Teaching model development to enhance the creativity for college students in China

Creativity is widely recognized as essential to innovation, economic growth, and personal fulfillment, yet Chinese higher education faces systemic challenges in cultivating it due to standardized, exam-oriented pedagogies that constrain curiosity and imagination. Although national policies have promoted innovation and entrepreneurship education since 2012, outcomes remain suboptimal. This study addresses the gap in empirical evidence on how teaching models affect creativity by developing and testing a structured, student-centered model to enhance college students' creativity. Research objectives: (1) design a teaching model aimed at enhancing college students' creativity; (2) evaluate its effectiveness in fostering creativity among college students. The study positions creativity as a cultivable capacity and aims to provide a practical framework for creativity education in Chinese higher education.

Teaching models provide systematic, theory-grounded structures for instruction (e.g., Joyce and Weil) and increasingly emphasize personalization and student-centered approaches (cooperative and project-based learning). Creativity research highlights divergent thinking and traits such as risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and challenge (Guilford; Williams). Williams' framework operationalizes these traits via the Williams Creativity Tendency Scale. Guilford's Structure of Intellect (SOI) model informs the design of tasks that develop cognitive flexibility through operations, contents, and products. Creative Problem Solving (CPS) theory frames creativity as an iterative process of problem understanding, ideation, development, and implementation, leveraging cycles of divergent and convergent thinking. The theoretical framework integrates Joyce et al.'s six-component teaching model (principles, objectives, syntax, social system, reaction, support), Williams' creativity traits as outcomes, and SOI/CPS to inform task design and learning processes, supported by contemporary evidence on inquiry- and project-based learning's positive effects on creative self-efficacy and idea generation.

Design: Two-phase research and development (R&D) with mixed methods. Phase 1 (development): The PIPT teaching model was drafted based on document/literature reviews and survey reports, and evaluated by five experts (educational technology, curriculum and teaching, educational psychology, research and evaluation, and innovation/entrepreneurship education). Expert appraisal indicated high appropriateness (x = 4.34, S.D. = 0.85) and affirmed the model's components and feasibility. Phase 2 (implementation): A quasi-experimental design with cluster sampling involved 60 first-year students at Guangzhou Panyu Polytechnic, China, in the first semester of 2024. Two intact classes of the same major were assigned as experimental (PIPT model) and control (traditional teaching). The intervention spanned 32 class hours and used a teaching manual with established standards and procedures. Instruments: teaching model and manual, expert evaluation rubric, and pre/post creativity assessments using the Williams Creativity Tendency Scale (dimensions: adventurousness, curiosity, imagination, challenge; plus total score). Data collection: pre-test administered prior to instruction; post-test administered after the 32-hour course. Data analysis: SPSS computed descriptive statistics (means, SDs). Independent-samples t-tests compared experimental vs. control post-test performance; paired-samples t-tests compared pre- vs. post-test within groups. The PIPT model operationalized a four-step syntax (Problem discovery, Ideation, Prototype, Testing) within Joyce and Weil's six-component framework (principles, objectives, syntax, social system, reaction, support system).

Model development: Expert evaluation indicated a high level of quality and appropriateness for all components (e.g., vision 4.51, consistency 4.51; component means approximately 4.41–4.51 on a 5-point scale), and the paper reports an overall teaching evaluation score of 4.61 at the highest applicability level. Model structure: The PIPT model includes six components (principles, objectives, syntax, social system, principle of reaction, support system) and a four-stage learning sequence (Problem discovery, Ideation, Prototype, Testing). Implementation outcomes: Experimental group (n=30) showed significant pre-to-post gains across all creativity dimensions and total score (paired t-tests, p=0.00). Means increased from pre to post: Adventurousness 3.4435 to 4.0634 (t = −4.23, p = 0.00); Curiosity 3.3918 to 4.1710 (t = −6.00, p = 0.00); Imagination 3.2354 to 4.1562 (t = −4.69, p = 0.00); Challenging 3.5530 to 4.3157 (t = −5.25, p = 0.00); Total creativity 3.4059 to 4.1765 (t = −5.81, p = 0.00). Control group (n=30) showed no significant pre-to-post differences: Adventurousness 3.4492 to 3.4435 (t = 0.04, p = 0.97); Curiosity 3.3424 to 3.3918 (t = −0.42, p = 0.68); Imagination 3.1742 to 3.2354 (t = −0.43, p = 0.67); Challenging 3.3480 to 3.5530 (t = −1.45, p = 0.15); Total 3.3285 to 3.4059 (t = −0.67, p = 0.50). Between-group comparisons (independent t-tests) indicated the experimental group's post-test creativity scores were significantly higher than the control group's (p < 0.05).

Findings support the study's premise that a structured, student-centered model grounded in CPS and SOI can effectively cultivate creativity in higher education. The PIPT model's emphasis on contextualized problem discovery, iterative divergence-convergence cycles, prototyping, and user-centered testing promoted risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and challenge. Alignment with Joyce et al.'s model components ensured instructional coherence, appropriate teacher roles, and supportive learning environments. The significant gains in the experimental group, contrasted with null changes in the control group, reinforce the value of active, problem-based, and collaborative pedagogies for creativity development. These results are consistent with prior research showing that teacher support, psychologically safe environments, and multimedia-supported activities enhance creative motivation and higher-order thinking. The model appears valid, applicable, and scalable within Chinese higher education contexts while inviting adaptation to diverse settings.

The study developed and validated the PIPT teaching model—structured by principles, objectives, syntax, social system, principle of reaction, and support system—to enhance college students' creativity through a four-stage learning process (Problem, Ideation, Prototype, Testing). Expert evaluation rated the model highly, and empirical testing showed significant improvements in creativity across all dimensions in the experimental group versus no significant change in the control group. Recommendations for implementation include cultivating comprehensive teacher understanding of creativity, creating supportive and authentic learning environments, using flexible, encouraging instructional methods, and employing diversified, process-oriented assessments. Future research should increase sample size, diversify participant backgrounds, expand technological tool integration, and examine long-term effects and cross-cultural generalizability, alongside the development of more comprehensive creativity assessment tools.

The quasi-experimental study used a relatively small, context-specific sample from a single institution, limiting generalizability. The study did not assess long-term retention or transfer of creativity gains beyond the intervention period. Further, outcomes may vary across cultural and institutional contexts; comparative studies are needed. There is a need for continued refinement of creativity metrics to capture diverse expressions and processes of creativity.