| Literature DB >> 35162653 |
Ruoying Xie1, Jinzhang Jiang2.
Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of different types of teacher-student conflict in promoting students' creativity in universities. Previous studies mainly focused on the negative effects of conflict; few examined its positive effects. Teacher-student conflict in university classes can take many forms; however, there are no clear definitions of the various types of such conflict. This study classified teacher-student conflict as understanding conflict, process conflict, and relationship conflict, and we used this classification to extend prior research by revealing the beneficial impacts of teacher-student conflict on students' creativity. We empirically examined the relationship between teacher-student conflict and students' creativity. The hypotheses were supported by using data from questionnaires completed by 2009 students at 17 American universities. We then conducted a hierarchical regression analysis of the data using structural equation modeling. The findings indicate that understanding conflict and process conflict had significant positive effects on students' creativity, whereas relationship conflict had a significant negative effect on students' creativity. This study thus revealed the positive effect of teacher-student conflict in university classes and suggests encouraging conflict (understanding conflict and process conflict) as a unique teaching method to stimulate students' creativity.Entities:
Keywords: students’ creativity; sustainable development education; teacher–student process conflict; teacher–student relationship conflict; teacher–student understanding conflict
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162653 PMCID: PMC8835328 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample characteristics.
| N | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 908 | 45.19% |
| Female | 1012 | 50.37% |
| Others | 89 | 4.44% |
| Grade | ||
| Freshman | 487 | 24.24% |
| Sophomore | 502 | 24.98% |
| Junior | 506 | 25.18% |
| Senior | 514 | 25.60% |
| Major | ||
| Social Science | 557 | 27.72% |
| Business | 523 | 26.03% |
| Science | 403 | 20.05% |
| Arts | 526 | 27.20% |
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 1.15 | 0.772 | 1 | |||||
| 2. Grade | 2.35 | 0.883 | 0.564 ** | 1 | ||||
| 3. UC | 2.08 | 0.694 | 0.574 ** | 0.678 | 1 | |||
| 4. PC | 2.44 | 0.821 | 0.029 ** | 0.242 ** | 0.233 | 1 | ||
| 5. RC | 2.75 | 0.643 | 0.311 ** | 0.277 ** | 0.355 ** | 0.444 | 1 | |
| 6. SSC | 2.99 | 0.782 | 0.796 | 0.490 ** | 0.870 ** | 0.570 ** | −0.590 ** | 1 |
Note: ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed); UC = understanding conflict; PC = process conflict; RC = relationship conflict; SSC = students’ creativity.
Hierarchical regression analysis.
| Variable | Students’ Creativity | |
|---|---|---|
| M1 | M2 | |
| Gender | 0.088 | 0.046 |
| Grade | 0.167 | 0.124 |
| Understanding Conflict | 0.019 ** | |
| Process Conflict | 0.141 ** | |
| Relationship Conflict | −0.505 ** | |
| R2 | 0.161 | 0.443 |
| ∆R2 | 0.162 | 0.282 |
| F | 26.261 *** | 97.451 *** |
Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed).