Total views : 279

Analysis of Structural Relationships among Predictors of Collective-creativity in Communities of Convergence


  • Division of Social Welfare, Dongseo University, Busan 617-716, Korea, Republic of
  • Division of Computer Engineering, Dongseo University, Busan 617-716, Korea, Republic of


Background/Objectives: This study examined the impact of variables (mutual collaboration, participative negotiation, creative activities, innovative alternatives) collective-creativity in communities of multidisciplinary convergence. Methods/Statistical Analysis: 1,177 students among engineering, science, social science, art colleges in nationwide were sampled. For the statistical analysis, analysis of covariance structure by AMOS 18.0 was applied. Findings: Results from structural equation modeling analyses indicated that a hypothesized model produced a better fit to the data than a comparative structural model. The hypothesized model shows the following results. On the basis of the hypothesized model, mutual collaboration effected to directly participative negotiation and innovative alternatives and participative negotiation effected to directly creative activities, creative activities effected to directly innovative alternatives, mutual collaboration effected to indirectly innovative alternatives by participative negotiation and creative activities, participative negotiation effected to indirectly innovative alternatives by creative activities. Application/ Improvements: This study suggested the mutual collaboration, participative negotiation, creative activities and innovative alternatives are significantly variables to facilitate the collective-creativity in multidisciplinary convergence.


Collective-Creativity, Community of Convergence, Creative Activities, Innovative Alternatives, Multidisciplinary, Mutual Collaboration, Participative Negotiation.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 229)


  • Aboelela S. Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research. 2007; 42(1):329–46.
  • Besselaar P, Heimeriks G. Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. Paper for the 8th Conference on Scientometircs and Informetrics; Sydney, Austrailia. 2001.
  • Johansson F. The Medici effect: Breakthrough insight at the intersection of ideas, concepts and cultures. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation; 2004.
  • Schiebinger L, Schraudner M. Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 2011; 36(2):154–67.
  • Bhavnani SH, Aldridge MD. Team work across disciplinary Borders: A bridge between college and the work place. Journal of Engineering Education. 2000; 40:13–6.
  • Park SM, Yang HK. Analysis of structural relationships among predictors of creative problem solving in engineering. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education. 2015; 27(4):963–72.
  • Jagadish D, Kumar PV, Ashok P, Hariharan V, Maniraj R. LMSDS: Learning Management System for Deaf Students in Collaborative Learning Environment. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016; 9(16):121–34.
  • Thomson AM, Perry JL. Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review. 2006; 66(s1):20–32.
  • Edward DB. Six thinking hats. London: Penguin Books; 1990.
  • Jun GW. Develop creativity in life 1: Focused on brainstorming. Seoul: Changjisa Press; 2004.
  • Gorman M. Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge, London: MIT Press; 2010.
  • Isaksen SG, Lauer KJ. The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2002; 11(1):74–86.
  • Lee YN, Lee SS. Conceptual design principles of collective intelligence. Journal of Educational Technology. 2009; 25(4):213–39.
  • Siau KL. Group creativity and technology. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1995; 29(3):201–16.
  • Strom RD, Strom PS. Changing the rules: Education for creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2002; 36(3):183–200.
  • Park SM. A Delphi study on the collaboration motive for knowledge fusion in engineering. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2014; 4(11-1):160–6.
  • Kwon DE, Jang SH. The effect of multidisciplinary design education for a creative climate in the collaborative design process. Archives of Design Research. 2013; 26(3):241–61.
  • Sharon HP, Keiichi S. Design integrations, research and collaboration. 2009. Translated in Korean by Jung YS, Kim HK. Design Integrations: Research and Collaboration. Paju: Angrapix; 2011.
  • Moon GW, Lee SY, Choi SB. A study on the effects of creativity and cohesiveness on innovative behavior. Korea Journal of Business Administration. 2009; 22(4):2159–85.
  • Kim JH. Exploring the possibility of Interdisciplinary education for convergence education in knowledge-based society. Korean Journal of Culture and Arts Education Studies. 2012; 7(1):175–200.
  • Hu W, Wu B, Jia X, Yi X, Duan C, Meyer W, Kaufman JC. Increasing students' scientific creativity: The - Learn to Think - Intervention Program. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2013; 47(1):3–21.
  • Park SM. Analysis of design thinking and creativity through multidisciplinary education in engineering. Seoul: National Research Foundation, Research Reports; 2014.
  • Kang JH, Choe IS. Effects of creative problem solving program through generating product. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 20(3):379–91.
  • Kim MJ. A study on the interdisciplinary integrated general education curriculum in the University of Science and Technology. Journal of General Education. 2012; 6(3):357–81.
  • Kim SI, Jun SJ. The development of convergence design education process. Journal of Digital Design. 2013; 13(2):127–36.
  • Lee KW, Oh ES. A study on the perception of curriculum for cultivating students’ creativity in secondary school. Journal of Curriculum Integration. 2012; 6(1):45–68.
  • Yang MK. Exploring the principles of collaborative learning for realization of collective intelligence. Journal of Educational Methodology Studies. 2011; 23(2):457–83.
  • Shalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly. 2004; 15(1):33–53.
  • Ryu HS, Ha JH, Lee BI. The effects of decision-making ability and interpersonal relationship ability on group creativity. The Journal of Creativity Education. 2012; 12(2):25–43.
  • Korres K, Tsami E. Supporting the development of critical thinking skills in secondary education through the use of interdisciplinary statistics’ and mathematics’ problems. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics. 2010; 13(5):491–507.
  • Kim HJ. Another name of creativity TRIZ. Seoul: Infinity Books Press; 2009.
  • Hu LZ, Bentler PM. Cutoff criterial for indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criterial versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6:1–55.
  • Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research.1992; 21:230–58.
  • Ocker RJ, Fjermestad J. Communication differences in virtual design teams: Findings from a multi-method analysis of high and low performing experimental teams. ACM SIGMIS Database. 2008; 39(1):51–67.
  • Oh JS. A Dephi study of developing communication competencies for undergraduate students. Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 26(2):241–66.
  • Hong YG. Creativity and the project of integrating humanities - Focusing on the accumulation circulation model of creativity. Seoul: Society and Philosophy. 2008; 15:239–322.
  • Lee JY, Rhi JM. Meaning of design thinking. Proceedings of Korean Society of Design Science. 2010; 10:62–3.
  • Shin DH. Smart convergence and consilience 3.0. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan Publishing Department; 2011.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.