創意問題解決模式對大學生創造力之影響與團隊凝聚力之關聯性

(1)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₆₉

Journal of Research in Education Sciences 2019, 64(3), 169-201

doi:10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0007

Influence of a Creative Problem-Solving

Approach on College Students’ Creativity and

Its Relation With Team Cohesion

Hsiu-Ling Chen

_{Yu-Jung Chen}

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology

Abstract

This study attempts to present further perspectives upon the effectiveness of developing creative thinking among engineering majors in college both through the incorporation of creative problem-solving (CPS) method and the influence of team cohesion in an engineering course so as to explore the impact of the proposed pedagogical approach on students’ creative thinking. The 18-week course plan created in this research features the context of Industry 4.0. A total of 48 participants were enrolled in the course and divided into groups each of which was expected to develop a thematic project. To provide a holistic understanding of the CPS approach’s influence on students’ creativity, the present research applied a mixed methodology, which included survey questionnaires (team cohesion questionnaire), creativity measurement (creativity test), as well as semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics, t-test and Pearson product-moment correlation were adopted to analyze the quantitative results. Qualitative contents of semi-structured interviews were used to support the quantitative data. The results showed that the engineering college students had a significant improvement between their pre-test score on creativity and their post-test score. Furthermore, a significant change in students’ types of creative thinking was also found in terms of their innovative creativity. Besides, interviews with student participants echoed with the quantitative results and showed preferences among students toward certain types of creativity. The qualitative results reveal how some students praised the benefits of the CPS steps as well as those of creative

Corresponding Author: Hsiu-Ling Chen, E-mail: shirley@mail.ntust.edu.tw

(2)

170 Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen

thinking techniques taught in class, how some of them also pointed out the difficulties and reasons that might have influenced their development of a team project, and how the same challenges caused them to struggle with creative thinking and the maintenance of team cohesion. Finally, the research results are summarized and limitations are acknowledged to engage instructors and future studies in a discussion about the implementation of creative training among students and about how it may facilitate their creative thinking.

(3)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₇₁

Introduction

In the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm (Bandyopadhyay & Sen, 2011), many of the objects that surround us will be on the network in one form or another. While the next wave in the era of computing is brewing and presenting new problems beyond any current means of solution, people are expected to develop abilities that render them creative, innovative, and effectively responsive to problems all at once. Nowadays, there is been a growing amount of international support for and interest in research on a number of skills required for the next generation of students to succeed in the rapidly digital society. As the world realizes ever more clearly how the ability of the younger generation critically determines the competitiveness of a country (Saavedra & Opfer, 2012), the call for a new breath to be taken in the education of the next generation has never seemed as lucid and cogent.

Education in the 21st century has been and is being profoundly influenced by technology and globalization. Competences such as critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration and leadership, effective communication, curiosity and imagination have evolved and taken on new meanings and relevance through the advancements of technology (Rotherham & Willingham, 2009; Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishra, 2013). Amongst all of these competences, the qualities needed for creative thinking and problem solving are considered very desirable and marketable attributes for graduates entering the 21st century workplace (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). This naturally feeds into an emerging global consensus on the importance of developing 21st century capabilities as part of the education curricula (Drake & Reid, 2018). Curricula related to creative thinking and training in problem solving encourage students to think broadly and to apply profound skills in terms of reasoning, logic, resourcefulness, imagination, and innovation. These curricula also invigorate every professional field with the potential development of new products or services. Also, creativity ultimately leads to the implementation of original and practical ideas that solve problems (Bourgeois-Bougrine, Buisine, Vandendriessche, Glaveanu, & Lubart, 2017). Consequently, curricula adapted to include creativity and problem solving are essential to help students jump on this bandwagon of global change (Martz, Hughes, & Braun, 2017).

To increase students’ ability in creativity and problem solving, team cohesion has been raised as an important variable in research on creativity and innovation in a team process (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Joo, Song, Lim, & Yoon, 2012). Team support has also been found to be related to the creation of innovative ideas in organizational settings (Ekvall, 1991). Previous

(4)

studies have discussed various interactions from different teams engaged in innovation (Daft, 1978). For example, Toyama and Mauno (2016) studied the interaction among health care professionals, and investigated the relationship between teamwork and their creativity at work. They found that good collaboration brings about positive influences on the team’s work-related creative performances. Being engaged in a team process not only helps members respect one another, but also encourages the development of self-regulation among members in their contribution to a shared project, in their completion of tasks, or in their solutions to problems (Kuo et al., 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). If schools are thus regarded as a breeding place where students prepare themselves for entry into the real world of business, the cultivation that they receive from the school in relation to teaming up with others at work should then be a main focus for the design of creative curricula. Inspired by the above research findings about the effect of team work and the team process on the creative performance and problem-solving abilities among teams in different professional settings, this present research aims to (1) investigate whether the combination of a problem-based learning approach and teamwork can enhance college students’ creativity and creative performance and (2) further explore the correlation between team cohesion and students’ creativity performance.

Literature Review

Overview of Creativity

Characteristics of Creativity

Most people nowadays believe that creativity is granted through some sacred power or an otherworldly gift since there is not a common agreement on what constitutes creativity. So, what is creativity? It is a tough question to answer because creativity is a complex thought process that is not easily defined given the abstract nature imbedded in its invisible character (Lewis, 2006). Researchers have adopted many approaches to the construct of creativity and have attempted to address issues such as how creativity is defined as a concept, its various ways of measurement, and the argument surrounding its quality as a fixed trait (Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). Rhodes (1961) defines creativity in terms of its various aspects: the products it produces, the environment needed to generate creative products, and the modes of thinking involved in its creation of original products or responses. Sternberg (1988) suggests that the efforts of dissecting creativity into processes, persons, and products can be fruitful since many studies on creativity can be subsumed in these topics (Lewis, 2006; MacKinnon, 1987).

(5)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₇₃

be creative is to produce work that is both novel and socially useful (Lubart, 1994). Furthermore, the products it creates should contain originality and clear objectives that aim to complement, not causing conflicts with the objectives and needs of others (Gruber, 1988). According to Boden (1994), inventors are usually not aware of the source of their insights, and thus creativity can be seen as bipartite concepts between the creative and the ordinary. Although originality is a vital element of creativity, to have it alone is not sufficient. Ideas and products that are merely original may be proved to be useless if they are not effective enough to be creative (Bailin, 1994; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). In addition to originality, usefulness is thus the other characteristic creative works strive to achieve (Mayer, 1999). The results of such creation must also contain uniqueness, quality, and value. Furthermore, to be counted as creative output, a product should also exhibit both some level of novelty as well as a degree of appropriateness (Horn & Salvendy, 2006; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).

The Assessment of Creativity

According to Guilford (1950, p. 444), “Creativity refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of creative people.” Every individual has the power to show creative behavior to an outstanding degree, no matter how many creative abilities the individual is endowed with. That is, the fathom of creativity should look beyond the normal boundaries of IQ; instead, creativity is presented in varying degrees on the principle of continuity. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) developed by Torrance (1974, 1990, 1998) is the most widely used creativity test (Davis, 1997) and is the most referenced of all (Lissitz & Willhoft, 1985). It measures fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. While Guildford (1956, 1959, 1970, 1986) considers divergent thinking to be involved in creative thinking on the one hand, he also notes that creativity requires sensitivity to problems and that it calls for abilities in redefinition that are capable of transforming thoughts, reinterpretations, and functional inflexibility in order for unique solutions to be developed. Therefore, it is believed that TTCT, although showing much possibility of creativity in producing works that may be novel and appropriate (Horn & Salvendy, 2006; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999), lacks the sensitivity to the mechanism of concentration by which creativity is often characterized (Kirton, 2004). This present research thus adopts Revolutionary Drawing, developed by Hong, Chen, Su, and Tai (2019), which takes into account both divergent and convergent thinking, to assess students’ creativity.

The prime definition of creativity recognizes that creativity involves the creation of new and useful products, including ideas and concrete objects (Mayer, 1999). Furthermore, the creation of these creative products is of value due to the existence of certain external criteria (Wallace & Gruber, 1992). Some research argues that product creativity cannot be defined, but only exists if appropriate

(6)

judges acknowledge its existence (Amabile, 1983). Therefore, a number of scholars and creativity experts have been discussing the employment of a consensual assessment technique for measuring product creativity (e.g., Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Simonton, 1984; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT), which was proposed by Amabile (1983), is a subjective assessment of product creativity, where judges are asked to individually select and score criteria to determine the product creativity. Judges are asked to make ratings of a heuristic task according to the extent of novelty and appropriateness of a product or an idea. In this present research, three expert judges, who shared special expertise and experience in the course titled “Theory and Practice with Industry 4.0,” were invited to rate students’ creative products.

Creativity and Team Cohesion

Team cohesion refers to the extent to which members are committed to the team, and how well the team is integrated in terms of pursuit of its goals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). In collaborative situations, the participants are mutually involved in their shared activities and must coordinate among themselves as a team to solve problems (Hamalainen, 2008). Researchers have asserted that team collaboration stimulates learning dynamics that contribute to the achievement of learning goals (Davidson, 1985; Dillenbourg, 1999; Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; McCarthey & McMahon, 1992). A study of cohesiveness is considered essential for understanding group dynamics in teams (Zander, 1979). Team cohesion is one of the six key aspects of Team Work Quality (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). With a sense of togetherness and belonging, meaningful collaboration is possible in groups. Besides, team cohesion promotes sharing of tacit knowledge among members. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Devloo, Rico, Salanova, and Anseel (2017) further examined roles which collective engagement play in relation to team cohesion. They found that the development of team cohesion can be predicted by the team’s creative performance. It is thus believed that the social integration involved in the team’s creative process is capable of stimulating team members in their interactions with one another and then of leading to the exchange of ideas within a supportive and unintimidating team atmosphere. Based on previous research findings, this present study intends to contribute to the above academic discussions through its evidenced-based exploration of how a college course featuring creative problem-solving (CPS) may influence students’ creativity and of what relation this might have with their team cohesion.

Overview of the Problem-Solving Approach

Creativity is the procedure through which students produce their own ideas or solutions (Yang & Cheng, 2010; Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011) whereas problem solving refers to how one

(7)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₇₅

reaches one’s goals by way of overcoming barriers (Akcaoglu & Koehler, 2014; Lazakidou & Retalis, 2010). These two elements are aptly bound up with each other thanks to the academic claim of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) which regards the creative process as a response to a problematic situation. The application of CPS approaches is thus widely known and discussed as one of the important goals of contemporary education due to its relation to creativity (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005). In recent decades, the CPS framework has continued to evolve (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004), and some specific changes can be identified in the development of its model over time.

Problem Solving and Creativity

Schoenfeld (1985) and Reys, Lindquist, Lambdin, and Smith (2014) define a problem as a situation where a person intends to achieve something without being sure about how to do so. To solve a problem, one needs to undergo a phase of decision making which involves a process of spontaneous investigation, exploration and experimentation (Britz & Richard, 1992). “It means pursuing understanding, looking for answers, trying out some possibilities, and finding out whether or not they work” (Britz & Richard, 1992, p. 12). Through their participation in problem solving, people grow increasingly aware of alternatives, build up abilities for dealing with difficulties, and feel empowered rather than vulnerable. While creativity is not a necessity for solving problems, creative production, is one of the situations that mandates problem-solving activities.

According to Torrance (1977), the emergence of creativity involves observing, seeing possibilities, finding problems, taking risks, making mistakes, failing, contemplating, re-contemplating, trying new ways, solving problems and sharing the process and product. This shows how creativity and problem solving are concepts that complement each other. Creative individuals tend to display their abilities in solving problems in an innovative, high quality and appropriate manner (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). Further discussion asserts that a problem-solving process involves the divergence and convergence of creativity. Creativity potentially exists among all people (Taylor & Sacks, 1981; Torrance, 1990), so any individuals might be gifted with the aptitude to be creatively productive in meaningful ways. When put in the center of a curriculum, creativity easily exemplifies and promotes itself among students in class. In addition, problem solving often turns out to be the driving pedagogy among students whose greater success and satisfaction are achieved through creative efforts (Livingston, 2010).

Divergent Thinking and Converging Thinking in CPS Models

Most CPS models explicitly recognize the role of divergent and convergent thinking in the CPS process. Divergent thinking, or the ability to produce a significant number and assortment of innovative ideas (Guilford, 1956; Torrence, 1990), is an important aspect of the CPS process.

(8)

Individuals must be adept at thinking divergently if they wish to successfully expand the range of their choice of possible solutions to a problem. Past research has identified a host of techniques designed to enhance divergent thinking among individuals (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992). Similarly, convergent thinking, or the ability to converge on the best possible solution, also plays an important role in the CPS process. Individuals must be able to evaluate or judge the value of different ideas if they intend to carry out the CPS process effectively. Fortunately, past research has also produced a number of analytical techniques that facilitate convergent thinking.

Method

The present study applied a mixed methodology design, adopting both qualitative and quantitative analytical methods to investigate college students’ creativity, group creative product performance, team cohesion and perceptions of the CPS process involved. Qualitative methods such as interviews were used to explore and analyze student participants’ perceptions of their overall experiences, of the course and of the proposed approach. As for the quantitative analysis, both the creativity test by Hong et al. (2019) and the team cohesion questionnaire by Jeng and Tang (2004) were adopted and the participants’ answers analyzed. In addition, a total of three specialists were invited to assess students’ thematic group projects for their creative product performance.

Participants

The present research was carried out in “Theory and Practice with Industry 4.0,” a course given at a national university in Taiwan. All student participants studied the trends and implications of Industry 4.0 in learning. The experimental period took place in the fall semester of 2017 and lasted for 18 weeks. A total of 48 participants were involved in this research, 42 of whom were majoring in mechanical engineering while the remaining six were majors from other departments. All of the students were divided into 12 groups based on specific criteria in compliance with the requirement of this course. At the end of the course, every group was asked to make a presentation, where they presented the ideas they had created for their thematic project. The presentation was a chance for them to display their group creative performance.

Research Design

To investigate the effects of a CPS process infused into an engineering course, to foster students’ creativity, and to explore the relationship between their creativity performance and team cohesion, the present research applied a CPS approach to the course in Industry 4.0. This curriculum

(9)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₇₇

of Industry 4.0 is composed of two parts: creative thinking training and professional knowledge lectures. In the creative training component, the instructor inculcates students with a six-stage CPS process within three CPS sessions across the 18 weeks. Each of the three sessions featured different stages of the CPS process. Creative thinking techniques such as Brainstorming, Six Thinking Hats, SCAMPER and the Bug-list Techniques were also taught, and the students were given opportunities to practice them in class. To build up students’ professional knowledge, field professionals were invited to give lectures and to instruct students on the latest theories in Industry 4.0. This gives students the knowledge base required for further development of their professional skills in Industry 4.0. Toward the end of the semester, students were instructed to visualize and develop a thematic project in groups, and they must base their projects on the concept of Industry 4.0. Their thematic projects would then be used as the materials for an evaluation of their creative product performance. It was assumed in this present research that the application of the CPS process would help students solve problems and innovate during this one-semester program. Hence, the incorporation of the CPS process into the context of teaching is naturally the main concern of the study.

Furthermore, to gain in-depth knowledge of the effect of the proposed pedagogy on the promotion of creative thinking among student participants, individual interviews were conducted at the end of the course. Items in the individual interview were categorized into three parts based on how students perceived their overall learning experiences. The first part of the items featured not only the preferences and types of creativity demonstrated by the students, especially when some of them suffered from an overtaxed brain, but also included how they managed to develop thinking habits that aided them in their decision making. Interview questions in this section included: “Diverging ideas is to think of as many ideas as you can, whereas coverging ideas, is to find ways of refining them. Which one do you find more difficult to practice? Why?” and “Do you think that the creative thinking techniques taught in this course helped you adopt a new way of thinking?” Interview questions in the second part focused on the production of their thematic projects and their experience of the production process. Their interview responses helped to understand how their process in and overall perceptions of learning were affected by both the effectiveness and weaknesses of the proposed CPS pedagogy. Example items included: “What do you think is the most difficult part of your project?” and “Do you think that the creative thinking techniques taught in this course contributed to your making of the creative product?” The last part of the items addressed the issue of team cohesion. It was expected that the promotion of interaction in class would improve not only cohesion among team members but also the quality of their interaction as they got to know, accept, and support one another both through their constructive resolution of conflicts and by sharing feedback with other teams and individual members. However, the main concern of the study was to

(10)

find out how the teams worked among themselves towards successful learning in a real-world situation. Hence, in addition to the items mentioned above, real situation oriented questions such as “How do you find the cohesion of your team? Would you say it is good or bad?,” “What do you think is the biggest challenge for your team to maintain a high degree of collaboration?,” and “What did you learn from your teamwork experience in class?” were also presented in the interviews.

Course Background

In view of the extensive interdisciplinary cooperation commonly seen between creativity and engineering, students are growing increasingly aware of the emerging needs to be met by enterprises in the industry and thus request many courses to include goals that are in line with the fulfillment of those needs. Therefore, besides acquiring professional knowledge through lectures, students also engaged in brainstorming in their group projects where they developed ideas that helped companies improve or release new products. In addition, introduction to the CPS process and heuristic creative thinking methods are also stressed in this course, the curriculum of which followed suggestions made in consultation with three leading professors in this field. Also, students must attend all three CPS sessions arranged for them in this course before starting their group projects of Industry 4.0. The framework of the CPS process adopted in this research was originally proposed by Titus (2000). See Figure 1 for the course framework.

(11)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₇₉

CPS Sessions

The present research delivered its adapted CPS process (Titus, 2000) in three separate sessions. Each session required students to follow through certain tasks and finish designing creative products in groups. The complete CPS process involved herein entailed some degree of problem preparation, which then led to periods of idea generation, idea evaluation and refinement, and, finally, idea implementation. In CPS Session 1: “Getting the Problem Ready,” a problem must be identified and further delineated by the students, who then engaged in the preparation of problems by collecting and discussing relevant information until a clear definition of the problem was produced. Therefore, in this session, students were expected to go through all three stages of the above mentioned CPS process, namely “problem identification,” “problem delineation,” and “information gathering.” Later on, in CPS Session 2: “Generating Ideas,” students engaged in various activities that aimed to generate, evaluate, and refine new ideas in a given amount of time to come up with creative solutions to the said problem. It should be noted that this was also the session where idea generation and idea evaluation, two of the six stages of the CPS process, were incorporated. Finally, the proposed solution is administered or implemented as an actual solution to the problem over the course of CPS Session 3: “Planning for Action,” in which idea implementation, the final stage of the six-stage CPS process, was implemented.

Instructional Procedures

The present research was based on a specific course plan under Industry 4.0 contexts. All of its requirements were introduced in the first week. For the following weeks, Industry 4.0 courses, which included themes such as the Internet of Things, Big Data, Cyber-Physical System and so on, were introduced in face-to-face class meetings. The first lecture on CPS was delivered soon after all student participants formed their own groups. As for the experimental procedure, at the beginning of the course, students were given a pretest of “Revolutionary Drawing Assessment,” a creativity test developed by Hong et al. (2019). To group all student participants properly, some criteria were set. First of all, students’ former experience with projects was taken into account to minimize the gap in their prior knowledge as they proceeded towards the completion of a thematic project by the end of the semester. Second, another measure was also adopted in an attempt to rule out the risk of random sampling error due to the differences in their grade levels. One rule of thumb of this measure was to make sure that students of all grade levels were evenly distributed among all groups and that each group had at least one senior or junior member in it. Third, all of the students were asked to reach out to potential group members who had different professional expertise from theirs. Lastly, a

(12)

warm-up exercise was arranged to help them familiarize themselves with and mingle with one another before the course continued and a shortlist of the members of each group was finalized and confirmed.

Next, the CPS process was introduced. A total of three sessions were scheduled on the basis of 3 hours each for the six stages of the CPS process to be introduced to the students in class. The instructional procedures were also established to ensure that each aspect of the proposed process, namely getting the problem ready, generating ideas, and planning for action (see Figure 2), was covered by an equal number of CPS sessions. Meanwhile, creative thinking strategies, including Brainstorming, Six Thinking Hats, SCAMPER, and the Bug-list Technique, were also taught and practiced in class alongside the introduction to the CPS process. Whenever the class was in session, a worksheet concerning the topic of their projects was handed to each group. This was to ensure that members of the same group engaged their peers and helped one another understand fully the steps in the CPS process as they worked in groups towards the completion of the assignment.

(13)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₈₁

(continued)

Research Tools

Revolutionary Drawing: Creativity Assessment

According to the Adaptation-Innovation theory proposed by Kirton (1976), creativity is broken down into two types: innovative and adaptive. Furthermore, people are located on a continuum ranging from those who are considered highly innovative to others who seem highly adaptive (Hong et al., 2019; Kirton, 2004). In Revolutionary Drawing (Hong et al., 2019), creators have to use lines or patterns to draw a meaningful “object” and name it in a creativity test, the first column of which comprises 18 squares in total. Every new object created by students must include its former version, and each name given to the object can only be used once. Moreover, new lines or patterns must be added to the new blank spaces or no score will be added. Every creator has 20 minutes to engage in creative thinking about all of the objects they create throughout the test. The scorers of the tests are given some criteria comprised of six different kinds of creative thinking that fall into two types of creativity, innovative creativity and adaptive creativity. All of the creative thinking types are shown in Table 1.Each type is counted according to the number of times it appears in the test as a means of quantitatively indicating the degree of the creative thinking being measured. The kappa inter-rater reliability attributed to the two scorers following the rules of Revolution Drawing was .84.

Table 1

Types of Creativity and Creative Thinking

Type of Creativity Type of Creative Thinking Scoring Rules

Cross-categories Thinking

If the creators draw something different from previous categories, making the original object into another different one, they will score 10 points for each square

Multiple-direction Thinking

If the creators flexibly visualize an object from different perspectives and add lines to make it into a different object, 5 points will be given for each square

Reverse Thinking

If the creators change a big object into a smaller one, 7 points will be given for each square

Innovative Creativity

Originality Thinking

If the creators are able to show rarity in the statistical responses, they will exclusively get 10 points added to their cross-categories thinking score. However, only 2% of the responses are counted for this type of thinking

(14)

Table 1

Types of Creativity and Creative Thinking (continued)

Type of Creativity Type of Creative Thinking Scoring Rules

Mono-category Thinking

If the creators change an object into another one but both objects are still in the same category or have the same function, 2 points will be given for each square

Adaptive Creativity

Enriched Thinking

If the creators revise the content of the drawing by adding other objects into the square but fail to change the function of the original object, 1 point will be given for each square

Team Cohesion Questionnaire

The questionnaire of team cohesion developed by Jeng and Tang (2004) consists of nine items and represents the students’ experience with collaboration throughout the course (e.g., “The conversation I had while working with my team members was effective”). This instrument is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1” for “strongly disagree” to “5” for “strongly agree.” The Cronbach’s α value of the questionnaire is .84. Items in the questionnaire adopted by the present research were reviewed by two domain experts to ensure the optimal content validity.

Results

The Results of the Creativity Test

As inferred from Table 2, the results of the mean scores show a major change from the pre-test (M = 100.62) to the post-test (M = 167.10), and there is a significant improvement in the scores of the creativity test (t = -7.23, p < .001). This might indicate that the students performed at a different level when given the instruction. In order to gain deep understanding of the changes in the students’ creative thinking, the present study adopted the paired samples t-test. The results reveal a positive change in both types of creativity among students.

Table 2

Paired Samples t-test between the Total Creativity Test Pre- and Post-test Scores (N = 48)

M SD t

Pre-test 100.02 41.10

Creativity Test

Post-test 167.10 63.22 -7.23***

(15)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₈₃

Further descriptive statistics of the scores of innovative creativity and adaptive creativity are displayed in Table 3. Average scores of the pre- and post-test of both innovative and adaptive creativity showed improvement. This implies that the participating college students performed differently in the creativity tests. The present study then adopted the paired samples t-test, the results of which showed that there was a significant difference between the pre- and post-test of innovative creativity (t = -7.06, p < .001) among students; however, there was no significant difference between their pre- and post-test of adaptive creativity (t = -1.86, p > .05).

Table 3

Paired Samples t-test between the Pre- and Post-test of Innovative Creativity and Adaptive Creativity (N = 48) M SD t Pre-test 198.25 40.76 Innovative Creativity Post-test 164.15 63.22 -7.06*** Pre-test 1.77 2.44 Adaptive Creativity Post-test 2.96 3.52 -1.86*** ***p < .001.

To add to the results surrounding the two strands of creativity, the present study also attempted to further investigate the six types of thinking, split between innovative creativity and adaptive creativity. Cross-category thinking, multiple-direction thinking, reverse thinking and originality thinking belong to innovative creativity; mono-category thinking and enriching thinking fall under adaptive creativity. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the changes across all six types of creative thinking among students, further analysis of each was conducted. It was found that correlations existed only among a handful of students’ creative thinking in the pre-test. As few as three coefficients ( .76, .38, and .62, p < .05) were found to be significant by the statistical tests of the correlation between originality thinking and, respectively, cross-category thinking, multiple- direction thinking, and reverse thinking. Two other significant coefficients ( .33 and .48, p < .05) were also found by the statistical tests of the correlation between cross-category thinking and, respectively, multiple-direction thinking and reverse thinking. However, the rest of the correlation coefficients among different types of creative thinking were found to be insignificant. Instead of MANOVA, the paired samples t-test was therefore conducted as the valid means of comparing the differences between the pre- and post-test scores among the participants across all six types of creative thinking. The results in Table 4 show that significant differences were found in cross-category thinking (t =

(16)

-7.51, p < .001), multiple- direction thinking (t = -2.49, p < .05), reverse thinking (t = -3.23, p < .01), and originality thinking (t = -5.88, p < .001), all of which belong to innovative creativity. In terms of adaptive creativity, no significant difference was found in mono-category thinking (t = 0.00, p > .05) and enriching thinking (t = -0.94, p > .05).

Table 4

Six Types of Creative Thinking and the Results of the Paired Samples t-tests between the Pre- and Post-test of Each (N = 48) M SD t Pre-test 50.00 18.33 Cross-category Thinking Post-test 82.50 27.56 -7.51*** Pre-test 6.25 5.79 Multiple-Direction Thinking Post-test 9.31 8.53 -2.49*** Pre-test 4.81 5.80 Reverse Thinking Post-test 9.63 10.07 -3.23*** Pre-test 37.50 18.39 Originality Thinking Post-test 62.71 29.08 -5.88*** Pre-test 0.83 1.42 Mono-category Thinking Post-test 1.63 2.82 -0.00*** Pre-test 0.94 1.92 Enriching Thinking Post-test 1.33 2.09 -0.94*** *p < .05. **p < 0.01. ***p < .001.

The results showed that the proposed instructional approach could succeed in promoting the creativity among college student participants. As far as creative thinking goes, it caused their creative thinking to increase, especially so with innovative creativity. Further inquiry into both innovative and adaptive creativity showed an improvement in the mean scores across all six types of thinking and found a significant difference between their innovative creativity prior to and after their participation in the course. This finding might have to do with changes in the students’ attitudes toward and approaches to ideas. As many as 17 of 22 student interviewees shared that it was more difficult to converge than to diverge ideas. One major implication that can be drawn from this shared opinion endorsed by such an overwhelming portion of the interviewees is that a majority of the students were more confident in producing a large number of new ideas through creative thinking activities than making decisions about the applicability of each. For example, Participant S5

(17)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₈₅

remarked, “Sometimes, we had a hard time choosing amongst a handful of ideas proposed by team members because they all seemed just as good. We didn’t know just how different they were in terms of feasibility.” Participant S16 also stated, “When diverging new ideas, feasibility didn’t seem that much of an issue. However, when it came to refining them, things got complicated both on grounds of specificity and as a result of practical concerns. We simply didn’t have the resources or the means to find out just how much the influence of certain limitations might confine the possibilities of the ideas we produced.” Although a relatively insignificant amount of progress on adaptive thinking was identified among the student participants, most of them explicitly recognized the usefulness of the creative thinking techniques taught in class. For instance, Participant S1, who found the Six Thinking Hats technique helpful, shared that, “Personally, the black hat and the green hat were my favorite thinking techniques. I noticed that I was not particularly good at using all the other hats even though I never had trouble generating new ideas on my own. This strategy [of Six Thinking Hats], however, helped increase not only the number of ideas I produced with every way of thinking I had under my belt but the diversity with which as well as the kinds of perspectives from which I now think.” Participant S7 also pointed out, “The proposed CPS process provided me with actual steps to follow as I set out to produce new ideas.” This testimony explicated how students’ analysis of a variety of ideas was strengthened thanks to the creative thinking techniques, which enhanced both the clarity and the systematic inputs much needed in their discussions in class. Our findings support previous studies, where creative thinking techniques were recommended as an effective means of motivating the production of superior ideas (Clapham, 1997; Lemons, 2005; Osborn, 1953).

The Results of Team Cohesion and Creativity

To further explore the relationship between participants’ creativity performance and team cohesion, the present study divided the participants into two groups based on their scores on the team cohesion questionnaire. As indicated in Table 5, the top 33% of all student participants were grouped as the high team cohesion group (N = 8, M = 40.75, SD = 2.43) while the bottom 33% were grouped as the low team cohesion group (N = 17, M = 27, SD = 0.47).

Table 5

Mean Values and SD of the High and Low Team Cohesion Groups

N M SD

High Team Cohesion Group 8 40.75 2.43

(18)

All participants were divided into high and low groups based on their scores on the team cohesion questionnaire. Table 6 shows the results of the paired samples t-test on the creativity of the high and low team cohesion groups. It was found that the low team cohesion group made a significant progress in creativity from the pre-test to the post-test, while the high team cohesion group showed otherwise. This indicates that the CPS approach proposed herein might be related to creativity and could be an important factor which improves creativity among students whose teams lack cohesion. Both the average mean scores of the high and low cohesion groups demonstrated progress; however, the progress made by the low team cohesion group appeared to be much more considerable. Such a result might be due to the CPS approach and the research tool introduced in class. Students acquired various creative techniques that focused on their own pursuit of excellence in creative performances. Besides, the creativity test that the students took in this research emphasized creative output on an individual level instead of on a teamwork level; therefore, the creativity of students already in teams with good cohesion might not be fully reflected in the test result. Overall, the result showed that the CPS approach proposed by the present research was indeed helpful to the students who lacked cohesion in their teams mainly because it enabled each one of them to make significant progress in their own creativity.

Table 6

Results of the Paired Samples t-test for the Creativity of the High and Low Team Cohesion Groups in the Pre- and Post-test

M SD t

Pre-test 96.38 36.86

High Team Cohesion Group

Post-test 135.63 34.71 -2.35**

Pre-test 114.12 52.04

Low Team Cohesion Group

Post-test 181.76 75.77 -3.45**

**p < .01.

On the one hand, results (see Table 7) of the paired samples t-test, which further looks into the statistics of creativity among all student participants, show that both the high and low team cohesion groups experienced a change in the innovative creativity of its students. The mean scores indicate a difference between the pre- and post-test within both the high and low team cohesion groups. The difference in the innovative creativity of the low team cohesion group between its performance in the pre- and post-test was, however, even more significant than that of the high team cohesion group. This implies that the CPS approach proposed in the present research did indeed have an impact on the improvement of innovative creativity among students who lacked cohesion in their teams.

(19)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₈₇

Table 7

Paired Samples t-test for Innovative Creativity of the High and Low Team Cohesion Groups in the Pre- and Post-test

M SD t

Pre-test 95.38 37.26

Post-test 131.88 35.69 -2.05**

Pre-test 112.71 51.88 Low Team Cohesion Group

Post-test 178.35 75.82 -3.36**

**p < .01.

On the other hand, the mean scores of the adaptive creativity as shown in Table 8, which reveals the results of the paired samples t-test for adaptive creativity among both the high and low team cohesion groups, indicate no significant difference between the pre- and post-test. These mean scores indicate, however, an enhancement in adaptive creativity between the pre- and post-test for both the high and low team cohesion groups. Given the fact that innovative creativity is more divergent than its adaptive counterpart while it is the other way round in terms of levels of convergence between the two, it can be inferred that the low team cohesion group outperformed the high team cohesion group in diverging ideas, and that the CPS process proposed in the present research had a positive impact on the divergent thinking among students who shared lower team cohesion in their teams.

Table 8

Paired Samples t-test of Adaptive Creativity of the High and Low Team Cohesion Groups in the Pre- and Post-test

M SD t p

Pre-test 1.00 1.93

Post-test 3.75 3.85 -1.56 0.162

Pre-test 1.41 1.66

Low Team Cohesion Group

Post-test 3.41 3.94 -1.85 0.082

Also, to evaluate students’ creative performance, three specialists of different backgrounds, which were, respectively, mechanical engineering, education, and creative thinking, were invited to apply the rules of CAT (Amabile, 1983) in an assessment of students’ creative products. The kappa inter-rater reliability reached among them was .83, which is considered acceptable (McHugh, 2012).

(20)

To further explore the relationship between team cohesion and the group performance among students in their designs of creative products, the present study also tallied up individual scores on the team cohesion questionnaire and averaged the total score of team cohesion among all 12 groups, which were ranked from high to low based on the average score each accumulated on the questionnaire. Table 9 shows the average scores which the high and low team cohesion groups respectively earned from their creative products. Those in the top 27% were labeled the high team cohesion group (N = 3, M = 84, SD = 6.56) while the bottom 27% were labeled the low team cohesion group (N = 3, M = 74, SD = 7.94). Based on the results of the independent-samples t-test for high and low team cohesion groups (see Table 9), no significant difference was found in terms of their performance in the design of creative products. Such a non-significant result might be attributed to the small number of groups involved in the present study. However, based on the descriptive statistics, it can be found that the mean score achieved by the high team cohesion group in terms of their design of creative products was higher than that of the low team cohesion group. This indicates that groups with a strong sense of team cohesion stand a better chance of producing quality creative products.

Table 9

Independent-sample t-test of Team Cohesion and Creative Product Scores Achieved by the High and Low Team Cohesion Groups (N = 3)

M SD t p

High Team Cohesion Group 84.00 6.56

Low Team Cohesion Group 74.00 7.94 0.27 0.627

It should be noted that specific grouping rules were applied to all participants to allow unknown teams to be formed among them on purpose. It was also expected that team members would get to know each other and grow increasingly accepting and supportive of one another as promotive interaction for team cohesion was encouraged among them in class, during which they would work in teams to resolve conflict constructively, share feedback, and eventually improve the quality of their interactions. However, as much as this was expected to work out well for all of the participants, the truth was that they shared rather diverse opinions about this in their individual interviews. This was particularly obvious when they were asked about their opinions of the cohesion of their teams. Participant S1 recalled, “I think we had pretty good cohesion in our team. Although we had just got acquainted with one another, everyone was friendly and sincerely chatty. Although we seldom met

(21)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₈₉

outside of classes, we had no problem setting aside a regular time to meet up for our project. Sometimes, people might take personal leave from those meetings, but they always made sure that they kept the rest of us informed. I trusted that everyone on our team was sincere and responsible.” Participant S5 had a starkly different opinion to share as he reflected, “I don’t think we had good cohesion in our team. Everyone seemed awkward and quite tense whenever we had a discussion.” But then, there were also respondents like Participant S20, who thought that their team cohesion was acceptable and thus took a neutral stance, to which he added, “I think everyone on our team was quite busy, and it was hard for us to work out something that matched all of our schedules.” It was found that some of the members on this team were rather unfamiliar with the tasks distributed among the rest of the group while others felt that their team members did not put as much effort into their project as they should have. These situations might be what eventually fed into an undesirable outcome of their collaboration. Still, it should be noted that quite a few members on this team had a positive attitude towards their teamwork.

Discussion and Conclusion

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,

(22)

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

(23)

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.

(24)

Limitations and Future Research

Even though no significant statistical correlation was found between students’ team cohesion and creative performance in the present research, a wealth of valuable issues, both in terms of potentials and limitations, still emerged and call for future research. Some of these suggestions include, first of all, it was believed that advanced statistics and analysis were rather difficult for the present research due to its relatively small number (48) of participants involved. The implementation of performance-based grouping of the students, either through questionnaires or standardized tests, may thus limit the generalizability of the findings. Hence, it is suggested that future studies not only increase the number of participants but create a control group as a contrast to the experimental group. This should help explore the differences between the two groups and enhance both the internal and external validity of the research findings. It would also help ensure that the learning transition being measured among the participants is directly the result of the CPS training implemented therein, and would avoid the risk of maturation. Second, in the present study no correlations between the two types of creative thinking (mono-category thinking and enriching thinking) were found that constitute adaptive creativity. Moreover, neither mono-category thinking nor enriching thinking shared much correlation with most types of creative thinking that comprise innovative creativity. Future studies are thus advised to explore both the differentiation and correlation between adaptive and innovative creativity and to investigate the extent to which their relationship, if any, is subject to the influence of sampling size or other participant characteristics. Third, it should be notified that the present research was conducted within a specific context in northern Taiwan in a national university and that its research findings should be viewed with caution before being referenced by future research or field practice. Fourth, recruiting student participants from diverse fields is recommended for future research. It should be noted that this present research was merely capable of recruiting majors in mechanical engineering largely due to the class specification constraint. However, diverse team composition does seem to confer an advantage when it comes to generating a wider range of original and useful ideas (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2017). Lastly, it must be admitted that the present research did not provide a detailed account of the roles student participants played in their teams throughout the duration of the course. Future research featuring a detailed inquiry into participant roles has the potential to overcome this limitation. For instance, throughout the course of the present research, a total of three creative sessions were reserved for student participants to try out collaborating with other team members on a variety of creative tasks as well as thematic projects.

(25)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₉₃

Doing so enabled continued observation of the evolution of each team’s team cohesion through to the end of the course. It is thus suggested that future research build on this model, furthering inquiries into the roles played by different members in their own teams, and consider both the mediating and moderating team processes which take place among students in class, and also make recordings of the observation. This would contribute greatly to our understanding of team cohesions.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant Nos. MOST104-2511-S-001-007-MY3 and MOST105-2511-S-011-007.

(26)

References

Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72-81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014. 02.003

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. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. HBS No. 396-239. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Publishing.

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(1), 14-23. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.14

Bailin, S. (1994). Achieving extraordinary ends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bandyopadhyay, D., & Sen, J. (2011). Internet of things: Applications and challenges in technology and standardization. Wireless Personal Communications, 58(1), 49-69. doi:10.1007/s11277- 011-0288-5

Boden, M. A. (1994). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 75-117). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/2437.003.0006

Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Buisine, S., Vandendriessche, C., Glaveanu, V., & Lubart, T. (2017). Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: What, when and how? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 104-117. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02. 016

Britz, J., & Richard, N. (1992). Problem solving in the early childhood classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 1-30). New York, NY: Atherton Press. doi:10.1037/13117-001

Carbonell, P., & Rodríguez Escudero, A. I. (2018). The dark side of team social cohesion in NPD team boundary spanning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 149-171. doi:10. 1111/jpim.12473

Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce.

(27)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₉₅

Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2017). Does diversity actually increase creativity? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/06/does-diversity-actually-increase-creativity Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs.

Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 33-44. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1001_4

Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 193-210. doi:10.5465/255754

Davidson, N. (1985). Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective review of the research. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C . Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 211-230). New York, NY: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3650-9_8

Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 269-281). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Amsterdam, NL: Pergamon.

Drake, S. M., & Reid, J. L. (2018). Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 31-50. doi:10.30777/APJER. 2018.1.1.03

Ekvall, G. (1991). The organizational culture of idea-management: A creative climate for the management of ideas. In J. Henry & D. Walker (Eds.), Managing innovation (pp. 73-79). London, UK: Sage.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). Concern for discovery in the creative process. In A. Rothenberg & C. R. Hausman (Eds.), The creativity question (pp. 161-165). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 27-51. doi:10.1080/10400418809534285

(28)

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. doi:10.1037/h0063487

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293. doi:10.1037/ h0040755

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 4(3), 149-168. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1970.tb00856.x

Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, uses and development. New York, NY: Bearly Limited.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. doi:10. 2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG

Hamalainen, R. (2008). Designing and evaluating collaboration in a virtual game environment for vocational learning. Computers & Education, 50(1), 98-109. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04. 001

Hill, N. S., Offermann, L. R., & Thomas, K. (2018). Mitigating the detrimental impact of maximum negative affect on team cohesion and performance through face-to-face communication. Group & Organization Management, 44(1), 211-238. doi:10.1177/1059601118776835

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449. doi:10.1287/ orsc.12.4.435.10635

Hong, J.-C., Chen, P.-H., Su, S.-Z., & Tai, K.-H. (2019). Revolutionary drawing: Measuring adaptive and innovative creativity. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 193-218.

Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Product creativity: Conceptual model, measurement and characteristics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(4), 395-412. doi:10.1080/14639220 500078195

Hsieh, C.-Y. (2018). Developing design through a creative problem‐solving process: A group community art project. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 541-553. doi:10.1111/jade.12155

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978

(29)

Hsiu-Ling Chen & Yu-Jung Chen Creative Problem-Solving Approach and Creativity ₁₉₇

creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75-101.

Jeng, J.-H., & Tang, T.-I. (2004). A model of knowledge integration capability. Journal of Information, Technology and Society, 4(1), 19-44.

Joo, B.-K., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Yoon, S. W. (2012). Team creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture, developmental feedback and team cohesion. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 77-91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00395.x

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Resource review: Creativity. Change, 39(4), 55-58. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61(5), 622-629. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622

Kirton, M. J. (2004). Adaption-innovation: In the context of diversity and change. London, UK: Routledge.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F. J., & Holt, K. D. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233-248. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00879.x Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20-47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006. 00030.x

Kuo, Y.-H., Chien, Y.-K., Wang, W.-R., Chen, C.-H., Chen, L.-S., & Liu, C.-K. (2012). Development of a home-based telehealthcare model for improving the effectiveness of the chronic care of stroke patients. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 28(1), 38-43. doi:10.1016/j.kjms. 2011.10.001

Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(1), 3-13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.020

Lemons, G. (2005). When the horse drinks: Enhancing everyday creativity using elements of improvisation. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 25-36. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_3 Lewis, T. (2006). Creativity: A framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology

education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 35-52.

Lissitz, R. W., & Willhoft, J. L. (1985). A methodological study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(1), 1-11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01044.x