In terms of creativity among students, the quantitative results of the present research, including that of the paired samples t-test, show that all of the students made significant progress from their level of creativity in the pre-test to that of the post-test. It can thus be inferred that the proposed instructional approach could elevate students’ sense of creative thinking and encourage them to apply problem-solving skills to issues or problems they encounter in class and to think of as many alternatives as possible to a dilemma when searching for solutions to a problem. Later on, Hsieh (2018) discovered that the introduction of steps of CPS to students in their design of group projects in a general art course enhances their creativity. Similarly, in Industry 4.0 classes, students confront real-world scenarios where they must incorporate creativity to solve problems and finish thematic projects on time. Also, students, as individuals, must use the CPS process they learned in class as a stimulant to their own creativity so as to find ways and means which solve practical problems that occur throughout the CPS process in their projects. This also echoes what many scholars have suggested in previous studies, namely that creativity is indeed an outcome of creative thinking and problem-solving (Osborn, 1953; Parnes, 1967; Treffinger, 1987).
Quantitative results of the paired samples t-test of the pre- and post-test scores also show that the course could enhance the students’ innovative creativity and all of the skills in creative thinking.
As mentioned previously, creative thinking techniques involve divergent and convergent thinking,
190 Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen
both of which were introduced and practiced in the CPS process in the present research to help students develop innovative ideas (Clapham, 1997; Lemons, 2005; Osborn, 1953). According to the interview responses shared by the student participants, some of them did recognize the practical use of the creative thinking techniques taught in class. Other students acknowledged that the creative thinking techniques helped them achieve a clear analysis of their projects and approach the content more systematically than before. Student participants in the present study received training in various creative thinking techniques pertaining to the proposed CPS process, and the scores they achieved on creativity improved significantly as a result. All of these findings corresponded to those of previous studies (Ritter & Mostert, 2017; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004) and proved that the implementation of brief creative training based on the proposed techniques, with which multiple processes in divergent and convergent thinking in addition to those in problem-solving were targeted, could impact college students’ creativity performance.
According to previous studies, team creativity could be thought of as the production of ideas which are generated in teams and concern novel and useful products or services, and the cohesive bond which one shares with others on the same team has an impact on the individual’s creativity (Amabile, 1996; Shalley, 1991). Moreover, having good cohesion on the team helps its members achieve a positive result on team creative performance (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2017). However, the quantitative results found in the present research show little correlation between students’ team cohesion and their creative product performance. This might indicate that students experienced difficulties communicating with their team members appropriately, resulting in bad cohesion of their groups. For example, some students, in their semi-structured interviews, complained about how they kept failing to find a proper time for everyone on their teams to discuss their creative products due to the tight schedules that their colleagues had. Some students also accused their team members of hitchhiking in their projects for creative products and shared how frustrated they were with the situation. Other students reflected that the amount of time and effort contributed to the project by their team members could influence the rest of the members’ attitude toward the whole team.
Previous studies (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014) have found that even one negative team member could spiral up to the team level and create dysfunctional dynamics that tend to hinder the team interaction and have negative effects on team cohesion.
To further investigate the relationship between team cohesion and creative performance, the present study also ranked each team by its level of cohesion from the highest to the lowest. As discovered by previous studies, positive team cohesion, on the one hand, could bring about team motivation with which members are encouraged to engage in creative activities and hence prepare
Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity 191
the team for a positive impact on its performances (Hülsheger et al., 2009). On the other hand, even one affectively negative member could bring a disproportionate impact on team function and outcomes and thus ruin the cohesion (Hill, Offermann, & Thomas, 2018). This, to a certain degree, annotates the mean scores given to group creative products in the present research; the mean score achieved by the high team cohesion group with their creative products was much higher than that of the low team cohesion group. However, other results might have also contributed significantly to the low team cohesion experienced by the teams that fall under this group. Many results found in this present research point out that the level of creativity ascribed to the individuals in this group is highly capable of inducing significant differences in the cohesion of the team. This suggests that the CPS approach proposed by the present research can be an important factor that improves creativity among students struggling with low team cohesion. Another fact raised by Carbonell and Rodríguez Escudero (2018) renders the current discussion even more interesting with its evidence confirming that positive team cohesion can be really advantageous to and facilitate the development of new products. Meanwhile, their research also points out how, especially when team cohesion remains low, team boundary spanning may have a positive and significant effect on the competitive advantage of their new products and how such effect may easily lose its strength in situations where the cohesion runs high in a team. This may also mean that group members would be more prone to the influence of information and resources they receive during activities of boundary spanning while their team cohesion stays low, and that team cohesion could result in different creative displays depending on how high or low it is in a certain situation.
In line with the quantitative discoveries, results of the semi-structured interviews with student participants in the present research also reflect strongly the presence of cohesiveness and the importance of reaching out to fellow teammates in need of support from peers. Aside from the opportunity for student participants to be acquainted with others from different fields in this course, some students also mentioned that they were excited to be involved in this course because it allows them to produce creative works for the companies in the industry. Some of them also shared how much they enjoyed collaborating with one another on their team, which they considered one of the elements indispensable to the development of good team cohesion (Nijstad & De Dreu, 2012). These results found in the interview correspond to those expected by the present research on the outset. It is thus hoped that the students not only learn to respect others on the same team, but also develop self-regulation with which they are able to better contribute to a collaborative project and to complete tasks or solve problems in collaboration with others (Kuo et al., 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009) in a team process.
192 Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen