## 4 Results
### Torrance Creativity Cognitive Performance  
The research adopted ATTA as the tool to measure creativity potential, with score based on norm of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The results (as shown in Table 9) of the independent \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Item** & **Number** & **Percentage** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Gender} & Male & 41 & 61.2\% \\  & Female & 26 & 38.8\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Age} & Under 30 & 5 & 7.5\% \\  & 31–40 & 9 & 13.4\% \\  & 41–50 & 34 & 50.7\% \\  & Over 50 & 19 & 28.4\% \\ \hline Total & & 67 & 100\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Overall demographic distribution. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dimension** & **Item** & **Factor Loading** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Pearson** \\ **Correlation** \\ **Coefficient** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} _p-Value_ \\ **-Value** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Availability of** \\ **immediate** \\ **feedback** \\ \end{tabular} } & 1 & 0.653 & 0.764 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 2 & 0.713 & 0.830 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 3 & 0.734 & 0.834 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 4 & 0.773 & 0.875 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 5 & 0.688 & 0.733 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Use of multiple** \\ ** cues** \\ \end{tabular} } & 6 & 0.422 & 0.821 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 7 & 0.276 & 0.761 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 8 & 0.720 & 0.734 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Language variety** \\ **Personal focus of** \\ **the medium** \\ \end{tabular} } & 9 & 0.526 & 0.908 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 10 & 0.376 & 0.900 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Personal focus of** \\ **the medium** \\ \end{tabular} } & 11 & 0.746 & 0.930 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & 12 & 0.603 & 0.922 ** & \(p<0.0001\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The questionnaire validity of media richness. sample \(t\)-test for the Torrance creativity cognitive performance ATTA indicated that the overall mean score of the CMC experimental group was higher than the FtF control group in terms of creativity cognition (\(p\) = 0.012, \(t\)-test). This signified that participants in the CMC group had a greater creativity than those in the FtF group. Although there was no significant difference (\(p\) = 0.052, \(t\)-test) in the elaboration performance between the CMC and FtF groups, the CMC group (mean = 16.79) had a slightly higher mean score than the FtF group (mean = 15.70). On the other hand, the findings revealed that there were significant differences in the performance of the fluency, flexibility, and originality variables between the CMC group and the FtF group. The CMC group had a better fluency performance that suggested a greater level of ability to generate a larger quantity and meaningful thoughts than the FtF group. The CMC group also performed better in the flexibility performance than the FtF group whereby they could better describe more capabilities to easily modify their willingness to change their existing thoughts. In terms of originality performance, the CMC group outperformed the FtF group with a greater ability to produce new concepts and unique ideas toward problem solving. Therefore, Hypotheses H1 (\(p\) = 0.012, \(t\)-test), H1a (\(p\) < 0.0001, \(t\)-test), H1b (\(p\) = 0.039, \(t\)-test), and H1c (\(p\) = 0.014, \(t\)-test) were supported, whereas Hypothesis H1d (\(p\) = 0.06, \(t\)-test) was rejected. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Item** & **Number** & **Percentage** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Gender} & Male & 18 & 54.5\% \\  & Female & 15 & 45.5\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Age} & Under 30 & 3 & 9.1\% \\  & 31–40 & 3 & 9.1\% \\  & 41–50 & 18 & 54.5\% \\  & Over 50 & 9 & 27.3\% \\ \hline Total & & 33 & 100\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Demographic distribution for the computer-mediated communication (CMC) experimental group.