Recent developments in educational research have highlighted the increasing importance of teaching models as systematic frameworks that guide instructional practices (Crookes, 2013; Tsai and Chuang, 2019). (Joyce et al. 2014) define teaching models as structured plans rooted in pedagogical principles, emphasizing their theoretical underpinnings. (Tisana 2012a,b) further stresses the importance of aligning these models with core educational theories to enhance their effectiveness. (Tumthong 2016) elaborates that an instructional model is a practical approach designed to achieve specific teaching and learning objectives. These models integrate stable operational procedures with theoretical concepts to facilitate targeted learning outcomes (Marzano, 2007). Moreover, they serve as vital tools to bridge the gap between theory and practice, ensuring consistent classroom implementation (Eggen and Kauchak, 2012a,b). In recent years, with the shift toward student-centered and innovative pedagogies, teaching models have increasingly emphasized personalization and adaptability (Liu, 2018; Zhou and Brown, 2020a). For example, models based on cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2017) focus on promoting collaborative engagement to deepen understanding, while project-based learning models (Thomas, 2019) aim to foster creativity and problem-solving skills through real-world projects.

In this study, Joyce and Weil's (2014) model was adopted and adapted. It consists of six components: Principles of the Model, Objectives, Syntax and Sequence, Social System, Principle of Reaction, and Support System, which collectively create a comprehensive framework conducive to effective teaching practice.

Creativity, broadly defined as the capacity to generate original and valuable ideas (Guilford, 1950), has been the focus of extensive research employing diverse theoretical models. Guilford's Structure of Intellect model emphasized divergent thinking as a core component of creativity, highlighting the importance of flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Guilford, 1950). (Taylor 1962) proposed a three-dimensional curriculum framework that integrated cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains to foster creativity in educational settings. Building upon these foundations, (Treffinger 1980) developed the Multidimensional Creative Learning (MCL) model, which integrates cognitive and emotional dimensions across three phases of learning, emphasizing the synergistic development of creative skills.

(Williams 1970a,b) further conceptualized creativity through his Cube C.A.I. Model, which links cognitive and affective behaviors to classroom practices. His research identified four traits characteristic of highly creative individuals: risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and challenge. These traits were operationalized using the Williams Creativity Tendency Scale, providing a validated measure of creative propensity (Williams, 1970a,b).

Recent studies have expanded the understanding of creativity in educational contexts. For instance, (Han and Park 2020) examined the role of teacher-student interactions in promoting creativity and found that environments emphasizing psychological safety significantly increase students' willingness to take risks and explore novel ideas. Similarly, (Kim 2019) emphasized the importance of integrating creative problem-solving tasks into curricula to foster divergent thinking and innovation.

Furthermore, (Lee and Kim 2021) investigated the impact of creativity-focused pedagogies, such as inquiry-based and project-based learning, and reported that such approaches substantially enhance students' creative self-efficacy and idea generation. According to their findings, nurturing traits like curiosity and challenge is crucial for developing sustainable creative capacities. (Cha et al. 2022) demonstrated that emotional engagement and motivation serve as mediators in cultivating creativity, highlighting the importance of fostering positive emotional states alongside cognitive skills.

This study adopts Williams' framework, interpreting creativity as a trait that can be cultivated through education, emphasizing students' agency in developing the four dimensions of creative tendency—risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and challenge—to foster innovative outcomes.

Guilford's SOI model informs pedagogy by leveraging its triadic synergy (operations, content, products) to scaffold creativity development. Educators can design tasks targeting divergent thinking (e.g., idea fluency via symbolic content) and convergent refinement (e.g., evaluating semantic systems), aligning with SOI's emphasis on adaptive problem-solving (Guilford, 1967). Structured interventions—such as multisensory content delivery and transformational product creation—enhance cognitive flexibility, fostering innovation in academic and professional contexts (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009; Runco, 2010). This framework ensures systematic cultivation of creativity through tailored interventions that bridge theoretical intellect and practical application (Sternberg, 2003).

Creativity, cultivatable through targeted training, is intrinsically linked to structured problem-solving processes. (Guilford 1950) conceptualized creativity as a four-phase cognitive sequence: problem recognition, ideation, evaluation, and solution formulation. This aligns with cognitive psychology frameworks that frame creativity as iterative problem-solving (Basadur, 2006). (Parnes 1966) pioneered the CPS model, integrating divergent-convergent thinking principles into five stages: fact-finding, problem definition, idea generation, solution development, and implementation. Subsequent refinements, including Treffinger and Isaksen's (1985) three-component model (problem understanding, ideation, action planning) and Dorval's four-component framework, emphasize adaptability and systematic thinking.

The CPS model's pedagogical value lies in its emphasis on contextualized problem settings, iterative divergence-convergence cycles, and collaborative learning. The teaching framework in this study adopts CPS principles, combining problem-based learning with structured creative exercises to navigate complex challenges through exploration, reflection, and group discourse, thereby enhancing students' creative competencies.

This study's theoretical framework integrates Joyce et al.'s (2014) teaching model with (Williams 1970a,b) creativity framework and Guilford's (1950) Structure of Intellect (SOI) theory. The teaching model provides a six-component structure to operationalize student-centered pedagogy, while Williams' framework defines creativity through four cultivable traits (risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, challenge). Guilford's SOI theory underpins the cognitive processes necessary for creative outcomes. Together, these theories establish a synergistic foundation: the teaching model guides instructional design, Williams' traits serve as measurable outcomes, and SOI informs task development to stimulate creativity. Empirical support from recent studies (e.g., Han and Park, 2020; Lee and Kim, 2021) further validates the framework's applicability in Chinese higher education contexts.

This study develops a teaching model with the core goal of cultivating students' creativity. In this study, the six components presented were adapted in developing the teaching model namely (1) principles of the model, (2) objectives, (3) syntax, (4) social system, (5) principle of reaction, and (6) Support system. The improvement of students' creativity level is used as evaluation indicators.

This study was divided into 2 phases, including the development of the teaching model and the implementation of the model. In phase 1, the framework of the teaching model was determined through relevant document, literature and survey reports and the draft of the teaching model was designed and affirmed by five experts in relevant area. In phase 2, 32 class hours of teaching activities were used in this study. The instruments consisted of the teaching model, a teaching manual, established teaching standards and procedures, and pre-test and post-test assessments for creativity.

In Phase 1, the researcher design the framework of the teaching model and submit to expert evaluation. The teaching model created with the valid information available with a high level of appropriateness (x = 4.34, S.D. = 0.85), was affirmed with connoisseurship from the 5 experts in developing process: including 1 expert in educational technology, 1 expert in curriculum and teaching, 1 expert in educational psychology, 1 expert in research and evaluation, and 2 experts in innovation and entrepreneurship education.

In Phase 2, the developed teaching model was implemented to enhance creativity among 60 students from Guangzhou Panyu Polytechnic (China) during the first semester of the 2024 academic year. They come from different classes of the same major, one is an experimental class that implements a specific teaching model, and the other is a control class that implements a traditional teaching model. The data collection took 32 class hours, consisted of the teaching model, a teaching manual, established teaching standards and procedures, and pre-test and post-test assessments for creativity.

The data analysis in this study involved a mixed method approach, tailored to assess the effectiveness of the developed teaching model in enhancing creativity among Chinese college students. Data collected from Phase 1 and Phase2 were analyzed using SPSS to calculate the mean and standard deviation. Additionally, the Williams Creativity Tendency Scale was employed to assess improvements in the students' creativity, Independent and paired t-tests were used to compare students' pre- and post-learning achievements.

Oriented toward SOI and CPS theories, the study developed the PIPT teaching model, follows the “problem-Ideation-Prototype-Testing” process with the primary objective of cultivating students' creativity. Each with detailed procedural steps to ensure practical implementation (show as Figure 1).

To assess the impact of the teaching model, pre- and post-tests of creativity was conducted by using a standardized measurement tool. Participants were divided into an experimental group and a control group, and completed the pre-test before beginning the curriculum and the post-test upon implementation.

The researcher compared the pre- and post- test scores of experimental group using the PIPT teaching model, and the results are shown in Table 2.

According to Table 2, It can be concluded that the t-test showed a significant difference in the score between pre-and post-tests. The results of the study showed that students' overall level of creativity as well as sub-scores of adventurousness, curiosity, imagination, and challenging were statistically significantly higher after using the PIPT instructional model than before the study. Consequently, the students had a higher creativity achievement after learning through the developed model than that assessed before learning.

The researcher compared the pre- and post-test scores of control group using the traditional teaching model, and the results are shown in Table 3.

According to Table 3, the overall performance of creativity of the students in the control group before and after the implementation of teaching activities is roughly equal and there is no significant difference. And there is no significant difference in the performance of the indicators of adventurousness, curiosity, imagination, and challenge in the table of creative power.

The results of implementation showed that there is a significant difference in the performance of creativity of students in the experimental and control groups by implementing different teaching modes for the same course. 1. The post-test creativity scores of students in the experimental group were higher than their pre-test scores. 2. The post-test creativity scores was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group.

(1) The teaching model was determined to be appropriate for improving creativity of college students comprised of 6 components including principles, objectives, syntax, principle of reaction, and support system. A higher learning achievement for college indicated that the developed model was productive in enhancing their creativity skills.

(2) Teachers should have enough comprehensive cognition to cultivate students' creativity, that is, it is reasonable and effective to cultivate creativity by designing appropriate creative teaching practice and creative thinking training.

(3)According to the teaching objectives, teachers should create a learning environment and support system of learning activities in real situations, and master interactive and collaborative learning methods.

(4) Creativity classrooms should be free, collaborative, and relaxed, and teachers should use methods that encourage, instruct, and encourage rather than force or pressure. Teachers should be able to adjust flexibly according to the actual situation.

(5)When evaluating students' creativity, evaluators should adopt diversified evaluation indicators and pay attention to process evaluation methods, so as to fully understand the purpose of teaching evaluation.

(1) Increasing the sample size of the study.

(2)More diverse participant backgrounds.

(3) Expanding the application of technological tools.