Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:28
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Developing and Verifying a Business-Creativity
Assessment Tool: A Nationwide Study in Taiwan
Kai-Wen Cheng & Yu-Fen Chen
To cite this article: Kai-Wen Cheng & Yu-Fen Chen (2009) Developing and Verifying a Business-Creativity Assessment Tool: A Nationwide Study in Taiwan, Journal of Education for Business, 85:2, 78-84, DOI: 10.1080/08832320903258451
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320903258451
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 90
View related articles
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832320903258451
Developing and Verifying a Business-Creativity
Assessment Tool: A Nationwide Study in Taiwan
Kai-Wen Cheng
Kaohsiung Hospitality College, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Yu-Fen Chen
Chihlee Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
This study was designed to assess business creativity of students in Taiwan. A questionnaire was developed and administered to students in business-related departments of 16 vocational schools during November 2006. Of the 1,420 administered questionnaires, 1,052 were valid, resulting in a valid response rate of 70.48%. Exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) were separately applied to extract the constructs and items involved in the business-creativity assessment tool and to verify the goodness of fit of this proposed model. The results showed that the proposed business creativity assessment tool comprised 21 items in 5 constructs, including environment, instruction method, personality, parental support, and confidence feedback. Through SEM, the proposed assessment tool exhibited goodness of fit on several indices.
Keywords: Business creativity, Creativity, EFA, SEM
Since the 1990s, many universities in America have estab-lished creativity research centers to study creative teaching and provide creativity-related courses for undergraduates and graduate students (Wu et al., 2002). Many Asian countries also began to stress the importance of creativity in later times. For instance, in 2003, the Minister of Education of Singa-pore proposed “Innovation and Enterprise, I&E” as an im-portant direction for future education reforms, in hope of de-veloping innovation and entrepreneurship of local students as early as childhood. In face of growing challenges from global economies, all nations worldwide have unanimously agreed that innovation and creativity are key to increase of competitiveness (Hsu, 2006).
Over the past years, much attention has been given to the teaching and research of creativity in Taiwan. In January of 2002, the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China (Taiwan) issued “The White Paper on Creative Education” in hope of creating a republic of creativity.
In the fields of engineering and arts, many approaches for presentation of creativity are available. As a result, most of
Correspondence should be addressed to Kai-Wen Cheng, Kaohsiung Hospitality College, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. E-mail: kevin1188@mail.nkhc.edu.tw
the previous studies of creativity have focused on creativ-ity in the psychological, arts, and engineering areas (Hsu, 2001). However, creative performances in other areas may be more significant and valuable. The Ministry of Education in Taiwan launched a series of projects on creative teaching in 2001 to enhance students’ ability to innovate in business. So far, a set of universal criteria for the evaluation of stu-dents’ business creativity has not been developed. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to develop an assessment tool to measure students’ business creativity and verify the goodness of fit of this tool.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Creativity
Since Guilford (1959) proposed the term creativity in the American Psychological Association, many scholars have been engaged in various research studies on creativity. Guil-ford defined creativity as an essential mental activity for human beings. The patterns of creativity include cognition, memory, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and eval-uation thinking. Parnes (1961) argued that creativity is the ability to form a new hypothesis for a question, to revise or
BUSINESS-CREATIVITY ASSESSMENT TOOL 79
retest the hypothesis in order to solve the problem. Williams (1970) defined that creativity is in relation to fluency, sensitiv-ity, flexibilsensitiv-ity, originalsensitiv-ity, and elaboration. Moustakas (1972) argued that creativity is an individual’s ability to experience life in an individual way, know oneself, and fully exploit his or her potential. According to Barron and Harrington (1981) and Gove (1986), creativity is the ability to bring a new idea into existence. Amabile (1983) described creativity as a confluence of task motivation, domain-relevant knowledge and abilities, and creativity-relevant skills. However, Stern-berg and Lubart (1995, 1996) argued that creativity requires a confluence of six distinct but interrelated resources: intel-lectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment. Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) mentioned that creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain. In brief, creativity is based on experience and signifies breakthroughs of old concepts and adoption of new methods.
Business Creativity
Business creativitymay be a new term to some people, as a standard definition of this term is still unavailable. The Min-istry of Education in Taiwan has been engaged in developing teaching materials and methods on creativity to enhance stu-dents’ ability to innovate in business. In addition to “The White Paper on Creative Education” (2002), many issues have also been proposed. The Center for Creativity and In-novation Studies of National Cheng-Chi University (2005) classified these issues into four bussiness-related fields as subsequently described. In this article, we define business creativityas creativity presented in business-related fields.
Creativity & Innovation
According to Woodman et al. (1993), creativity is a start-ing point of innovation. Hsu (2001) also pointed out that innovation is the major force that propels the changing of technological patterns in any industry. The importance of the role that innovation plays in industries is undeniable. Inno-vation does not come out of nowhere; it is the rearrangement of all available information (Wu, 2005). In addition, innova-tion is not simply being different. It requires uniqueness and novelty of an individual together with propriety and usage in business (Wu). For any business, the ability to create and innovate is one of the success factors (WuCoulson & Strick-land, 2005). Only with the ability to create and innovate can a company maintain its competitiveness in its field (Feldman, 2004). In other words, a business can survive because it is capable of bringing up new products and services (Proctor, 1991; Van Gundy, 1987).
In brief, creativity is the basis of innovative knowledge, innovation is the embodiment of creativity. Creativity and innovation are supportive of each other.
Creativity & Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship symbolizes the activities in which human beings pursue opportunities to obtain a sense of achieve-ment (Center for Creativity and Innovation Studies of Na-tional Cheng-Chi University, 2005). An entrepreneur pro-motes various kinds of innovation by means of carrying out originality, which functions as the main source of motivation to accelerate progress in human life (Center for Creativity and Innovation Studies of National Cheng-Chi University). Programs about entrepreneurship have attracted considerable attention. For instance, “Creativity Cultivation,” “Creativity & Marketing Strategy,” and “Entrepreneurship, Creativity & Organization” offered by Stanford University, Wharton Business School, and Harvard University, respectively, are usually fully signed up. Obviously, students are aware of the importance of these programs. Marketing and financial management, which are indispensable to entrepreneurship, are also areas that most students are interested in (National Youth Commission, 2005).
Russell L. Ackoff argued that management education should start with founding a company or developing a prod-uct (Detrick, 2002). Students need to plan a new business and engage themselves in manufacturing, marketing, finance, and all other business related affairs. In so doing, they learn more than from textbooks. They can acquire and integrate knowl-edge in various areas (Detrick). Thus, entrepreneurship is more than the implementation of creativity. It is the practical application of creativity to running a business.
Creativity & Marketing
Marketing requires originality, and an innovator can often win in a marketing competition. A solution cannot apply to all marketing problems. For this reason, creativity plays a key role in marketing. Everything, including developing a new product, naming a brand, designing the logo, and planning the outlets, calls for creativity (Chen, 2002).
Creativity is regarded as one of the keys to creating and sustaining a successful business (Michaela, 2001; Robinson & Stern, 1997). In face of increasing competitions in the market, all businesses are required to constantly update their products and marketing activities. Such update of products and marketing activities calls for new ideas from employees. Therefore, creativity of employees nurtures the growth of marketing of a company.
Creativity & Manufacturing
Nowadays, the appeal to technology and innovation has cre-ated a new world. To maintain competitive advantages, a business cannot afford to ignore creativity. Introducing cre-ativity into production, equipment, cost, and the whole net-work can not only assist a traditional industry to upgrade but also reinforce its the core competitiveness (Liu, 2002). Thus, creativity is underscored in production and management. A
business needs creative manpower to face the challenges of the time.
RESEARCH METHODS
Data-Collection Procedure
Document Analysis
Through document analysis, theories and related studies of creativity were explored to build a theoretical foundation for the design of focus-group interviews and the question-naire.
In-depth Interview
Three experts with experiences in creative invention, in-novative management, and entrepreneurship were involved in the in-depth interview. Their perspectives about the cre-ativity that is required in business helped clarify the content of business creativity from the standpoint of the industry.
Focus-group Interview
A total of four scholars and three experts were invited to take part in the focus group interview. Their opinions formed the basis of the follow-up questionnaire design.
Content Analysis
Data collected from the document analysis, depth in-terview, and focus-group interview were analyzed to develop the constructs and corresponding items for the assessment of business creativity.
Questionnaire Survey
According to the results of the previous procedures, a draft questionnaire comprising 52 items was designed based on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Three experts in this field were invited to review the questionnaire and provide sugges-tions. Their suggestions were followed to modify the draft and complete a pretest questionnaire with expert validity. The pretest was intended to understand the feasibility of the questionnaire. A total of 160 questionnaires were dis-tributed, and 147 returned. In all, 122 responses were valid, resulting in a valid response rate of 76.25%. The pretest result indicated a high reliability and validity of the draft questionnaire.
Research Participants
Based on the total number of students in business-related departments (commercial management, international trade, accounting, and data processing) of vocational schools re-leased by the Department of Statistics of the Ministry of Education in 2005, a random sampling was conducted. A
total of 1,420 questionnaires were distributed to students in 16 schools in November 2006. In the first step, the researcher (Cheng) contacted the teachers of the surveyed class and ex-plained the process of the survey on the phone. Later, formal questionnaires were mailed to the teachers along with notes of instructions. The teachers were asked to select a class period in which to conduct the survey. The subjects were stu-dents present in the survey period, and absent stustu-dents were not required to make up the test later. A total of 1,303 ques-tionnaires were collected, and 1,052 were valid, resulting in the valid response rate of 74.08%. As the sample size was large enough, SPSS (Version 10.0) was used to equally and randomly divide the sample into two groups. Exploratory fac-tor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the first sample group to extract the constructs and items involved in the business-creativity assessment tool. As to the second sample group, a structural equation model (SEM) was applied to verify the goodness of fit of the proposed business-creativity as-sessment tool according to procedures identified by Bentler (1990).
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Development of the Business-Creativity Assessment Tool
Result of the Item Analysis
It can be discovered that, with the exception of Item 11, all the other items reached the significance level in thettest, indicating that 51 items of the scale had the discriminant validity. In addition, the corrected item-total correlation and the Cronbach’s alpha in the reliability analysis were tested. Based on the result of the item analysis, Item 11 was deleted and all the other 51 items were reserved.
Result of the EFA
From four rounds of factor analyses on the 51 items, 5 factors were derived. Items with a factor loading higher than .5 were extracted. All the items had a factor loading above .5, and the total explained variance was 56.15%. Of the 51 items, only 21 items were reserved. The remaining 5 constructs (factors) were respectively named environment, instruction method, personality, parental support, and confidence feed-back, and each item was also given a new number as shown in Table 1.
Result of Reliability Analysis
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to assess the inter-nal consistency of this scale. The overall Cronbach’s coef-ficient alpha of this scale was .941, indicating the proposed questionnaire had a high-level reliability.
BUSINESS-CREATIVITY ASSESSMENT TOOL 81
TABLE 1
Summary of Constructs and Items in Formal questionnaire
Construct Old item New item Factor loading Explained variance
Cumulative explained variance
Environment 47 1 .651 29.099% 29.099%
48 2 .793
49 3 .751
50 4 .620
51 5 .773
52 6 .768
Instruction method 40 7 .547 9.461% 38.561%
41 8 .804
42 9 .816
43 10 .673
Personality 1 11 .562 8.154% 46.715%
2 12 .670
3 13 .649
4 14 .581
5 15 .620
Parental support 36 16 .885 5.661% 52.376%
37 17 .865
38 18 .606
Confidence feedback 31 19 .573 3.774% 56.150%
33 20 .597
46 21 .639
Verification of the Business Creativity Assessment Tool
LISREL 8.52 was employed to verify the business-creativity assessment tool. As the analysis of the model was based on the full information technique, this estimation method was designed according to the theory of normality. The impact of sample distribution was tremendous, so the estimation method had to be determined according to the type of sam-ple distribution. All the observed variables had an absolute skewness value smaller than 3 and an absolute kurtosis value smaller than 10. These variables were normal under the cri-teria proposed by Kline (2005). Thus, according to the skew-ness and kurtosis of all the observed variables, the impact of normal distribution estimation was minimal. Maximum likelihood was then adopted to estimate model parameters.
Check on Offending Estimates
Before verifying the goodness of fit of the proposed model, it was necessary to make sure that the estimated pa-rameters did not have any improper solution. If there was, it would be an offending estimate (Huang, 2002). No offending estimate was observed.
Tool’s Overall Goodness of Fit
According to Bagozzi and Yi (1998), J¨oreskog and S¨orbom (1992), and Bentler (1990, 1992), six common goodness-of-fit indices were used to assess the tool’s overall goodness of fit:χ2, the ratio ofχ2to degrees of freedom (df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index
(AGFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and comparative fit index (CFI).
As shown in Table 2, the tool’s overall goodness of fit was not good becausepwas smaller than .000. Bagozzi & Yi (1998) and Huang (2004) suggested thatχ2is significantly
affected by sample size, so the ratio ofχ2todfmay be a better
value to assess the tool’s overall goodness of fit. According to Marsh, Balla, and McDonald (1988), the recommended value of this ratio is 5. In the present study, the ratio ofχ2to
df (4.88) is smaller than 5. In addition, all the other indices exceeded their respective recommended levels suggested by previous research (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Overall, the pro-posed tool exhibited goodness of fit on several indices.
TABLE 2
Fit Indices for the Proposed Business-Creativity Assessment Tool Ratio ofχ2to degrees of freedom
(χ2/df)
>5 4.88 (184)
Goodness of fit index (GFI) <.8 .86 Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) >.8 .82 Root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA)
<.1 .08
Comparative fit index (CFI) <.9 .93
TABLE 3
Business-Creativity Assessment Tool (Questionnaire)
Construct Name of construct Item
1 Environment 1. The current learning environment has provided me an opportunity to sufficiently express my ideas.
2. There are opportunities for me to try different learning methods in school. 3. There are opportunities for me to try different ways of doing things in school. 4. I usually have the chance to take part in off-campus activities (such as visits or
expositions).
5. The school can provide me enough resources to attempt new things. 6. School curricula provide me sufficient knowledge to develop new things. 2 Instruction method 7. Teachers will approve of my different ways of learning.
8. Teachers will lead me to have different ideas. 9. Teachers will guide me to try new methods.
10. Teachers will care about the way and process I solve problems more than the result. 3 Personality 11. I like to proactively seek for learning opportunities.
12. I like to try new things by myself. 13. I like to solve problems in new ways. 14. I like to observe things in life.
15. I’ll persistently study things I’m interested in.
4 Parental support 16. My parents will encourage me to use different ways of learning. 17. My parents will encourage me to solve problems in new ways. 18. My family and I will discuss different perspectives.
5 Confidence feedback 19. I’ll always propose different ideas.
20. I can persuade others to accept my new ideas.
21. I receive compliment from teachers and classmates because of my new ideas.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Research Conclusions
The findings of this study showed that the proposed busi-ness creativity assessment tool involved 21 items in 5 con-structs, including environment, instruction method, person-ality, parental support, and confidence feedback, as shown in Table 3. In SEM, the proposed assessment tool also exhibited goodness of fit on several indices.
Research Contributions
Most of the problems in the modern society can be solved by multiple answers or methods. It is necessary to evaluate all the possibilities so as to seek for a reasonable and ap-propriate solution. But in the present school environment, not many courses have been designed to encourage construc-tive contradictions, innovate, and create a challenging and interesting learning environment in which students need to analyze and resolve a certain open-ended question. In the future, every student is expected to be equipped with cre-ativity to meet the demands in their occupations. For grad-uates in technical and vocational education systems who have been directly trained to meet the needs of the indus-try, how to enhance their creativity is indeed an important and imminent task. In the fields of engineering and the arts, many approaches for presentation of creativity are avail-able. As a result, most of the previous studies of creativity have focused on creativity in the psychological, arts, and
engineering areas (Hsu, 2001). Other areas have been less paid attention by academic researchers. Thus, we selected the students in business-related departments of vocational schools in Taiwan as research subjects to explore business creativity. This could be considered as one of the contribu-tions of this research.
Moreover, from literature review, document analysis, in-depth interview, focus-group interview, content analysis, and questionnaire survey, it can be discovered that business cre-ativity can be cultivated through environment, instruction method, personality, parental support, and confidence feed-back. Thus, when schools plan to develop teaching materials or strategies, these five factors should be considered so as to cultivate the business creativity of students in business-related departments. This is the second contribution of this research.
Finally, according to the method proposed by Bruhn (2003), the constructs in Figure 1 were calculated to de-rive the index of business creativity. The equation is shown as follows:
(BCT=Business creativity assessment tool;Ci: Factor load-ing;Xi: Mean of observed variables;S=scale-1)
Using the above equation, we obtained the following re-sults: the index of environment was 76.727, which was the
BUSINESS-CREATIVITY ASSESSMENT TOOL 83
FIGURE 1 Factor loadings and scores of indices in business creativity assessment tool (χ2=898.74,df=184,p=0.00000, RMSEA=0.086.)
lowest among all the constructs. Instruction method scored 83.689, which was the second highest. Personality had the highest score of 91.941. Parental support scored 81.103 and confidence feedback scored 77.143. The scores of all the in-dices ranged between 76.727–91.941, and the overall score of the business creativity assessment tool was 82.085. As a re-sult, the constructs with a lower score, including environment
and confidence feedback, should be prioritized in the im-provement of the business creativity of students in business-related departments. Through the school’s arrangement and encouragement, students can be stimulated to think, ex-press, innovate, and further enhance their business creativ-ity. This can be considered as the third contribution of this research.
Research Limitations and Suggestions
Due to the fact that the cultivation, change, and formation of business creativity cannot be measured in a short time, we adopted cross-sectional research over a specific time period (November 2006) to induce conclusions. We recommend that future researchers in follow-up studies conduct a longitudinal research to improve this weakness.
Moreover, due to the constraints of time and fund, only students in business-related departments of voca-tional schools in Taiwan were studied. We recommend that future researchers in follow-up studies expand the re-search sample by including students in business-related departments of colleges and universities in Taiwan or in other countries to gain more information about business creativity.
No matter in Taiwan or other nations, many courses of creativity have been proposed to enhance the innovation of business education. By exploring the content of business creativity of students in vocational schools, we gradually established a business creativity assessment tool for students in vocational schools and verified the goodness of fit of this model. It was expected that the research results could serve as a reference for schools and related industries.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983).The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16, 74–94. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
person-ality.Annual Review of Psychology,32, 439–476.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review.International Journal of Research in Marketing,13, 139–161.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycho-logical Bulletin,107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the bulletin.Psychological Bulletin,112, 400–404.
Bruhn, M. (2003).Relationship marketing: Management of customer rela-tionships. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Center for Creativity and Innovation Studies of National Cheng-Chi Univer-sity. (2005).Creativity in business-related fields. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.ccis.nccu.edu.tw/CCIS%20Epaper/list.html Chen, C. N. (2002).Cultivation and training for teachers of creativity and
creative design education—Teaching material editing project of market-ing team. Unpublished manuscript.
Coulson, T., & Strickland, A. (2005).Putting together the pieces of the creativity and innovation puzzle. Seminole, FL: Applied Creativity, Inc. Retrieved September 16, 2006, from http://www.appliedcreativityinc. com/free puzzle.html
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education, Republic of China (Taiwan). (2005).Important educational statistics. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from http://www.edu.tw/statistics/publication list.aspx?pages=1. Detrick, G. (2002). Russell L. Ackoff [Interview].Academy of Management
Learning and Education,1(1), 56–63.
Feldman, J. (2004). Instilling innovation and creativity.Manage Online,
2(2), 6–8.
Gove, P. B. (1986).Webster’s third international dictionary of the English language. Springfield, MA: Berrian.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.),Creativity
(pp. 167–188). London: Penguin.
Hair, F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate data analysis(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hsu, F. C. (2006). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Children’s confidence for globalization. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://ad.cw.com.tw/cw/2006kids/content07.asp
Hsu, L. E. (2001).Cultivation and training for teachers of creativity and creative design education—Teaching material editing project of business studies. Unpublished manuscript.
Huang, F. M. (2002).Theories and applications of the structural equation model. Taipei: Wunan.
Huang, F. M. (2004).The structural equation model—Application in edu-cation data. Taipei: Wunan.
J¨oreskog, K. G., & S¨orbom, D. (1992).LISREL: A guide to the program and applications(3rd ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kline, R. B. (2005).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Liu, J. C. (2002).Cultivation and training for teachers of creativity and cre-ative design education—Teaching material editing project of production and manufacturing team. Unpublished manuscript.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psy-chological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
Michaela, D. (2001). Fostering creativity in business education: Developing creative classroom environments to provide students with critical work-place competencies.Journal of Education for Business,77, 28–33. Ministry of Education, Republic of China (Taiwan). (2002).White paper on
creative education. Taipei: Author.
Moustakas, C. E. (1972). Loneliness and love. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
National Youth Commission. (2005). Disclosure of the trend of fe-male entrepreneurship in 2005. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from http://tw/news.yahoo.com/051116/78/2jblc.html.
Parnes, S. J. (1961). Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving.
Journal of Educational Psychology,52, 117–122.
Proctor, R. A. (1991). The importance of creativity in the management field.
British Journal of Management, 2, 223–230.
Robinson, A. G., & Stern, S. (1997).Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement actually happen. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995).Defying the crowd: Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.American
Psychologist,51, 677–688.
Van Gundy, A. B. (1987).Creative problem solving: A guide for trainers and management. New York, NY: Quorum Books.
Williams, F. E. (1970).Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feel-ing. New York, NY: D.O.K.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.Academy of Management Review,18, 293–321. Wu, C. C., Lin, W. W., Lin, S. Y., Chen, C. H., Tseng, C. M., & Wang, H. Y. (2002).Ministry of Education white Paper on creative education for sub-project (6)—Development of international creative education. Taipei: Ministry of Education, Republic of China (Taiwan).
Wu, S. H. (2005, October). Knowledge and industrial innovation. Cen-ter for Creativity and Innovation Studies, National Cheng-Chi Univer-sity, bimonthly e-paper, 8. Retrieved from http://www.ccis.nccu.edu.tw/ CCIS%20Epaper/200510/0204.htm
