discusses expectancy for success and subjective task value as the primary indicators. The ability to interpret creative metaphors in English means the skill to comprehend creative metaphors correctly. The ability to produce creative metaphors in English involves four main skills: metaphoric fluency, metaphoric flexibility, metaphoric originality and metaphoric elaboration. Collected data related to the variables discussed above were analyzed by means of statistical measures in order to probe the correlations among all the variables and the predictive power of the independent variables in the dependent variables.
With regard to the results of statistical analyses, findings are summarized below:
1. The ability to interpret creative metaphors in English was significantly correlated with overall English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation. However, only English proficiency and creativity motivation could significantly predict the ability to interpret creative metaphors, while creativity could not.
2. The ability to produce creative metaphors in English was also significantly associated with overall English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation. However, only English proficiency and creativity could effectively predict the ability to produce creative metaphors, while creativity motivation could not.
3. Of the three predictor variables, English proficiency turned out to be the strongest predictor for the abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. By contrast, creativity and creativity motivation indicated much weaker predictability for the ability to interpret or produce creative metaphors in English.
On the other hand, by means of the creativity attitude survey, this dissertation also attempted to explore the differences in the participants’ attitudes toward comprehending and producing creative metaphors in English. Analysis of the surveys indicated that two perceptual differences were perhaps significant enough to influence learners’ ability to produce creative metaphors. First of all, the learners with higher creative metaphoric competences emphasized the relationship of English proficiency to productive creative metaphoric competence, while those with lower creative metaphoric competences in general considered them to be unrelated. Secondly, lower-achievers’ ability to produce creative metaphors may be easily hindered by their weak English proficiency and low interest in learning English. With regard to those with higher creative metaphoric competence, they indicated strong concern over creating erroneous and awkward expressions in English. Nevertheless, higher-achievers’ concern over linguistic appropriateness may turn out to be beneficial instead. Based on these differences, it can be inferred that those higher-achievers’ emphasis on English proficiency and concern over linguistic appropriateness, plus their actual higher English proficiency, can enhance their linguistic sensitivity that can encourage them to produce metaphors that sound accurate and acceptable.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative analyses, this dissertation may have three aspects of contribution: theoretical significance, practical significance and instrumental significance. First of all, this study provided empirical evidence supporting the extant theories of creative thinking addressing the cognitive process of creative thinking. Most importantly, it discovered that domain knowledge may have the strongest influence on creative thinking. Secondly, with regard to its practical significance, this study also discovered that enhancing learners’ English proficiency may directly contribute to their abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. The close association between creativity and the ability to create metaphors in English further strengthens the importance of incorporating creativity training activities in English classes. Thirdly, this study also developed several instruments that can help SLA researchers and teachers better understand students’ creativity motivation and creative metaphoric competences. To sum up, this dissertation demonstrated the effects of English proficiency, creativity and creativity motivation on university freshmen’s abilities to interpret and produce creative metaphors in English. It is hoped that this study can draw more attention from SLA researchers to the investigation of language creativity in English.

English references
Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54, 277-310.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation (pp. 11-31). New York: Wiley.

Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.

Baer, J. (1998). The case of domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173-177.

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158-163.

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113-117.

Baker, W., & Eggington, W. G. (1999). Bilingual creativity, multidimensional analysis, and world Englishes. World Englishes, 18, 343-357.

Becker, M. (1995). Nineteenth-century foundations of creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 219-229.

Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS-NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 192-218.

Belz, J. A., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 324-362.

Bergman, J. (1979). Energy levels: An important factor in identifying and facilitating the development of giftedness in young children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 4, 181-188.

Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2008). The bilingual mind and linguistic creativity. Journal of Creative Communications, 3, 5-21.

Boers, F. (2003). Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 231-238.

Boers, F., & Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in Participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 177-187.

Bove, L. L., Pervan, S. J., Beatty, S. E., & Shiu, E. (2009). Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62, 698-705.

Broner, M. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 363-379.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3-28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum Press.

Carroll, J. B. (1941). A factor analysis of verbal abilities. Psychometrika, 6, 279-307.

Carter, R. (1999). Common language: Corpus, creativity and cognition. Language and Literature, 8, 195-216.

Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Discourse and creativity: Bridging the gap between language and literature. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 303-320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2004). Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics, 25, 62-88.

Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children’s L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 26, 169-191.

Chang, C.-I. (2009). Technological creativity instruction model and its practical research. Unpublished PhD dissertation, National Hualien University of Education, Taiwan.

Chen, M.-C. (2007). A study of the effect of creativity instruction on the writing creativity of the fifth graders. Unpublished MA thesis, National Yun-lin University of Technology, Taiwan.

Cheng, Y.-Y., Wang, W.-C., Liu, K.-S., & Chen, Y.-L. (2010). Effects of association instruction on fourth graders’ poetic creativity in Taiwan. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 228-235.

Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33-44.

Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51, 224-231.

Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cropley, A. J. (1999). Definitions of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 511-524). San Diego: Academic Press.

Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cuttance, P. (1987). Issues and problems in the application of structural equation models. In P. Cuttance & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research (pp. 241-279). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. NY: Plenum.

Dow, G. Y., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 389-402.

Dynel, M. (2009). Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphors as the source of humour. Metaphoric.de, 17, 27-48. <Retrieved August 7, 2011 from http://www.metaphorik.de/17/dynel.pdf>

Eccles, J. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 15-19.

Eccles, J. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105-121). NY: The Guilford Press.

Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 1017-1095). NY: Wiley.

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.

Edwards, S. M. (2001). The technology paradox: Efficiency versus creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 221-228.

Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652-663.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., & Pretz, J. (1998). Can the promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 704-714.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward. American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.

Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116-1127.

Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728-741.

Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116-1127.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 225-268.

Feldhusen, J. F. (2006). The role of the knowledge base in creative thinking. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 137-144). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Feldhausen, J. F., & Westby, E. L. (2003). Creative and affective behavior: Cognition, personality, and motivation. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 95-105). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Fleith, D. S., Renzulli, J. S., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Effects of a creativity training program on divergent thinking abilities and self-concept in monolingual and bilingual classrooms. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 373-386.

Fruchter, B. (1948). The nature of verbal fluency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 33-47.

Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. NY: Basic.

Gardner, R. C (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2006). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: A research paradigm. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 237-260.

Greer, M., & Levine, E. (1991). Enhancing creative performance in college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 250-255.

Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal F theory and test. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 390-405.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Guilford, J. P. (1982). Is some creative thinking irrational? Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 151-154.

Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure of intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1-4.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 346-359). San Diego: Academic Press.

Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234-244.

Hofstadter, D. (1986). Metamagical themas. NY: Basic Books.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. London: Sage Publications.

Holme, R. (2004). Mind, metaphor and language teaching. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hussey, K. A., & Katz, A. N. (2006). Metaphor production in online conversation: Gender and friendship status. Discourse Processes, 42, 75-98.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.

Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171-178.

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Agars, M. D., & Loomis, D. (2010). Creativity stereotypes and the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 200-205.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-12.

Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 96-106.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kemper, S., Thompson, M., & Marquis, J. (2001). Longitudinal change in language production: Effects of aging and dementia on grammatical complexity and propositional content. Psychology & Aging, 16, 600-614.

Khatena, J. (1989). Intelligence and creativity to multitalent. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 93-97.

Kormos, J., Kiddle, T., & Csizér, K. (2011). Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language-learning motivation. Applied Linguistics, 32, 495-516.

Kousoulas, F. (2010). The interplay of creative behavior, divergent thinking, and knowledge base in students’ creative expression during learning activity. Creative Research Journal, 22, 387-396.

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory. Psychological Review, 82, 387-406.

Kukla, A. (1972). Foundations of an Attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review, 79, 454-470.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145-155.

Lasagabaster, D. (2000). The effects of three bilingual education models on linguistic creativity. IRAL, 38, 213-228.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (Eds.) (1978). The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Littlemore, J. (1998). Individual differences in second language learning: Towards an identification of the strategy preferences and language learning strengths of L2 students with holistic and/or cognitive styles. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Thames Valley University.

Littlemore, J. (2001a). Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35, 459-491.

Littlemore, J. (2001b). The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 333-349.

Littlemore, J. (2003). The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 273-288.

Littlemore, J. (2008). The relationship between associative thinking, analogical reasoning, image formation and metaphoric extension strategies. In M. Zantotto, L. Cameron, and M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic perspective (pp. 199-222). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Low, G. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9, 125-147.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.

Maybin, J., & Swann, J. (2007). Everyday creativity in language: Textuality, contextuality, and critique. Applied Linguistics, 28, 497-517.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual development: The role of motivation in education. American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.

Niu, W-H. (2003). Individual and environmental influences on Chinese student creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University.

North, S. (2007). ‘The voices, the voices’: Creativity in online conversation. Applied Linguistics, 28, 538-555.

Ottó, I. (1998). The relationship between individual differences in learner creativity and language learning success. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 763-773.

Parsons, J., Goff, S. B. (1980). Achievement motivation and values: An alternative perspective. In L. J. Fyans (Eds.), Achievement motivation (pp. 349-373). NY: Plenum.

Peak, H. (1955). Attitude and motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 3, pp. 149-188). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Piquer-Piriz, A. M. (2008). Young learners’ understanding of figurative language. In M. Zantotto, L. Cameron, & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic perspective (pp. 183-197).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179-182.

Plucker, J. A. (2005). The (relatively) generalist view of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the Muse (pp. 307-312). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96.

Plucker, J. A., & Dow, G. T. (2010). Attitude change as the precursor to creativity enhancement. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 362-379). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48-73). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-61). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pollio, H. R., & Smith, M. K. (1980). Metaphoric competence and complex human problem solving. In R. P. Honeck & R. P. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 365-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53-66.

Prentky, R. A. (1980). Creativity and psychopathology. NY: Praeger.

Raine-Eudy, R. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 124-141.

Roever, C., & Pan, Y.-C. (2008). GEPT: General English Proficiency Test. Language Testing, 25, 403-418.

Rubenstein, D. J. (2000). Stimulating children’s creativity and curiosity: Does content and medium matter? Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 1-17.

Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-190.

Runco, M. A. (1995). Insight for creativity, expression for impact. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 377-390.

Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I; pp. 577-582). San Diego: Academic Press.

Runco, M. A. (2005). Motivation, competence, and creativity. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 609-623). NY: The Guilford Press.

Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243-267.
Sanders, D. A., & Sanders, J. A. (1983). Teaching creativity through metaphor: An integrated brain approach. New York: Longman.

Schuldberg, D. (2001). Six subclinical spectrum traits in normal creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 5-16.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85-104). NY: The Guilford Press.

Scott, T. E. (1999). Knowledge. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 119-129). NY: Academic Press.

Steriger, J. H. (1989). Causal modeling: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125-147). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). What is an expert student? Educational Researcher, 32, 5-9.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The domain generality versus specificity debate: How should it be posted? In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the Muse (pp. 299-306). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 1-5.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. NY: Free Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677-688.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251-272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1976). A developmental structural account of riddles. In B. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (Ed.), Speech play: Research and resources for studying linguistic creativity (pp. 111-119). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Swann, J., & Maybin, J. (2007). Introduction: Language creativity in everyday contexts. Applied Linguistics, 28, 491-496.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tarone, E. (2000). Getting serious about language play: Language play, interlanguage variation and second language acquisition. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 31-54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Tarone, E. (2002). Frequency effects, noticing, and creativity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 287-296.

Taylor, C. W. (1947). A factorial study of fluency in writing. Psychometrika, 12, 239-262.

Thibodeau, P., & Durgin, F. H. (2007). Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 521-540.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs, No. 1, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. ix-121.

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. NY: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Norms—Technical Manual—Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms-Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Tsai, P.-H. (2009). A study of training creativity in technology with information problem solving strategy.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.

Turner, A., & Greene, E. (1978). The construction and use of a propositional text base (Manuscript No. 1713). JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8.

Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Education.

Urban, K. K. (2003). Toward a componential model of creativity. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creativity intelligence: Toward theoretical integration (pp. 81-112). NJ: Hampton Press.

Verschik, A. (2005). Russian-Estonian language contacts, linguistic creativity, and convergence: New rules in the making. Multilingua, 24, 413-429.

Walberg, H. J. (1971). Varieties of adolescent creativity and the high school environment. Exceptional Children, 38, 111-116.

Ward, T., Smith, S., & Finke, R. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189-212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wechsler, S. (2006). Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 15-25.

Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Language creativity and the poetic function. A response to Swann and Maybin (2007). Applied Linguistics, 29, 503-508.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., Freedman-Doan, C., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Arbreton, A. J. A., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451-469.

Williams, F. E. (1980), Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP): Manual. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K. Pub.

Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Lewis, D. J. (1954). A factor-analytic study of creative-thinking abilities. Psychometrika, 19, 297-311.

Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interactive perspective. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 77-91). New York: Plenum Press.

Chinese references
Chang, F. C. (張芳全) (2008)。Questionnaires need be designed this way [問卷就是要這樣編]。Taipei: Psychological Publishing (心理出版社)。

Chiu, H. J. (邱皓政) (2003)。Principles and practice of structural equation modeling with LISREL [結構方程模式：LISREL的理論技術與應用]。Taipei: Yeh Yeh Book Gallery (雙葉書廊有限公司)。

Chiu, H. J. (邱皓政) (2012)。Quantitative research methods III: Principles and techniques of testing and scale development [量化研究法(三)：測驗原理與量表發展技術]。Taipei: Yeh Yeh Book Gallery (雙葉書廊有限公司)。

Li, I.-M. (李乙明) (2006a)。Torrance Test of Creative Thinking [陶倫斯創造思考測驗語文版]。Taipei: Psychological Publishing (心理出版社)。

Li, I.-M. (李乙明) (2006b)。Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Manual for scoring and interpreting results, verbal, forms A and B [陶倫斯創造思考測驗語文版：指導手冊]。Taipei: Psychological Publishing (心理出版社)。

Ministry of Education (教育部) (2002)。White paper on creative education [創造力教育白皮書]。Taipei: Ministry of Education。