## 5 Discussion  
The aim of this research was to explore the correlation between media richness and potential creativity through the use of the CMC and FtF communication formats. In relation to the first research question: \"Will the use of different communication formats (i.e., CMC and FtF) have an impact on potential creative thinking?\", the research results showed that the CMC communication format had achieved a higher potential creativity in fluency, flexibility, and originality than the FtF communication format. This suggested that the relatively higher communication equivocality by the CMC communication format had helped individuals to overcome the limitations of space and time, and could more actively focus on the exchange of transmitted information [20; 29; 31]. This outcome aligned with studies in the past that supported CMC communication format in delivering remarkable production and communication efficiency for potential creativity thinking [29; 30]. Furthermore, the virtual communication environment of the CMC format offered more relaxing, anonymous, and less tense facial expression and change in tone of voice than that of FtF [13; 14; 15]. However, other research studies found that the performance of innovative thinking via the FtF communication format to be better than that of the CMC format, particularly in the context of education research and new product development [26; 27; 28; 84]. For the second research question: \"What is the correlation between media richness and potential creative thinking through the use of the CMC and FtF communication formats?\", the research findings discovered that the perception of CMC communication format was stronger than the FtF format in terms of media richness, use of multiple cues, language variety and personal focus of the medium. This \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis** & **Result** \\ \hline H1: The overall potential creativity cognition performance of the CMC learners in the experimental group is better than the FtF learners in the control group. & Supported \\ H1a: The fluency performance of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H1b: The flexibility performance of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H1c: The originality performance of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H1d: The elaboration performance of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Not Supported \\ H2: The overall media richness perception of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H2a: The perception of the availability of immediate feedback of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Not Supported \\ H2b: The perception of use of multiple cues of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H2c: The perception of language variety of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H2d: The perception of personal focus of the medium of the CMC learners of the experimental group is better than the FtF learners of the control group. & Supported \\ H3: Media richness perception is significantly correlated to potential creative thinking. & Not Supported \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Research hypothesis results. outcome was supported by the previous studies [37; 57]. In contrast, the perception of the availability of immediate feedback through the CMC communication format was not evident. This could be explained by learners who considered the use of such a format to be a more flexible way of communication that enhanced their understanding and way of thinking about the information received.