Ways of Thinking: Reflective, Creative and Problem-Solving Skills

Reflective Skill
The foundation of reflection laid on the concept of metacognition, the process of thinking
about one’s thinking (Maarof, 2007). According to Akbari (2007), the meaning and interpretation
of reflection evolved on the influence in various trends and philosophies, historically and
theoretically. The descriptive concept of reflection was initiated in the work of John Dewey (1910)
in his influential book “How we think”. He stated that everything that comes to mind is called a
“thought”. The other meaning associated with thought is the two degrees of belief: (1)“a belief
is accepted with slight or almost no attempt to state the grounds that support it; and (2) “the
ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief
examined, this process is called as “reflective thought”.
Dewey (1910) emphasized that reflective thought is not a mere sequence rather a
consecutive sequence. Furthermore, Dewey stressed that:
“Reflective thought involves not only a sequence of ideas, but a consecutive
ordering in such a way that each determines the next as its proper outcome, while
each in turn leans back on its predecessors. The successive portions of the
reflective thought grow out of one another and support one another. (Dewey,
1910).”
Furthermore, Dewey’s reflection is divided into four criteria (Rodgers, 2002, as cited in
Hae-Jin Lee, 2007):
1. It is a meaning-making process that moves a learner from one experience into the next
with deeper understanding of its relationships with and connections to other experiences
and ideas;
2. It is a systematic, rigorous, disciplined way of thinking, with its roots in scientific inquiry.
3. It needs to happen in community, in interaction with others.
4. It requires attitudes that value the personal and intellectual group of oneself and of
others.
The concept of Dewey on reflection focused on the systematic way and scientific process
of thinking which is argued by another reflective practitioner Donald Alan Schon (1983). Dewey
presented reflection as a type of knowledge, which has been based on systematic and scientific
approaches while Schon used the term reflection as a direct result of practice. Schon stated that
a reflective teacher carefully examine his practices, generates idea to improve his performance
to develop and enhance student learning and applied it into practice it is called as cycle of
appreciation, action and re-appreciation (Akbari, 2007).
Schon’s concept of reflections’ cycle of appreciation, action and re-appreciation both
exists on the two types of reflection: reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. The latter is a
reflection that thinking takes place after an event while reflection-in-action is a real-time thinking
(thinking/reflecting while doing). Moreover, Fendler (2003 as cited in Korkmazgil, 2009) stated in
his works that reflective movement is “feminism”. According to the former, reflection per se is a
way of hearing women’s voices. It is observed in educational practices that most often men
conceptualized knowledge while women are commonly the practitioners of this knowledge.
The concept of Dewey, Schon and Fendlers’ definition of reflection resulted in confusion
and vagueness, hence, leads to catchall definition of reflection (Akbari, 2007). However, despite
the various meaning of reflection, it is still being examined and applied in various field of
education as it improves and increases the learning process and promotes lifelong learning
(Hsieh, Jang, Hwang & Chen, 2011; Rajagopal, K., Verjans, S., Bruggen, J.V. and Sloep, P., 2011;
Henderson, K., Napan, K. and Monteiro, S.,2004).
The commonly used reflective activities include journal writing, interviews, dialogues,
narrative writing, narrative inquiry, observational learning and reflective teaching. The mostly
explored reflective activity is the journal writing while reflection-on-action is the type of
reflection applied on several studies in the field of medicine. The impact of journal writing to
radiologic and medical imaging undergraduate students developed understanding of reflection
and appreciated its effects on a very significant transition and orientation of issues that are
encountered within their studies as well as creation of good clinical decisions (Maresse, Mckay
and Grellier, 2012; Abrahams, 2012).
In the field of education, reflective practices are commonly applied to practice teachers.
Maarof (2007) examined the effect of reflective journal entries to practice teachers who
underwent practicum. It was found in the study that the practice teachers assisted novice
teachers in evaluating his or her teaching and learning. It also helped the practice teachers
identify their strengths and weaknesses in teaching and discovered ways to correct and improve
their teaching.
The effect of reflection was also examined widely in the field of information technology
in the study of Seale, and Cann (2000) and Hsieh, Jang, Hwang, & Chen (2011) using online
tutorials and Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) respectively.
There are four factors that influenced the use of learning technology in facilitating
reflection that include (1) the way the learning technology are used; (2) the nature of student
groups; (3) the role of the tutor; and (4) student preferences for offline reflection (Seale, J.K. and
Cann, A. J, 2000). Computer-based tutorials were used for reflection where students post
feedback on the given tutorials. Seale and Cann also applied online-tutorial a detailed online
questionnaire was provided for the students to evaluate the success of online tutorial. It was
found in the study that reflection did not help facilitate reflection for some students. Moreover,
a number of factors influenced how successful learning technologies are used in facilitating
reflection.
Despite technological limitations that hinder enhancement of reflection. Seale et. al.
Hsieh, Jang, Hwang and Chen (2011) examined reflection on the student’s experiment in butterfly
ecology. The study divided the class into reflective and active teaching style groups wherein,
reflective teaching style group used instruction and recall-learning style while active style group
used brainstorming learning style. It was found in the study that the teaching and learning style
affects reflection. Students whose learning style that matched corresponding teaching style
showed significant improvement in reflection than those in the mismatched group. Prior
knowledge of course content helped the students recall, critically analyze and generate new
information on a given situation.
Reflective skill is greatly associated with adaptive skills. As discussed, reflection is a
process of critically evaluating past experiences, analyzing, creating and improving actions to be
taken, thus resulting to change. Adaptability is the capacity to learn and combine experiences
and knowledge to do a task and adjust responses to a constantly changing environment.
Furthermore, adaptability is the ability to be flexible and solve a range of problems as they arise.
Creative and Problem Solving Skill
In the field of education, creative thinking varies from new ideas to new ways of
considering and solving problems. Furthermore, creativity is not the ability to create out of
nothing, but the ability to generate new ideas by combining, changing or reapplying existing new
ideas (Anwar, Anness, Naseer and Muhammad, 2012). In reality, creativity and problem solving
interplay to resolve issues encountered thus generate new ideas. Creative teaching requires
application of existing knowledge and customizes it to create solutions to problems. According
to the authors, creative thinking is composed of four components: (1) Fluency (generating ideas);
(2) Flexibility (shifting perspective easily); (3) Originality (consisting of something new); and (4)
Elaboration (building on existing ideas).
The concept of Anwar, et al. (2012) with the actual application of creative teaching
approach piloted to the selected group students of Singapore and Thailand in educational project
called as Problem-based Creativity Learning (PBCL) model and Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) model, respectively. Singapore as high-income and Thailand as upper middle
income countries based on the World Bank data value the importance of integration of creativity
in the field of education.
According to Seng (2003) 21st century and beyond dictates a constant change in many
aspects of life. Thus, educators shall develop students who will be adaptable in fast-changing
environments. The PBCL discussed by Seng is a paradigm shift in education which integrated the
thinking programme known as Cognitive Modifiability Intervention (CMI) that aims to (1)
enhance students’ capacity to learn how to learn; (2) enhance problem solving abilities, and; (3)
enhance students’ capacity to adapt and confront change.
PBCL model is envisioned to develop creativity. The model proposed a curriculum shift
which is from content, lecturer and student to problem, coach and problem solvers (PBCL). Seng,
emphasized that “real-life” problem teachers student learn how to learn through finding ways to
solve the problem, thus, a problem-based learning (PBL) approach was used in the Divergent-
Creative Thinking cluster involved the developing of creativity which has two distinct processing
stages namely generative stage and exploratory stage. The PBL applied to Engineering and
Applied Science students resulted to positive effect to creativity and problem solving skills.
The importance of creativity in the development of the student to adapt on the fast
changing environment brought the CPD model from Sheffield Hallam University (UK) to
Srinakharinwirot University of Thailand. The main purpose of the model is to develop teachers’
and learners’ creativity through innovative active teaching and learning. The students of
Srinakharinwirot University became very creative in the communication of their science
knowledge and understanding. Also, the students became very capable in applying creative
thinking in solving problems and designing scientific investigation after a 3-year implementation
of CPD model that runs from 2004 – 2007 (Windale, Chookruvong & Phonphok, 2011).
Despite the commonly accepted impact of creative thinkingon the academic achievement
of students in the classroom,several educators lead to misconception of creative approach of
teaching (Morais & Azevedo, 2011). According to the authors, creative teachers are being
enthusiastic in the classroom, the autonomy promoted in students, a close and individual
relationship with students and scientific ability, thus presence of misconceptions and
unfamiliarity on creativity existed to Portuguese teachers. Creativity is not present in several
areas of the school such as students, teachers, co-workers and curricula.
 The absence of creativity inside the classroom is due to current paradigm used by
traditional schools. Passive learning is promoted instead of active learning also called as student
centered active learning while traditional classroom is teacher centered wherein teacher act as
informer and students preferred teachers to do all the work (Windale, Chookrovung & Phonphok,
2011).
Another issue that hinders the development of creativity of the student is the
organizational climate inside the classroom. Organizational climate is defined as the “recurring
patterns of behavior, attitudes and feelings that characterize life in in the organization (McLellan
& Nicholl, 2008). Based on the result of study, teachers activities are limited on the book thus
students felt much of the work they do lacks challenge and freedom which did not enhance
creative skills of the students, hence, the teachers’ inability to apply creative approaches to
students tend to be a barrier to creativity. Teacher as barrier to enhance creativity skill of
students is a long-time discussed issue. Westby & Dawson (1995), emphasized on their study that
“one of the most consistent findings in educational studies of creativities has been that teachers
dislike personality traits associated with creativity.” On the contrary, traits such as conformity
and unquestioning acceptance of authority are the preferred traits of teacher, which tend to limit
students’ creativity. Furthermore, the adjectives associated with highest level of creativity were
determined, independent and individualistic while the characteristics of creativity includes
impulsivity and risk takers which is not a positive view for teachers whose goal is to maintain
order inside the traditional classroom (MacKinnon, 1963 as cited in Westby & Dawson, 1995 p.
2). Though, Westby & Dawson stated that some creative children are clearly capable in a
traditional classroom, some of the most creative students may remain unrecognized or worst will
be punished by teachers.

Profile of Students 21st Century Learning Skill

Creativity Skills
Creative practices consist of four categories: Generating Ideas, Digging Deeper Into Ideas,
Exploring Ideas and Listening to Voices. Analysis of this study is based on how students used their
creative cognition based on the creative activities.

Table 40
Students’ Mean Scores on Creativity Skills’ in terms of Generating Ideas of the Experimental
and Control Groups

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. I often find I get totally 2.14 Neutral 2.11 Neutral
immersed in creative idea.
2. I am resourceful and can find 2.33 Agree 2.33 Agree
the materials I need.
3. I enjoy problem solving. 2.02 Neutral 1.73 Neutral
4. I often have a strong vision 2.49 Agree 2.38 Agree
for my projects
 5. I like finding connection 2.42 Agree 2.36 Agree
between things
6. My ideas can be odd original 2.29 Agree 2.19 Neutral
7. I prefer to play with ideas 2.18 Neutral 2.18 Neutral
rather than leap on the first
one.
Category Mean 2.26 Neutral 2.23 Neutral

Table 40 shows the students’ mean scores on creativity skills in terms of generating ideas
of the experimental and control groups. As can be seen from the table, students from the
experimental group had a mean score of 2.26 while the control group had a mean score of 2.23.
Both groups had a qualitative interpretation of “Neutral”. Finding shows that students from both
groups have the same creative cognition level in terms of generating ideas before the conduct of
the experiment.

Table 41
Students’ Mean Scores on Creativity Skills Related to Digging Deeper into Ideas of the
Experimental and Control Groups

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. I am curious about the 2.49 Agree 2.64 Agree
unknown.
2. I find it easy to develop a 2.33 Agree 2.27 Neutral
strategy for a project.
3. I find the energy and 2.49 Agree 2.36 Agree
enthusiasm to research my
ideas.
4. I work persistently to 2.60 Agree 2.60 Agree
complete a project.
5. I am interested in the aim or 2.84 Agree 2.53 Agree
purpose of what I am doing.
6. The meaning of a piece of 2.44 Agree 2.42 Agree
work often evolves as I work
on it.
7. I don’t reject ideas with 2.40 Agree 2.47 Agree
initial faults but find ways to
make them work.
Category Mean 2.51 Agree 2.47 Agree

Table 41 shows the students’ mean scores on creativity skills in terms of digging deeper
into idea of the experimental and control groups. It can be gleaned from the table that students
from experimental group had a mean score of 2.51 while 2.47 for the control group. Finding
shows that students from both groups have the same level of creative cognition in terms of
digging deeper into ideas before the conduct of the experiment.

Table 42
Mean Score of Creativity Skills’ Exploring Ideas of the Experimental and Control Groups

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. I enjoy discovering new 2.87 Agree 2.67 Agree
things.
2. I have a sense of humor 2.53 Agree 2.42 Agree
about my work.
3. I can adapt my previous skills 2.36 Agree 2.16 Agree
to suit an unfamiliar task.
4. I can reflect back on my own 2.42 Agree 2.33 Agree
work.
5. I am happy to take a risk on 2.47 Agree 2.56 Agree
an idea.
6. I enjoy working as part of a 2.78 Agree 2.73 Agree
creative team.
7. I don’t mind if ideas have 2.02 Neutral 1.96 Neutral
more than one
interpretation.
Category Mean 2.49 Agree 2.40 Agree

Table 42 shows the mean score of creativity skills’ exploring ideas of the experimental and
control groups. As shown in the table, students from experimental group had a mean score of
2.49 while control group had a mean score of 2.40. Finding shows that both groups have the
same creative cognition level in terms of exploring ideas before the conduct of the study.

Table 43
Mean Score of Creativity Skills’ Listening to Your Inner Voices of the Experimental and Control
Groups

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. I am open to my feelings 2.62 Agree 2.53 Agree
about ideas.
2. I need alone time when 2.27 Neutral 2.27 Neutral
developing ideas.
3. I am uninhibited when 1.98 Neutral 2.16 Neutral
working creatively.
 4. I like ideas which people 2.44 Agree 2.38 Agree
aren’t expecting
5. I prepare to ignore other 2.00 Neutral 2.27 Neutral
people’s opinion if I think my
work is good.
6. My subconscious can 2.11 Neutral 2.33 Agree
sometimes solve a problem
when I leave it alone for a
while.
7. I have good taste and 2.31 Neutral 2.42 Agree
judgment about my own
work and I am led by that.
Category Mean 2.25 Neutral 2.34 Agree

Table 43 shows the mean score of creativity skills’ listening to one’s inner voices of the
experimental and control group. It can be gleaned from the table that the experimental group
had a mean score of 2.51 with a qualitative interpretation of “Neutral” while control group had
a mean score of 2.34 with a qualitative interpretation of “Agree”.
Findings show that control group has a strong creativity skills in terms of “listening to your
inner voices” compared to experimental group that has weak creativity skill in terms of “listening
to inner voices”.

Table 44
Summary of Creativity Skills Score of the Experimental and Control Group

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. Creativity Skills Generating 2.26 Neutral 2.23 Neutral
Idea
2. Digging Deeper into Ideas 2.51 Agree 2.47 Agree
3. Exploring Ideas of 2.49 Agree 2.40 Agree
Experimental
4. Listening to your inner 2.25 Neutral 2.34 Agree
voices
Grand Mean 2.38 Agree 2.36 Agree

Table 44 shows the summary of creativity skills score of the experimental and control
group. Overall the experimental and control group have the same creativity skills before the
conduct of the experiment.
Reflective Skill Practices
Reflective skill is divided into four categories: Habitual Action, Understanding, Reflection and
Critical Reflection. The following legend are used in all reflective tables: DA - Definitely Agree, AR-
Agree with Reservation, O – Only to be used if a definite answer is not possible, DR – Disagree
with Reservation and DD- Definitely Disagree

Table 45
Mean Score of Reflective Skills’ Habitual Actions Score of the Experimental and Control Group

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. When I am working on some 2.27 DR 2.71 O
activities, I can do them
without thinking about what
I am doing
2. In this course we do things 3.38 O 2.71 O
so many times that I started
doing them without thinking
about it.
3. As long as I can remember 3.00 O 3.42 AR
handout material for
examinations, I do not have
to think too much.
4. If I follow what the lecturer 3.42 A 3.13 O
says, I do not have to think
too much on this course.
Category Mean 3.02 O 2.99 O

Table 45 shows the mean score of reflective skills’ habitual actions score of the
experimental and control group. As shown on the table student from experimental group had a
mean score of 3.02 while control group had a mean score of 2.99. Both groups were not sure in
their reflective skills’ habitual action.
Finding shows the both groups have the same reflection level in terms of habitual action before
the conduct of the experiment.
Table 46
Mean Score of Reflective Skills’ Understanding Score of the Experimental and Control Group

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. This course requires us to 3.93 AR 4.16 AR
understand concepts taught
by the lecturer
2. To pass this course you need 4.24 DA 4.49 DA
to understand the content
3. I need to understand the 4.00 AR 4.38 DA
material taught by the
teacher in order to perform
practical tasks.
4. In this course you have to 3.80 AR 3.87 AR
continually think about the
material you are being
taught.
Category Mean 3.99 AR 4.22 DA

Table 46 shows the mean score reflective skills’ understanding score of the experimental
and control group. It can be gleaned from the table that the mean score of the control group was
higher as compared with the experimental group. Experimental group shows that they agree with
reservation on the reflective skills’ understanding activities, while the control group definitely
agrees they reflect on the activities. Hence, the two groups do not have the same reflection level
in terms of understanding the course.

Table 47
Mean Score of Reflective Skills’ Reflection Score of the Experimental and Control Group

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. I sometimes question the 3.82 AR 3.60 AR
way others do something
and try to think of a better
way.
2. I like to think over what I 3.80 AR 4.00 DA
have been doing and
consider alternative ways of
doing it.
3. I often reflect on my actions 3.53 AR 3.84 DA
to see whether I could have
improved on what I did.
 4. I often re-appraise my 3.64 AR 3.93 DA
experience so I can learn
from it and improve for my
next performance.
Category Mean 3.70 AR 3.84 AR

Table 47 shows the mean score of reflective skills’ reflection score of the experimental
and control group. As shown on the table, students from the experimental group had a mean
score of 3.70 while control group had a mean score of 3.84. Findings shows that the experimental
and control group have the same reflection level in the reflection category.
Further analysis shows that both groups agree reservation on the reflection activities
before the conduct of the experiment.

Table 48
Mean Score of Reflective Skills’ Critical Reflection Score of the Experimental and Control Group

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. As a result of this course I 3.58 AR 3.84 AR
have changed the way I look
at myself.
2. This course has challenged 3.44 AR 4.04 AR
some of my firmly held
ideas.
3. As a result of this course I 3.33 O 3.49 AR
have changed my normal
way of doing things.
4. During this course I 3.53 AR 3.73 AR
discovered faults in what I
had previously believed to
be right.
Category Mean 3.47 AR 3.78 AR

Table 48 shows the mean score of reflective skills’ critical reflection score of the
experimental and control group. As can be seen from the table, the experimental group had a
mean score of 3.47 while the control group had a mean score of 3.78. Finding shows that both
group agree that they already practicing critical reflection before the conduct of the experiment.
However, further analysis also shows that both groups were in doubt if they fully achieved
the critical reflection activities.
Table 49
Summary of Reflective Skill Score of the Experimental and Control Group

Reflective Skills Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. Habitual Action 3.02 O 2.99 O
2. Understanding 3.99 AR 4.22 DA
3. Reflection 3.70 AR 3.84 AR
4. Critical Reflection 3.47 AR 3.78 AR
Grand Mean 3.55 AR 3.71 AR

Table 49 shows the summary of reflective skills score of the experimental and control
group. As shown on the table, overall, both experimental and control have the same reflection
level before the conduct of the experimental.
Further analysis shows that habitual action as foundation of reflection is not yet fully
developed in both groups, which, in turn, the rest of reflection skill categories were normally
practiced however, both groups were not sure if they experienced change or improvement in
their life after reflecting.

Table 50 shows the mean score of problem solving skill of the experimental and control
group. Based on the table, the experimental had a mean score of 3.34 while the control group
had a mean score of 3.21. Finding shows the both groups have same level of problem solving skill
before the conduct of the experiment.

Table 50
Mean Score of Problem-Solving Skills of the Experimental and Control Groups

Statements Experimental Control

Mean Q.I. Mean Q.I.
1. I like to solve to a problem. 3.30 Undecided 3.38 Undecided
2. I enjoy solving a problem. 3.31 Undecided 2.89 Undecided
3. I like to solve a numeric 3.20 Undecided 2.80 Undecided
problem.
4. I do my best to be successful 4.04 Agree 3.89 Agree
in problem solving.
5. I am interested in problem 3.24 Undecided 2.98 Undecided
solving.
6. I like to struggle with solving 3.67 Agree 3.42 Agree
problem even if I cannot
solve the problem.
7. I try too hard when I cannot 3.64 Agree 3.60 Agree
solve the problem.
 8. I am sure that I can solve a 3.36 Undecided 3.22 Undecided
problem.
9. I am self-confident in 3.12 Undecided 3.13 Undecided
problem solving.
10. I am sure that I am able to 3.11 Undecided 2.82 Undecided
solve even a difficult
problem.
11. I do my best for solving the 3.69 Agree 3.31 Undecided
problem no matter how
difficult a problem.
12. I lose tract of time while 3.16 Undecided 3.22 Undecided
solving a problem.
13. I demoralize if I cannot solve 3.27 Undecided 2.89 Undecided
a problem.
14. I am stressed while solving a 3.00 Undecided 3.12 Undecided
problem.
15. I lose self-confidence if I 2.98 Undecided 3.18 Undecided
cannot solve a problem.
16. I am upset when I find 3.40 Agree 3.29 Undecided
incorrect answer of a
problem.
17. I am afraid of making 2.84 Undecided 3.40 Agree
numerical mistakes.
18. Pre-conceptions prevent me 3.13 Undecided 2.96 Undecided
from solving a problem.
Category Mean 3.34 Undecided 3.21 Undecided

Finding shows a strong correlation with the finding from Table 40 wherein both groups
were undecided creativity skills’ generating ideas, specifically doing problem-solving activities.
Result implies that if the student is weak on generating ideas he is also weak in problem-solving
skills which conforms with the findings of Anwar, Anness, Naseer and Muhammad (2012)
creativity skill interplays with problem-solving skill. Further analysis also shows that students who
are lack of reflection habit failed to generate ideas and leads to failure of developing problem
solving skill.
Effectiveness of Bricolage Approach in a Blended Learning

21st Century Learning Skills

Table 59 shows the t-test for significant difference between the post creativity skills’
generating ideas of the experimental and control groups.
As shown in the table computed t-test value of 5.514 has an associated p-value of 0.000.
This means that there is a significant difference between post-creativity generating ideas score
between the experimental and control group. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

Table 59
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Creativity Skills’ Generating Ideas Scores of the
Experimental and Control Groups

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 2.73 0.186 5.514 0.000 Significant
Group 2.38 0.378

The higher post-creativity skills’ generating ideas score of the experimental group can be
attributed to the fact that the students were highly motivated to play an active part in their
acquisition of knowledge giving them an active role in their own learning that made them change
their neutral attitude to being creative in terms of generating ideas after the experiment.

Table 60
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Creativity Skills’ Digging Deeper Into Ideas of
the Experimental and Control Groups

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 2.80 0.176 4.295 0.000 Significant
Group 2.60 0.258

Table 60 shows the computed t-test of the experimental and control group.
The table reveals that the post-creativity skills’ digging deeper into ideas computed t-test
value was 4.295 with an associated probability of 0.000, which means that there is a significant
difference between the score of the two groups after the conduct of the experiment. Hence the
hypothesis is rejected.
The above discussion implies that the blended learning enhances creativity skills’ digging
deeper into ideas. The active participation of the experimental group in face-to-face learning
activities of blended learning means that the students appreciated the Bricolage approach as it
not only enhance their skills but also stimulate the creative cognition of the student.
Table 61
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Creativity Skills’ Exploring Ideas of the
Experimental and Control Group

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 2.75 0.181 4.155 0.000 Significant
Group 2.56 0.243

Table 61 shows the t-test for significant difference between the post-creativity skills’
exploring ideas of the experimental and control group.
Table reveals that the post-creativity skills’ exploring ideas computed t-test was 4.155
with an associated probability value of 0.000. This result of the study shows significant difference
on the post-creativity skills’ exploring ideas score of the experimental and control group after the
experiment. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further analysis shows that the impact of innovative strategy applied inside the classroom
stimulated the creative cognitions’ exploratory stage of the students from the experimental
group as compared to the control group. Also, the result supports the argument of Seng (2003)
that there is a strong relationship between generating idea and exploring idea.

Table 62
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Creativity Skills’ Listening to Your Inner Voices
of the Experimental and Control Group

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 2.59 0.189 3.022 0.003 Significant
Group 2.43 0.289

Table 62 shows the t-test for significant difference between the post-creativity skills’
listening to your inner voices of the experimental and control group.
As can be seen from the table the computed t-test value was 3.022 with an associated
probability value of 0.003 which implies that there is a significant difference between the post
creativity skills’ listening to your inner voice of the experimental and control group after the
study. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Table 63
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Reflective Skills’ Habitual Action of the
Experimental and Control Group

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 4.26 0.695 4.170 0.000 Significant
Group 3.67 0.657

Table 63 shows the t-test for significant difference between the post-reflective skills’
habitual action of the experimental and control group
Table 63 shows that the computed t-test value of post reflective skills’ habitual action of
both groups was 4.170 with an associated probability value of 0.000. The result shows that the
experimental group significantly changed the level of reflections’ habitual action. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
The result implies that the online learning activities enhanced the reflection skill of the
experimental group. The active participation of the experimental group during the consecutive
face-to-face learning activities signify that reflection skills’ habitual action was developed.

Table 64
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Reflective Skills’ Understanding of the
Experimental and Control Group

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 4.38 0.408 2.076 0.000 Significant
Group 4.09 0.429

Table 64 shows the t-test for significant difference between the post-reflective skills’
understanding of the experimental and control group.
As shown in the table, the computed t-test value of post reflective skills understanding of
the experimental and control group was 2.076 with an associated probability value of 0.000. The
result means that the experimental group significantly changed after the experiment. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
The above discussion implies that the students from the experimental group continually
thinks the importance of lessons taught for each session using the online learning outcome in
face-to-face learning activities.
Further analysis also shows that the result of the experiment contradicts with the findings
of Sean and Cann (2000) that online learning will not facilitate reflection learning. Finding
confirms that the experimental group had shown had shown understanding on the value of
instructional materials provided within the experiment.
Table 65
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Reflective Skills’ Reflection of the Experimental
and Control Groups

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 4.43 0.425 4.587 0.000 Significant
Group 3.96 0.544

Table 65 shows the computed t-test for significant difference between the post-reflective
skills’ reflection of the experimental and control group.
The table reveals that the computed t-test value of reflective skills’ reflection of the
experimental and control group was 4.587 with an associated probability value of 0.000. The
result means that the experimental group significantly changed after the experiment. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Further analysis shows that the series of collaborative activities during face-to-face
learning changed the way students from the experimental group value self-improvement in each
provided activities. By random groupings on every collaborative activity, students from the
experimental group learned how to reflect to perform better on upcoming face-to-face activities.

Table 66
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Reflective Skills’ Critical Reflection of the
Experimental and Control Group

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 4.60 0.417 4.612 0.000 Significant
Group 4.07 0.627

Table 66 shows the t-test for significant difference between the post-reflective skills’
critical reflection of the experimental and control group.
As can be seen from the table, the computed t-test value of post-reflective skills’ critical
reflection of the experimental and control group was 4.612 with an associated probability value
of 0.000. The result means that the experimental group significantly changed after the
experiment. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The above discussion implies that online learning activity integrated in face-to-face
activities remarkably changed the learning habit of the students from the experimental group.
Moreover, the result of the experiment confirms the findings of Henderson, Napan and Monteiro
(2004) that using activity that stimulates reflection instills the attitude of life-long learners. Also
findings validate the report of US Department of Education that integrating online learning tool
is an effective tool to develop students reflection as they will always self-assess themselves each
time they use the online learning.
Table 67
T-Test for Significant Difference Between the Post-Problem Solving Skills of the Experimental and
Control Group

Group Mean SD Computed P-value Remarks

t-test
Experimental 4.26 0.389 7.998 0.000 Significant
Group 3.44 0.559

Table 67 shows that the computed t-test value of post problem solving skill of the
experimental and control group was 7.999 with an associated probability value of 0.000. The
result means that the experimental group significantly changed after the experiment. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Finding reveals that the online learning involvement and active participation in face-to-
face activities changed the attitude of the students from the experimental group towards
problem solving.
Furthermore, findings validate the strong relationship between creativity, reflective and
problem solving skill. Also, the result conforms to the findings of Windale, Chookruvong &
Phonphok (2011) that as student becomes creative thinkers they also become problem-solvers.