The Effect of Student Participation in School Governance on Creativity

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.03.009

Abstract

Abstract:

The development of students’ creativity plays a pivotal role in the implementation of the Innovation-driven Development Strategy. The school environment deeply affects students’ creativity, and the level of student participation in governance in schools is one of the key influencing factors. However, the connotation of student participation in governance remains unclear, and its mechanism of influence on students’ creativity is not well-defined. This study employed a mixed-method approach to analyze the connotation and dimensions of student participation in governance and its utility mechanism on students’ creativity. The qualitative part adopted the grounded theory to analyze interview of teachers and students, revealing that student participation in governance encompasses three dimensions, namely, freedom of expression, agenda participation, and deliberative discussion. The quantitative part revised the questionnaire of student participation in governance and conducted a large-scale survey. The findings display that creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation play intervening roles in the indirect influence of student participation in governance on students’ creativity. The serial mediation model obtained in this study sheds light on the relationships between these factors and suggests that schools should cultivate students’ creativity by providing students with a safe space for free expression, encouraging students’ participation in school agendas, and fostering an supportive atmosphere of deliberative discussion.

Key words: school governance, student participation, creativity, mixed-method, serial mediation model

Siteng Ma, Hongqi Chu. The Effect of Student Participation in School Governance on Creativity[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2025, 43(3): 110-123.

Figures/Tables 9

References

	程黎, 程曦, 王美玲, & 李子华. (2021). 超常儿童内部动机与创造力的关系: 课堂同伴互动的中介作用. 中国特殊教育, (1), 58- 65.
	程黎, 冯超 & 刘玉娟. (2013). 课堂环境与中小学生创造力发展——穆斯(MOOS)社会环境理论在课堂环境中的解读. 比较教育研究, (04), 71- 75.
	成刚 & 朱庆环. (2021). 学校治理现代化再认识: 理论特质与未来趋势. 中国教育学刊, (04), 5- 11.
	褚宏启. (2017). 学生创新能力发展的整体设计与策略组合. 教育研究, (10), 23- 30+60.
	褚宏启. (2021). 绘制教育治理的全景图: 教育治理的概念拓展与体系完善. 教育研究, 42 (12), 105- 119.
	褚宏启. (2022). 教育治理研究亟待深化. 中国教育学刊, (08), 7.
	范文翔, & 张一春. (2018). STEAM教育: 发展、内涵与可能路径. 现代教育技术, 28 (03), 99- 105. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2018.03.015
	方芳. (2018). 义务教育学校治理变革的逻辑辨识与推进策略——基于“观念·利益· 制度”的分析框架. 基础教育, 15 (4), 50- 57. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-2232.2018.04.007
	方杰, & 温忠麟. (2023). 中介效应和调节效应模型进阶. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 74—75.
	冯建军, & 刘霞. (2014). 协商民主视域下的公民素养与民主教育. 高等教育研究, 35 (06), 8- 16+38.
	冯建军. (2020). 公民主体性及其培育. 教育科学, 36 (06), 1- 6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8064.2020.06.001
	哈贝马斯. (2003). 在事实与规范之间(童世骏, 译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
	侯浩翔. (2018). 校长领导方式可以影响教师教学创新吗?——兼论学校组织创新氛围的中介效应. 教育科学, 34 (1), 7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8064.2018.01.002
	李希贵. (2005). 为了自由呼吸的教育. 北京: 高等教育出版社.
	林健. (2018). 多学科交叉融合的新生工科专业建设. 高等工程教育研究, (01), 32- 45.
	佩特曼. (2006). 参与和民主理论(陈尧, 译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
	孙雪连. (2017). 学校民主管理及其影响因素研究. 北京: 北京师范大学学位论文.
	田友谊, & 涂艳国. (2009). 教育中的宽容与创造——兼论创造性人才成长环境的培育. 教育发展研究, (20), 28- 32.
	王莉, & 蔡永红. (2016). 家长式领导与教师教学创新表现: 信任和自主动机的中介作用. 教育研究与实验, (2), 6.
	王晓茜, & 姚昊. (2022). 大学生参与大学内部治理行为的影响因素研究——基于多群组结构方程模型的实证分析. 重庆高教研究, (02), 49- 59.
	温忠麟, & 叶宝娟. (2014). 中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 22 (05), 731- 745.
	吴明隆. (2010). 结构方程模型——AMOS的操作与应用. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社.
	叶飞. (2020). 走向多中心治理: 学校组织管理的善治之道. 苏州大学学报: 教育科学版, 8 (4), 7,46- 52.
	张雷. (2020). 学校治理视野下中小学自主办学问题研究——基于S市的问卷调查分析. 上海教育科研, (01), 15- 19.
	张萍, Ding Lin, & 张文硕. (2017). 翻转课堂的理念、演变与有效性研究. 教育学报, 13 (01), 46- 55.
	中共中央, 国务院. (2019). 中共中央、国务院印发《中国教育现代化2035》. 取自中华人民共和国中央人民政府官网(2019年2月23日): https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-02/23/content_5367987.htm.
	Abedi, J. (2000). Abedi test of creativity (ATC). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.
	Agnoli, S., Runco, M., Kirsch, C., & Corazza, G. (2018). The role of motivation in the prediction of creative achievement inside and outside of school environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, 167- 176. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.05.005
	Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 357- 376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
	Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40 (1), 39- 58. doi: 10.2307/41165921
	Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39. (5), 1154- 1184.
	Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 367- 403. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
	Ashiq, M., Jabeen, F., & Mahmood, K. (2023). Workplace creativity and job satisfaction of academic librarians: A perspective of distributed leadership theory. Information Development, 39 (3), 500- 511. doi: 10.1177/02666669221136864
	Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (2), 258- 269. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258
	Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In James C. Kaufman, Robert J. Sternberg, The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 447—463.
	Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two‐factor study process questionnaire: R‐SPQ‐2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 133- 149. doi: 10.1348/000709901158433
	Brooks, C. F., & Young, S. L. (2011). Are choice-making opportunities needed in the classroom? Using self-determination theory to consider student motivation and learner empowerment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23 (1), 48- 59.
	Cai, W., Lin-Schilstra, L., Yang, C., & Fan, X. (2021). Does participation generate creativity? A dual-mechanism of creative self-efficacy and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30 (4), 541- 554. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1864329
	Cakır, S. G. (2015). Authoritative approach and student empowerment among university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 151- 154. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.078
	Clara, N. O., & Williams, C. (2011). Fostering democratic practices through cooperative learning in secondary schools: Towards matured democratic dispensation. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2, 81- 88. doi: 10.1080/09766634.2011.11885551
	Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (4), 327- 335. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1704_4
	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49 (3), 182. doi: 10.1037/a0012801
	Finkel, S. E. (1987). The effects of participation on political efficacy and political support: Evidence from a West German panel. The Journal of Politics, 49 (2), 441- 464. doi: 10.2307/2131308
	Forman, S. G., & McKinney, J. D. (1978). Creativity and achievement of second graders in open and traditional classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (1), 101. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.70.1.101
	Gajda, A. (2016). The relationship between school achievement and creativity at different educational stage. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 246- 259. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.12.004
	Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy, Academy of Management Journal, 2009, 52(4), 765—778.
	Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29 (5), 549- 569. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001
	Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2017). Narratives of creativity: How eight teachers on four school levels integrate creativity into teaching and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 127- 139. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.008
	Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). Freedom and constraint in creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed. ), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
	Kamran, M., Ameer, I., Saleh, W., Aslam, S., & Benyo, A. (2023). Psychometric properties of classroom creativity climate scale (CCCS): Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis in the Pakistani context. Psychology in the Schools, 60 (11), 4481- 4496. doi: 10.1002/pits.23011
	Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8 (4), 547- 558.
	Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13 (1), 1- 12. doi: 10.1037/a0013688
	Keating, A., & Benton, T. (2013). Creating cohesive citizens in England? Exploring the role of diversity, deprivation and democratic climate at school. Education Citizenship & Social Justice, 8 (2), 165- 184.
	Kudryavtsev, V. T. (2011). The phenomenon of child creativity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19 (1), 45- 53. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2011.570999
	Liu, D., Chen, X., -P &Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (2), 294- 309. doi: 10.1037/a0021294
	Liu, X. -X., Gong, S. -Y., Zhang, H. -P., Yu, Q. -L., & Zhou, Z. -J. (2021). Perceived teacher support and creative self-efficacy: The mediating roles of autonomous motivation and achievement emotions in Chinese junior high school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39.
	Ma, X., Bie, Z., Li, C., Gu, C., Li, Q., Tan, Y., Tian, M., & Fan, C. (2023). The effect of intrinsic motivation and environmental cues on social creativity. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (4), 2063- 2079. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1874423
	Mabovula, N. (2009). Giving voice to the voiceless through deliberative democratic school governance. South African Journal of Education, 29 (2), 219- 233. doi: 10.15700/saje.v29n2a162
	Mager, U., & Nowak, P. (2012). Effects of student participation in decision making at school. A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 7 (1), 38- 61.
	Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48 (1), 21- 29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.009
	McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 (1), 22- 33. doi: 10.1177/107179190100800102
	Orakci, Ş., & Durnali, M. (2023). The mediating effects of metacognition and creative thinking on the relationship between teachers' autonomy support and teachers' self‐efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 60 (1), 162- 181. doi: 10.1002/pits.22770
	Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137- 1148. doi: 10.2307/3069429
	Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6 (4), 236- 262. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x
	Williams, F. E. (1979). Assessing creativity across Williams" cube" model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23 (4), 748- 756. doi: 10.1177/001698627902300406
	Wood, M. T. (1973). Power relationships and group decision making in organizations. Psychological Bulletin, 79 (5), 280- 293. doi: 10.1037/h0034618
	Zhao, X., & Yang, J. (2021). Fostering creative thinking in the family: The importance of parenting styles. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41.
	Zhao, X., Lynch Jr., J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197- 206. doi: 10.1086/651257

主范畴	初始范畴	范畴内涵
表达自由	自由提问	遇到困惑时，学生敢于表达问题的程度
	发表见解	在教师面前，学生敢于表达自己真实观点的程度
	坚持观点	与老师想法不同时，能坚持表达自己观点的程度
议程参与	学生参与选举	学生参与选举的机会多少
	班级/学校事务参与	学生参与班级/学校事务的程度
	规则制定参与	学生提案和投票的机会多少
	学生-教师讨论	教师和学生就班级事务讨论协商的程度
协商讨论	学生-管理者讨论	学校领导和学生就学校事务讨论协商的程度
	学生-学生讨论	学生之间讨论协商的频率与质量
	依据理由决策	讨论结果依据理由而非不同主体身份地位的程度

	χ²	df	P	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	RMESA
总量表	95.738	23	0.000	4.163	0.988	0.994	0.024

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1 学生参与治理	3.39	0.772	1
2 内部动机	3.81	0.992	0.539**	1
3 创新自我效能感	3.40	0.897	0.513**	0.438**	1
4 创新能力	3.35	0.723	0.529**	0.431**	0.613**	1

模型	χ2	df	Δχ2	TLI	CFI	GFI	RFI	RMSEA
四因子	1622.122	96	—	0.947	0.957	0.966	0.944	0.053
三因子	5233.271	100	3611.149	0.828	0.856	0.871	0.825	0.095
二因子	5824.341	102	591.070	0.812	0.840	0.853	0.809	0.099
单因子	7016.628	103	1192.287	0.775	0.807	0.833	0.772	0.109

变量	内部动机		创新能力
变量	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5
性别	.036***	.024	.020	.009	.004
年级	−.006	−.013	−.089***	−.096***	−.093***
父亲受教育程度	.071***	.022	.172	.126	.122
学生参与治理		0.542***		.507***	.401***
内部动机					.196***
R²	.007	.297	.043	.298	.325
F	7.825***	377.650***	53.645***	378.418***	343.341***