LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 207 TOWARD CREATIVITY AND SPEAKING ABILITY OF EFL STUDENTS: A MIXED-METHOD STUDY Debiga Fikky Abdullah, Diah Kristina, and Sumardi Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia debigafikky@student.uns.ac.id; diahkristina@staff.uns.ac.id; sumardi74@staff.uns.ac.id correspondence: debigafikky@student.uns.ac.id DOI: doi.org/10.24071/llt.2020.230202 received 7 March 2020; accepted 5 May 2020 Abstract The present study employed a mixed-method approach to investigate the creativity and speaking ability of EFL learners towards its relationship and other essential factors. Indonesian EFL students of the 5th semester taken the course of Academic Speaking in a private university (n=30) who were selected randomly responded Creative Personality Scale (CPS) and Self-Rating of Creativity. For the former, they described themselves by checking off 18 positively scored and 12 negatively scored items which were given a value of +1 and a value of -1, respectively. The latter was assessed using eight items from the creativity scale. The 7-point Likert-type scales (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) were made to respond to these items. Following this, the students' monologues based on five themes were scored using the IELTS Speaking Test Descriptor. The data were analyzed using the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient, pattern matching, and explanation building. The finding shows a significant correlation between EFL learners' creativity and their speaking ability (ρ = .961). The students also faced up to the cultural constraints in advancing their creativity. This study should, therefore, be of value to practitioners wishing to provide EFL students with appropriate materials that are addressed to enhance their speaking ability. Keywords: creativity, speaking ability, EFL students Introduction The international community in the 21st century is dealing with industrial revolution 4.0 that incites a disruptive innovation. It is remarked by technological advancements such as the general use of the internet of things (IoT), i.e., artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and digital media (Geisinger, 2016). Disruptive innovation drives a strong impetus for collaboration as a prerequisite in confronting the fast-changing in almost all fields, including English language education. Following this, English language education is supposed to adapt by providing the EFL students comprehensive teaching materials that support them to possess creativity (Colucci et al., 2017). Therefore, the EFL students are supposed to be creative persons in dealing with the fast-changing industrial revolution 4.0. Under the attempt to equip EFL students with creativity, understanding the meaning of this notion is considered essential. Creativity is a broad term that refers to a skill that directs someone to create uncommon or unique things (Andy, 2018; Drago & Heilman, LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching mailto:debigafikky@gmail.com mailto:diahkristina@staff.uns.ac.id mailto:sumardi74@staff.uns.ac.id LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 208 2015; Kaufman, 2015). According to a definition provided by Runco and Jaeger (2012), creativity encompasses novelty and usefulness. Following this, to maintain the existence of creativity, EFL students should produce an unprecedented and practicable achievement during their study (Runco, 2015). In the context of English language education within the 21st century, the most compelling EFL students' achievement is their success in speaking, i.e., fluency. Thus, promoting creativity to the EFL students' speaking ability is considered a crucial attempt. On the other hand, teaching EFL students who are supposed to possess both creativity and fluency will face some challenges. For many years, Indonesian EFL students were not provided with a sufficient chance to develop neither their speaking nor their creativity (Songbatumis, 2017). There is a strong assumption that this phenomenon has something to do with the absence of support from the Indonesian national curriculum (Malaikosa & Sahayu, 2019). Although some significant changes in it have been done, there were no maximum impact in public EFL classroom could be seen. It is still, in most cases, EFL learning is teacher-centered; hence, it limits the students to freely explore their potentials. Accordingly, the teachers' domination in directing the class inadvertently build a students' passive culture that directs to the passive teaching-learning process (Loh & Teo, 2017). Consequently, the students mostly rely on memorizing instead of occupying creative answers in the teaching- learning process (Poedjiastutie, 2009). Thus, curriculum support would have a significant impact on students' creativity and speaking ability improvement. Even though a collaboration between creativity and EFL students' speaking ability has gained more prominence, there are relatively few historical studies in this area. Only in the past ten years have studies of creativity directly addressed how it was viewed from the Indonesian perspectives. Tin, Manara, & Ragawanti (2009) studied the perspective of creativity from both non-native English-speaking students and non-native English-speaking teachers. In this study, the researcher highlighted the different concepts that might appear from the teachers' and the students' perspective. This study, unfortunately, did not present the supportive result, which specifically concerns in creativity and speaking ability of EFL students. Similarly, Davis (2009) has employed a meta-analytic to show how mood affects ones' creativity. These results from the former and the latter research were attempted to present creativity that attached in students' daily life with no empirical data regarding its role in students' speaking ability. On the other hand, Zuhriyah, Agustina, & Fajarina (2018) investigated the influence of creativity toward the students' speaking ability. However, its results remain big questions toward how strong the correlation between creativity and speaking ability, what direction follows such correlation, and, most important, the students' view towards their creativity. Under the above condition, previous studies have highlighted factors that are associated with creativity and speaking ability, which is essential in the English language teaching process. However, the researcher identified an apparent knowledge gap in prior research concerning the relationship between EFL students' creativity and their speaking ability. Besides, the prior research did not address the subject of cultural constraints that direct the EFL students' perceptions regarding their creativity. This subject encompasses several dimensions that lately have attracted research attention in other disciplines (e.g., Lee & Kim, 2011; Roth, 2010). The cultural constraints should be explored further to provide a more in-depth understanding of EFL students' motivation in learning. Due to a prior explanation, this paper begins with an overview LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 209 of creativity. Next, concepts and definitions of speaking ability and EFL students are addressed. It is followed by a methodology that is applied in this research. Lastly, the findings and discussion sections are presented. As the sequence of the correct manner, the research questions of this study focused on 1) Is there any significant relationship among EFL students’ creativity and their speaking ability? Furthermore, 2) How do EFL students perceive their creativity? On the Concept of Creativity, Speaking Ability and EFL Students’ Creativity Creativity is being accredited as a fundamental skill for the 21st century (Egan, Maguire, Christophers, & Rooney, 2017; Geisinger, 2016). It can be recognized as a product, press, and process. Product means the outcome of the creative process; the press has something to do with the force which directs creative person; and, process refers to the order of creative thinking (Runco, 2007; Tin et al., 2009). In terms of creative outcome, this notion can be interpreted as novelty and value. Following this consideration, any debate concerning creativity is supposed to assort creative outcomes from the creative process (Davis, 2009) since the latter has become a significant question in creativity research. To apprehend the creative process, there is a two- categorized elemental model of creative thinking that should be understood: the primary and the secondary elements. The former, which is acknowledged as a controlling component, consists of problem finding, ideation, and evaluation. Problem finding includes identifying, defining, and working to pursue a solution. As the essential subprocesses, problem identification signifies the process of recognizing a challenge to be conquered; problem definition relates to defining and redefining the issues into an appropriate answer. However, the secondary elements, knowledge, and motivation, give more contribution to creative thinking rather than controlling factors. Ideation is derived from particular skills such as flexibility, originality, and fluency, which refer to a variety of ideas, uniqueness of ideas, and production of ideas, respectively. In addition to these, there are three tasks which compatible with the former skills such as divergent thinking, categorization, and remote associates tasks. On the one hand, divergent thinking tasks accentuate flexibility, originality, and fluency. On the other hand, categorization tasks focus on cognitive flexibility, e.g., the categorization among concepts. Finally, the remote associates task measures the ability to recognize connections among distant thoughts. Having those three tasks in the concept of creativity understanding, however, the considerable amount of creativity research relied upon tests of divergent thinking (Runco & Chand, 1995) and has been directed into the debate. One side of researchers negates the view that support divergent thinking relates to creativity. In the middle, some researchers believe that divergent thinking tasks are the indicators of creativity potential. Such debate occurs since divergent thinking only holds the value of novelty does ignore the attribute of usefulness embraced by many creativity theorists. This privilege attention on novelty could be a trigger for much of the criticism toward these tasks. As an essential part of usefulness in creativity, evaluation is the most ignored component (Runco & Chand, 1995). Runco and Chand (1995) argued that evaluation concordantly works with ideation to make sure both original and appropriateness are fully accomplished. These two values are essential to establish a problem-solving manner since the originality or novelty lacking usefulness can not be considered as a creative performance. Therefore, in the 21st century EFL teaching context, only the LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 210 creative ideation that applicable to the EFL students' speaking practice does it can be considered as a genuinely creative performance. Speaking Ability Building a remarkable speaking ability to equip EFL students in facing 21st-century competition is exhausting work. It appears as an integration of both physiological and psychological factors, which should be comprised of required competencies to actuate the target language awareness (Burns & Richards, 2012). These competencies are ascribed to a sequential process of thinking that accommodates spontaneous action and decision making when one speaks. Therefore, the competencies that have been prescribed to the success of EFL students' speaking should be formed as accuracy, fluency, and complexity. By those three established standards of thriving EFL students' speaking, the following are their given explanations. Thornbury (2005) stated that accuracy refers to the ability of EFL learners to produce the correct speaking based on its contexts and its use precisely. In most standardized tests, one's level of speaking accuracy is determined by the comprehension of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and sociolinguistic competence or pragmatic competence. The results of the tests thus measure the EFL students' awareness of English in communication. Hence, accuracy reflects the comprehension of EFL students to deal with real-context English. Following this, fluency focuses on the messages being delivered rather than the form in which those messages are attached. However, the latter concept is questionable. If the employment of the appropriate form is neglected, the EFL students themselves will find difficulties in determining their capacity. Unfortunately, most EFL students in Indonesia have been motivated by their teachers or lecturers in this way. This misleading concept, somehow, is believed will decrease the burden of learning English. On the contrary, the 21st-century learning should apply the more proper understanding of fluency: it is the ability of the EFL students who have few plausible speaking in their conversation and keep focusing on the correct format based on individual circumstances. After dealing with those two notions, the EFL students then should focus on complexity. Complexity is the ability to produce a sophisticated speaking in the given context. In such a context, their creativity is stimulated and enforced to form unprecedented sentences based on new insights. Following this process, they learn some new grammar which will be understood through a real experience. Only at the end of the class do the teacher or lecturer measure the achievements of their students. Eventually, the stimulative and engaging teaching- learning process will direct EFL students to gain accuracy, fluency, and complexity in their speaking ability. EFL Students EFL stands for English as a Foreign Language (Cambridge Learner's Dictionary online, 2020). EFL student is a collective term to denote students who learn English within non-English speaking countries, e.g., the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Australia. In Indonesia, EFL students learn English by attending a class at which is guided by in-service English teachers or lecturers. These teachers must implement the prescribed EFL curriculum established by the Ministry of Education and Culture. However, since the teacher or lecturer-centered curriculum has directed the learning culture of Indonesian EFL students for decades, the significant changes to LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 211 revolutionize such an old-fashioned curriculum in the current years seem to have no maximum results yet. Method Participants This study was administered at a private university that has 150 students of the 5th semester of English language major as the research population. Out of 150 students, the researcher assigned 30 of them as the sample size and utilized random selection to increase the generalizability of the data and to avoid bias. It was started by initially listed the population and numbered them from 1 to 150. Following this, the researcher read the list and picked 30 names from the multiple of 5. After all selected students have been contacted, they agreed to voluntarily participate in this study, which has been carried out from August 2019 to December 2019. For the sake of research ethics, all of their information would be kept entirely confidential. Design Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by following sequential-embedded mixed model design (Cresswell, 2013) or sequential-dependent design (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). This design was applied since the quantitative study provides a general understanding of the variables being studied; on the other hand, the qualitative data helped the researcher to explain the statistical analysis report by digging more in- depth the information. This design consists of two phases: the quantitative data collection and analysis followed by qualitative data collection and analysis (Cresswell, 2013). Firstly, the researcher collected and then analyzed the quantitative data. The quantitative data came from questionnaires that have been distributed to each student by using Google Form. The items that students should fill followed Gough's (1979) Creative Personality Scale (CPS), and Zhou & George's (2001) Self-Rating of Personality. For the former, the students described themselves by checking off 18 positively scored and 12 negatively scored items, which were given a value of +1 and a value of -1, respectively. The researcher then summed to the values for the CPS index. The scores for the CPS can range from -12 to 18. The Zhou & George's (2001) Self- Rating of Creativity was assessed by using eight items from the creativity scale. The 7- point Likert-type scales (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) were made to respond to these items. To find the speaking score, the researcher chose five items from CPS randomly and asked the students to create a 5-minutes monologue based on these items. The monologues were then scored following the IELTS Speaking Test Descriptor. It consists of 9-bands (0-9), which describes students' fluency and coherence, lexical resource, grammatical range and accuracy, and pronunciation rigorously. Since the quantitative data came from two-ranked variables, the researcher used the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient (Spearman's rho for short) to see whether the two variables covary; whether, the increased or decreased variable affected the other ones. Despite its ignorance in normality or equal variance of data, Spearman's rho focuses on the difference in rank orders of data rather than differences in means. It determines the strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between creativity and speaking ability and their linearity. The null hypothesis, Ho, represents a positive correlation between the results for the two variables. The coefficient has a value that ranges from -1 to 1. Both served the negative correlation and strongest positive, respectively, with a ρ-value of .05, underlies all hypotheses. If the result reflected ρ was LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 212 less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected. The all-gathered quantitative data, then, have been input in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The researcher operated SPSS to make data analysis more efficient, fast, and accurate. Under the above process through which the quantitative data were gathered, the qualitative data were collected and analyzed. It was started by using interview which its every question have been developed based on previous quantitative data and related creativity theories to gain EFL students’ deeper understanding toward their creative process through which their speaking ability was affected (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). These data appeared as constructed patterns from which were matched with the prior constructed theories and have directed the researcher to conduct an explanation building. Those qualitative data helped the researcher to gain a more fine-grained understanding of EFL students’ creativity and speaking ability relationship. Findings and Discussion Relationships and Essential Factors of EFL Students’ Creativity and Speaking Ability The first question in this study sought to determine whether there was any significant relationship between creativity and speaking ability of EFL students. After administered the analysis, some considerations have been taken. The final scores from CPS, Self-Rating Creativity, and speaking scores (n=30) were then analyzed using Spearman's correlation. Figure 1 Monotonic relationship between creativity and speaking ability A test of the scatterplot affirmed the presence of linearity for EFL students’ creativity and speaking ability. Hence, the presence of linearity authorized the use of correlation coefficients. The monotonic relationship figure, as shown above, indicated that when creativity value increases, the value of speaking ability is also improved. Accordingly, a nonparametric procedure, the Spearman's rank-order correlation LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 213 coefficient (i.e., Spearman's rho) was performed to address each research question previously outlined. The results of the correlational analysis are displayed in Table 1. Table 1 Spearman’s correlation Nonparametric Correlation Creativity Speaking ability Spearman’s ρ Creativity Correlation coefficient 1.000 .961** Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 N 30 30 Speaking ability Correlation coefficient .961** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . N 30 30 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The results, as shown in Table 1, indicate that Spearman’s rho revealed a statistically significant relationship between creativity and speaking ability (rs= .961**, ρ< 0.01), which is indicated by the double asterisks (**). The value of Sig. (2-tailed) was also strengthen the significance, since 0.000 < 0.005 or 0.01. Thus, it can be decided that there is a strong positive correlation between creativity and speaking ability of EFL students. Figure 1 and Table 1 above have unveiled the correlation between creativity and speaking ability. Following this, the second research question is acknowledged. As the nature of sequential-embedded mixed-model design, the qualitative component of this study depends on its data collection and data analysis on the findings in the quantitative component. The results of the quantitative component were also used to construct the questions of the interview to gain qualitative data The section that follows provides essential items that direct the process through which the students perceive their creativity. The percentages on the right side appeared as the constructed patterns. From these patterns, then, the explanation was built. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 represented the available data. Table 2 Section 1 of Creative Personality Items The EFL Students (%) Egotistical 0 Inventive 2.9 Snobbish 2.9 Sexy 8.8 Intelligent 11.8 Resourceful 11.8 Insightful 11.8 Unconventional 11.8 Individualistic 14.7 Informal 14.7 Self-confident 14.7 Capable 17.6 Reflective 17.6 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 214 Items The EFL Students (%) Clever 20.6 Original 23.5 Confident 26.5 Wide interests 32.4 Humorous 44.2 It can be seen from the data in Table 2 that the students have responded toward the adjectives that represent them the most. What is interesting about the data in this table is that the students avoided choosing 'Egotistical' (0%) as the representation of their creativity. Instead, most of them chose 'Humorous' (44.2%) to portray their creativity. From this data, we can see there is a significant difference between the two adjectives. The students show an apparent denial toward the haughty manner, which relates to arrogancy and pompousness. They likely represent themselves as a jovial person who always seeks social engagement. By being humorous, they believe that their social relationship could be even more bounded. The bound reflects the trust between the students and their circumstances, which relates to the improvement of their creativity. \ Table 3. Section 2 of Creative Personality Items The EFL Students (%) Dissatisfied 5.9 Narrow interests 8.8 Submissive 8.8 Conservative 11.8 Conventional 11.8 Artificial 14.7 Cautious 14.7 Suspicious 17.6 Sincere 23.5 Commonplace 26.5 Well-mannered 32.4 Honest 41.2 Table 3 presents other adjectives that have been responded to by the EFL students. It can be seen in the table that 'Honest' got 41.2%. It can be assumed that these students benefitted from having 'Honest' as their reflection toward their creativity. The reason for this is not apparent, but it may have something to do with the previous result (Table 2). A possible interpretation for this might be that being a humorous person necessitates honesty. Being honest is more to do with the strengthening action toward their bound and their social circumstances. This astonishing finding might be explained by the fact that these students culturally constrained. It is considered since they do not innately possess creativity. LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 215 Table 4. Self-Rating of Creativity Item Number Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Somewhat disagree (%) Neither agree nor disagree (%) Somewhat agree (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%) Item 1 - - 3.1 12.5 18.8 62.5 3.1 Item 2 - - 3.1 9.4 12.5 43.8 31.3 Item 3 - 3.1 9.4 15.6 28.1 28.1 15.6 Item 4 - - 6.3 12.5 25 40.6 15.6 Item 5 - - - 15.6 31.3 37.5 15.6 Item 6 - 3.1 6.3 9.4 18.8 50 12.5 Item 7 - 3.1 6.3 12.5 15.6 46.9 15.6 Item 8 - - 3.1 21.9 34.4 21.9 18.8 Table 4 presents the Self-Rating of Creativity. This scale especially measured the rates of students' creativity that have been applied in their daily learning. What stands out in this table is the general pattern of how the environments influence some phases of the learning process accordingly. Item 1, which represents 'I suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives,' got 62.5% concerning agree. Followed by Item 2, which represents 'I exhibit creativity on the job when allowed,' got 50% toward agreeing. In the third place, Item 3, which represents 'I often have new and innovative ideas,' got 46.9%. Those three items are considered as the top three values that most affect the students' learning. How those top three values affect the students' learning can be acknowledged within some concerns. It is started when they establish their objectives in applicable methods relate to the teaching-learning process. The established objectives, then, direct the students to fully accomplish their tasks or assignments (e.g., composing conversation within a particular situation) given by their teacher or lecturer (Chen & Hwang, 2019). The creativity, however, can only be performed if, and only if, the teacher or lecturer allows the students to do it by permitting them in recognizable ways (Krashen, 1982). This permission reflects the support of the teacher or lecturer. As a result, the initial support possibly stimulates the students' innovative ideas (Montazeri & Salimi, 2019). Discussion The Essential Consideration of EFL Students' Creativity and Speaking Ability. A primary objective of this study which employed sequential-embedded mixed method design was to investigate the relationship between EFL students’ creativity and speaking ability and other essential factors that affect such a correlation. It was hypothesized that EFL students’ creativity has something to do with their speaking ability. The higher students possess creativity, the higher their speaking ability could be. This result covaries with the prior study established such a view (Zuhriyah, Agustina and Fajarina, 2018) which revealed that the students with high creativity would possess more speaking ability than the students with the lower one. Concerning the first research question, it was found that the monotonic relationship significantly increased LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 216 the relationship between EFL students’ creativity and speaking ability. The qualitative data showed the additional factors that accommodate the EFL students to enhance creativity to support their speaking ability. In sum, these results indicate that the way EFL students conceptualize their creativity can alter their speaking development effects. On the question of how do EFL students perceive their creativity, this study found that students are also affected by their own learning culture. The most prominent finding to emerge from the analysis regarding the students’ learning cultures is that the implementation of the EFL curriculum has more to do with students’ achievement relates to their creativity in speaking ability (Becker & Roos, 2016). This result reflects those of Perry & Karpova (2017) who also found that directed learning accommodates students to follow the prescribed curriculum and to measure their achievement. It is possible to hypothesize that this condition is less likely to occur in Indonesia. Due to the limitation of speaking exposure and the dominance of the teachers or lecturers, the EFL teaching-learning processes have failed to maintain EFL students' creativity to enhance their speaking ability. The restriction comes from teacher-centred learning is unintentionally legitimized toward students’ creativity and attenuates the students’ motivation to express their established knowledge. It results in the passiveness that teacher has to confront. This condition forces, in major cases, the more subjective assessment toward students’ speaking practices. Therefore, the significant changes in Indonesia national curriculum have no significant impact on the development of EFL students creative speaking. Considering the problems that mostly occur in the Indonesian EFL classroom due to the learning culture, the teachers and the lecturers are supposed to be a pioneer in implementing the established curriculum creatively. This manner corroborates the ideas of Bernstein (1971), Bruner (1977), and Vygotsky (1986) that promote EFL students’ daily life as the stimulation or the sources of their creative speaking. It corresponds to Wang & Kokotsaki (2018) who stated that the production of sophisticated speaking expressions reflects the success of EFL students’ speaking in the form of creativity. EFL students’ daily life also presents real-context speaking which provides students tangible results and measurements from which they judge their deliberate learning (Perry & Karpova, 2017; Vally et al., 2019; Wang, 2019). Following this, the reflections of students’ deliberate learning are actualized by their answers in the questionnaires in this study. Consistent with the literature, this study found that EFL students who respond to the initial questionnaires bring into account their daily learning results. Section 1 of the Creative Personality fairly measured the students’ perceptions toward their creativity and got humorous, wide interests, and confident as the top-three adjectives that have been chosen, respectively. According to this gained data, the EFL students who possess humour and do not hesitate to convey it as his/her nature are considered as the creative intellectual persons. It is indicated by the presents of the ability to acknowledged any hidden or intrinsic messages behind humorous acts. Only EFL students who lack humour do they suffer sensitiveness regarding any issues. The humorous EFL students, accordingly, have broad interests. This manner underly the need for a humorous person to present a real insight regarding his/her experience (Luria, S., Baer, J., Kaufman, J., 2018). Without any supporting knowledge, it seems no possible the humorous EFL students with a broad interest able to promote additional information to his/her colleagues. Finally, the two first adjectives must be supported by confidence. This last notion in Section 1 answered by those who able to manage their anxiety. Therefore, LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 217 EFL students who possess confident will face no difficulties in expressing his/her humour and broad interests. Following the interpretations of Section 1 in the Creative Personality, Section 2 followed by Self-Rating Creativity are mutually support each other to build a thinking framework to explain how the students’ established culture rigorously, both in its broad and narrow meaning, affect the EFL students in perceiving their creativity. Following Section 2, the EFL students believe that ‘Honest’ and ‘Well-mannered’ best represents them. A possible explanation for this might be that creativity should be performed with honesty and be practised in well-mannered. Undoubtedly, these have something to do with the students’ culture since creativity unseparated from tradition, cultural norms, and societal values (Cheung & Mok, 2018). The answers for the Self-Rating Creativity, accordingly, underlined teachers’ or lecturers’ role in promoting creativity in each teaching-learning process. It explained that EFL students would be much helped if the support and permission in expressing creativity are provided by teachers or lecturers. Conclusion Undoubtedly, creativity is an essential powerful skill in the 21st century. As a result, EFL teaching should accommodate it in its learning process, especially toward speaking ability. Returning to the questions posed at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to state that creativity has a significant correlation with speaking ability. One of the more significant findings to emerge from this study is that students' speaking ability improved steadily along with the improvement of creativity. In general, therefore, it seems that the teacher or lecturer should enhance the support for both notions by giving more related materials and activities in the EFL teaching-learning environment. With a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be transferable to the students who have already used to the speaking exposure. In terms of future work, it would be interesting to repeat the experiments described here using the multidiscipline method. It should be attempted to find a deeper motivation from both students and teachers or lecturers in accomodating creativity within the EFL class. References Andy, H. (2018). 21 st century skills and the “ 4Cs ” in the English language classroom by Andy Halvorsen. American English Institute, 0–4. Becker, C., & Roos, J. (2016). An approach to creative speaking activities in the young learners’ classroom. Education Inquiry, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.27613 Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge. Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (2012). The Cambridge Guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chen, M. R. A., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Effects of a concept mapping-based flipped learning approach on EFL students’ English speaking performance, critical thinking awareness and speaking anxiety. British Journal of Educational Technology, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12887 Cheung, R. H. P., & Mok, M. M. C. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ perception of creative personality as a predictor of their support of pedagogy important for LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 218 fostering creativity: A Chinese perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488345 Colucci, L., Burnard, P., Cooke, C., Davies, R., Gray, D., & Trowsdale, J. (2017). Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies for 21st learning: how can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic, and inclusive form of education? BERA Research Commission, (August), 1–105. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22452.76161 Cresswell, J. W. (2013). John W. Creswell-research design_ qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches.pdf (p. 273). p. 273. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001 Drago, V., & Heilman, K. M. (2015). Creativity. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Second Edition, (1926), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375000- 6.00112-9 Egan, A., Maguire, R., Christophers, L., & Rooney, B. (2017). Developing creativity in higher education for 21st-century learners: A protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.12.004 Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st-century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207 Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective checklist. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405. Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Creativity is more than silly, more than art, more than good: The diverse career of Arthur Cropley. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1063879 Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543033001038 Loh, C. Y. R., & Teo, T. C. (2017). Understanding Asian students learning styles, cultural influence and learning strategies. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 7(1), 194–210. Retrieved from http://jespnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_1_March_2017/23.pdf Malaikosa, C., & Sahayu, W. (2019). Teacher’s challenges on implementing EFL curriculum in Indonesian rural area. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 39–54. Montazeri, M., & Salimi, E. A. (2019). Assessing motivation to speak (MTS) and willingness to communicate through metalinguistic corrective feedback. Learning and Motivation, 68(March), 101594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2019.101594 Perry, A., & Karpova, E. (2017). Efficacy of teaching creative thinking skills: A comparison of multiple creativity assessments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.017 Poedjiastutie, D. (2009). Culture Shock experienced by foreign students studying at Indonesian university. Jurnal Humanity, 4(2), 11407. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v20i1/25-36 Runco, M. A. (2007). Achievement sometimes requires creativity. High Ability Studies, LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 23, No. 2, October 2020 219 18(1), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130701350791 Runco, M. A. (2015). Meta-creativity: Being creative about creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1065134 Runco, M., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213373 Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to Construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69, 107– 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1 Songbatumis, A. (2017). Challenges in teaching English faced by English teachers at MTsN Taliwang, Indonesia. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Tin, T. B., Manara, C., & Ragawanti, D. T. (2009). Views on creativity from an Indonesian perspective. ELT Journal, 64(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp022 Vally, Z., Salloum, L., AlQedra, D., El Shazly, S., Albloshi, M., Alsheraifi, S., & Alkaabi, A. (2019). Examining the effects of creativity training on creative production, creative self-efficacy, and neuro-executive functioning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31(October 2018), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.003 Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.). London: The MIT Press. Wang, H. C. (2019). Fostering learner creativity in the English L2 classroom: Application of the creative problem-solving model. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.005 Wang, L., & Kokotsaki, D. (2018). Primary school teachers’ conceptions of creativity in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) in China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.002 Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410 Zuhriyah, M., Agustina, R. K., & Fajarina, M. (2018). The influence of students’ creativity to construct sentences toward their speaking skill. Register Journal, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v11i1.1-18