Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 7 no. 4 (2026)

Elaboration–Fluency Cognitive Activation Theory of Creative Thinking in Mathematics Performance: Evidence from Structural Equation Modeling

Jackie V Borres | Jay Fie P. Luzano

Discipline: Mathematics

 

Abstract:

Creative thinking is widely recognized as essential for mathemat- ics learning; however, the structural mechanisms linking its do- mains to mathematics performance remain insufficiently under- stood. This theory-building study investigated the relationship be- tween the domains of creative thinking and mathematics perfor- mance among junior high school learners. Using a quantitative, non-experimental design, data were collected from 300 Grade 9 learners in the Tugbok District, Division of Davao City, Philippines. Creative thinking was operationalized using a researcher-devel- oped 16-item instrument that assessed four domains: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The instrument is an open- ended questionnaire requiring respondents to generate varied re- sponses, which were evaluated using teacher-scored rubrics. Flu- ency was measured by relevant ideas produced to solved the prob- lems; flexibility by the diverse of solution of strategies used; origi- nality by the uniqueness with valid reasoning of responses; and elaboration by the level of explanation, clarity of ideas, and com- pleteness of mathematical steps used. Mathematics performance was obtained from official academic records. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was fit to utilize for testing multiple hypothesized models and identify which among the models is the best-fitting structural representation of these relationships. Results showed that elaboration do not significantly predict mathematics perfor- mance but indirectly significant when both the elaboration and mathematics performance is linked with fluency. That is, elabora- tion significantly predicted fluency (β = .617, p < .001), and flu- ency, in turn, significantly predicted mathematics performance (β = .276, p = .033). Among five models, Structural Model 5 best fit the data (CMIN/DF = 1.986, RMSEA = .049, CFI = .981), supporting *Corresponding author: E-mail: jackyvillaluzborres729@gmail.com Borres & Luzano, 2026 / Elaboration-Fluency Cognitive Activation Theory of Creative Thinking in Mathematics Performance IJMABER 1646 Volume 7 | Number 4 | April | 2026 the core idea that elaboration strengthens fluency, which then translates into higher mathematics achievement. This theory em- phasizes that with elaboration strengthen by fluency, mathemati- cal success follows.



References:

  1. Ay, S., Edulsa Jr., V. A., & Istikomah, S. (2016). Conceptual understanding and academic performance of learners in mathematics. Psychology and Education, 5(1), 736–745.
  2. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models(pp. 136–162). Sage
  3. Chomeya, R., Tayraukham, S., & Tongkham-banchong, S. (2022). Sample size determi-nation techniques for structural equation modeling: SEM. Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University, 28(2), 24–40.
  4. Creswell, C., & Speelman, C. P. (2020). Does mathematics training lead to better logi-cal thinking and reasoning? A cross-sec-tional assessment from learners to profes-sors. PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0236153. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0236153">https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0236153">https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0236153
  5. DeCaro, M. S. (2022). Inducing mental set con-strains procedural flexibility and concep-tual understanding in mathematics. Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1138–1148. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0614-y">https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0614-y">https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0614-y
  6. Denis, D. J. (2021). Applied univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics: Understanding statistics for social and natural scientists, with applications in SPSS and R.John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Department of Education (DepEd). (2015). De-pEd Order No. 8, s. 2015: Policy and guide-lines on classroom assessment for K to 12 curriculum.https://www.de-ped.gov.ph/wp-content/up-loads/2015/04/DO_s2015_08.pdf
  8. Department of Education. (2024). MATATAG curriculum framework: Strengthening the K to 10 curriculum. Department of Educa-tion, Philippines. https://www.de-ped.gov.ph/matatag-curriculum">https://www.de-ped.gov.ph/matatag-curriculum">https://www.de-ped.gov.ph/matatag-curriculum
  9. Flores, G. M. (2019). Triarchic intelligences, en-gagement, and self-efficacy beliefs of grade 10 learners: A structural model on mathematics performance. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bukidnon State Uni-versity].
  10. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psy-chologist, 5(9), 444–454.
  11. Handayani, S. A., Rahayu, Y. S., & Agustini, R. (2021). Learners' creative thinking skills in biology learning: Fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1747(1), 012040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012040">https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012040">https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012040
  12. Hickendorff, M. (2022). Flexibility and adaptiv-ity in arithmetic strategy use: What chil-dren know and what they show. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8, 367–381. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7277">https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7277">https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7277
  13. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
  14. Hunter, J., Perger, P., & Darragh, L. (2018). Mak-ing waves, opening spaces.In Proceedingsof the 41st annual conference of the Math-ematics Education Research Group of Aus-tralasia (pp. 202–209). Auckland: MERGA
  15. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2020). Perceptual learning modules in mathe-matics: Enhancing learners' pattern recognition, structure extraction, and flu-ency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01053.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01053.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01053.x
  16. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  17. Lin, S., & Tai, W. (2015). Latent class analysis of learners' mathematics learning strategies and the relationship between learning strategy and mathematical literacy. Uni-versal Journal of Educational Research, 3, 390–395. https://api.seman-ticscholar.org/CorpusID:14883063">https://api.seman-ticscholar.org/CorpusID:14883063">https://api.seman-ticscholar.org/CorpusID:14883063
  18. Lince, R. (2016). Creative thinking ability to in-crease learner mathematics of junior high school by applying models numbered heads together. Journal of Education and Practice, 7, 206–212. https://api.seman-ticscholar.org/CorpusID:59385426">https://api.seman-ticscholar.org/CorpusID:59385426">https://api.seman-ticscholar.org/CorpusID:59385426
  19. Ling, A. N. B., & Mahmud, M. S. (2023). Chal-lenges of teachers when teaching sen-tence-based mathematics problem-solv-ing skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Arti-cle 1074202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074202">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074202">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074202
  20. Magen-Nagar, N. (2016). The effects of learning strategies on mathematical literacy: A comparison between lower and higher achieving countries. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.77083">https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.77083">https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.77083
  21. Maharani, H., Sukestiyarno, S., & Waluya, B. (2017). Creative thinking process based on Wallas model in solving mathematics problem. International Journal on Emerg-ing Mathematics Education, 1(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5783">https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5783">https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5783
  22. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850">https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850">https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
  23. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., Kelly, D., & Fishbein, B. (2019). TIMSS 2019 interna-tional results in mathematics and science.TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Cen-ter, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, and Inter-national Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
  24. OECD. (2019). Programme for International Learner Assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018.https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publica-tions/PISA2018_CN_PHL.pdf
  25. OECD. (2024). PISA 2022 results (Volume III): Creative minds, creative schools.OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en">https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en">https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en
  26. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). 2020 census of population and housing (CPH). https://psa.gov.ph/statistics/cen-sus/population-and-housing">https://psa.gov.ph/statistics/cen-sus/population-and-housing">https://psa.gov.ph/statistics/cen-sus/population-and-housing
  27. Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child.Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  28. Santana, A., Roazzi, A., & Nobre, A. (2022). The relationship between cognitive flexibility and mathematical performance in children: A meta-analysis. Trends in Neurosci-ence and Education, 28, Article 100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100179">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100179">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100179
  29. Sari, T. H. N. I. S. (2019). The relationship be-tween creative thinking and mathematical proving abilities among junior high school learners. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 243(1), 012100. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/243/1/012100">https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/243/1/012100">https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/243/1/012100
  30. Second Congressional Commission on Educa-tion. (2023). Fixing the foundations: A mat-ter of national survival. Government of the Philippines.
  31. Spencer, M., Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Connections between mathemat-ics and reading development: Numerical cognition mediates relations between foundational competencies and later academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000670">https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000670">https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000670
  32. Stocker, J. D., Jr., & Kubina, R. M., Jr. (2021). Building prealgebra fluency through a self-managed practice intervention: Order of operations. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00501-3">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00501-3">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00501-3
  33. Ten Braak, D., Lenes, R., Purpura, D. J., Schmitt, S. A., & Størksen, I. (2022). Why do early mathematics skills predict later mathematics and reading achievement? The role of executive function. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 214, Article 105306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105306">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105306">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105306
  34. Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual abil-ity of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0196-x">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0196-x">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0196-x
  35. Walia, S., & Walia, S. (2017). Mathematical creativity: Its measurement and its relation to intelligence, mathematical competence and general creativity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
  36. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2016). Higher-order thinking skills and low-achieving learners: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1154601

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic