Enhancing innovative behavior of undergraduate students through an integrated thinking promotion program: a quasi-experiment study

Abstract

Innovation behavior (INB) is considered a particularly significant outcome in every level of education management, professional work, and across various organizations. There is still a lack of clear understanding regarding the suitable approaches and formats for fostering INB among undergraduate students. This research presents the results of the Integrated Thinking Promotion Program (ITPP) as an extra-curricular activity which effectively promotes undergraduate students’ INB. Quasi-experimental research was conducted involving 68 university students in Thailand, the experimental group received the ITTP program for three weeks, while the control group received regular course instruction. INB scales were used to collect INB with both groups. The study found that the ITTP program significantly promotes undergraduate students’ INB. This finding provides challenging directions for higher education management, emphasizing the implementation of short-term extra- curricular activity to foster the development of INB among undergraduate students.

Introduction

Innovative behavior (INB) is a form of creativity, considered a crucial personal attribute targeted in education at all levels, particularly at the undergraduate level, which emphasizes the development of creativity and innovative skills¹. The goal of education, besides focusing on the professional development of students according to the specifics of each curriculum, also aims to promote INB in students^2–4.

According to the concept of INB, it involves developing thinking towards concrete outcomes⁵. This entails individuals seeking new opportunities as the starting point for ideas (opportunity exploration), generating concepts that lead to the potential creation of innovations (generativity), expanding those ideas and seeking possible collaborations for developing these innovations or projects (championing), and finally, developing these concepts into tangible forms over time (application)^6,7.

Although the importance of INB has been widely recognized, many higher education systems, including Thailand’s, continue to face challenges in translating this awareness into effective practice. Most undergraduate curricula remain primarily knowledge-driven, with limited opportunities for students to apply creative and innovative thinking in authentic contexts. Traditional instructional designs tend to emphasize knowledge acquisition and technical proficiency rather than fostering the mindset and behavioral patterns associated with innovation. This situation has resulted in a gap between policy aspirations and actual pedagogical implementation in developing students’ innovative capacities.

Despite considerable efforts to promote INB among undergraduate students, existing research has shown that interventions are often fragmented or overly theoretical, lacking structured approaches that can be systematically applied within the higher education environment. In particular, short-term interventions or extracurricular initiatives that could flexibly complement formal curricula have not been sufficiently examined. There is a persistent lack of knowledge regarding effective integration of concepts and structured interventions that can systematically foster such behavior, particularly in short-term programs with relatively fixed curricula.

Furthermore, while extracurricular activities have been shown to enhance student creativity⁸, empirical studies specifically targeting the development of INB through extracurricular interventions remain limited. Prior studies have tended to focus more on creativity or entrepreneurship training^9,10, whereas fewer have explored how integrative cognitive programs can directly influence INB itself. Addressing this gap is crucial for developing evidence-based strategies that support the cultivation of INB, a key attribute for students’ academic success and professional readiness.

Therefore, the present study addresses a critical need for empirical evidence on how structured, short-term extracurricular programs can effectively foster INB among undergraduate students. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on creativity and innovation in education by offering a model that bridges the gap between theoretical understanding and practical application in real learning environments.

The key challenge for educational managers, instructors, and curriculum developers in higher education is to examine the impact of short-term extracurricular programs and implement effective approaches to enhance INB among students across all academic disciplines. Accordingly, this study aims to investigate the effects of the Integrated Thinking Promotion Program (ITPP), implemented as an extracurricular activity, on the development of INB among undergraduate students. Specifically, the study compares outcomes between students who participated in the ITPP (experimental group) and those who continued with regular learning activities (control group).

Based on this objective, the study is guided by the following research question:

Is there a statistically significant difference in INB between undergraduate students who participate in the ITPP and those who do not?

It is hypothesized that undergraduate students who engage in the ITPP will demonstrate significantly higher levels of INB compared with their peers who do not participate in the program.

Innovative behavior and creativity

Innovative behavior (INB) describes behavior of generating and implementing new ideas or products in an organizational context. The concept of innovation is an important outcome of working, learning, and organization. In addition, innovation that is developed must be recognized and applied to enable successful and sustainable organizational behaviours^6,11–13. Universities in Thailand focus on developing innovation¹⁴. They seek to enhance their students’ innovation in those students’ areas of competence and fields of study. Universities encourage positive student outcomes by creating a good atmosphere and providing support for students’ innovation development¹⁵. However, innovation is also often considered something that is difficult to do. An individual who can innovate must take many attempts and be the source of have much inspiration. There are various factors are related to innovation development, including an individual’s natural traits, attitude, and attention¹⁶. The attempt, attention, and realization of generating new ideas may lead to improved innovative behaviour or innovation performance^11,16. However, this investigation specifically concentrates on the factors that shape INB among undergraduate students, with a particular emphasis on teacher autonomy support, creativity quotient, creative self-efficacy, and creativity disposition. These studies aim to contribute new insights into how these factors influence the INB of students in higher educational settings.

The concept of INB is rooted in various theories Pojsupap et al.¹⁷ produced a systematic review of studies of INB found that there are two main perspectives or concepts related to innovative behaviour. First, innovative behaviour is considered to be an internal factor of everyone, similar to internal motivation and other individual traits. Second, innovative behaviour also refers to the relationship between the individual and the circumstance, including the atmosphere of the workplace and role of the organizational leader. In addition, Jensen⁶ found that innovative behaviour does not only relate to generating ideas but also to implementing them or creating products in an organization. Scott and Bruce¹⁸ defined innovative behaviour as the ability of an individual to generate new ideas or products and to act to bring these into the workplace. Janssen⁷ defined innovative behaviour as related to the individual’s intention and the application of new ideas or products and improving ideas, processes, and practices for successful and sustainable work.

Moreover, INB involves creative thinking and realization. Those who are characterized by INB also express awareness of their problems and needs and seek to solve the problems or respond to the needs⁵. They also look for support and act to follow out their ideas and develop original products^11,18. INB is defined differently by different researchers. This study defined INB in undergraduate students as their ability to provide intent, generate new ideas, and apply and improve ideas, processes, and practices successfully in a working environment^6,18,19.

Theoretical structure of the ITPP program as the extra-curricular activities in undergraduate curriculum

The ITPP was a general thinking program developed and designed to promote INBs among undergraduate students in Thailand. The incorporates five integrated conceptual approaches were adopted and integrated; creativity disposition, creative self-efficacy, creativity quotient, constructivism, and cultivating a culture of thinking in the classroom.

The variables associated with an individual’s INB can be divided into two groups: cognitive factors and creativity disposition²⁰. Particularly important is the ability for divergent thinking (DT), which refers to an individual’s capacity to produce multiple responses in various directions to a given task. This involves fluency, the ability to generate numerous responses, and flexibility, the ability to think in diverse directions^21,22. Divergent thinking is considered a core component of an individual’s creative potential^23,24 and is more closely linked to creative success than other intellectual abilities²⁵. Regarding creativity disposition, several key variables are associated with an individual’s creativity. It is widely accepted that creative success is directly related to certain personality traits^26,27.

From a synthesis of literature on the dispositions of creative individuals, the following eight key traits have been identified: (1) Openness to Knowledge and New Experiences: This includes curiosity, a thirst for knowledge, wide-ranging interests, observance, enthusiasm, and openness to new experiences^27–31 (2) Learning Characteristics: Individuals with quick perception and reaction, a preference for self-directed learning, a desire to be knowledgeable, and tolerance for ambiguity^27,28,32. (3) Preference for Thinking and Problem-Solving: Enjoyment of thinking, mental independence, sensitivity to problems, a liking for facing challenges, adaptability, reflective thinking, subconscious problem-solving, and risk-taking^27,28,30,32. (4) Values and Beliefs: Valuing originality, aesthetic appreciation, and trust in subconscious processes^32,33. (5) Creative Work and Production Characteristics: Commitment to work, concentration, focus, a preference for unique and challenging tasks, the use of personal techniques, seeking support for creativity, and employing intuition in creative processes^27,28,30,32. (6) Self-Image: Having a self-concept related to creativity and possessing ideals^27,30,33. (7) Motivation: High motivation, energy levels, and a love for adventure^27,30,33. (8) Emotional Characteristics: High sensitivity to emotions and profound emotional experiences³³. These factors collectively contribute to fostering an individual’s INB and creativity.

Additionally, another crucial variable influencing an individual’s INB and creative output is creative self-efficacy. This variable plays a significant role in individual innovation. The concept suggests that self-efficacy beliefs serve as motivational factors in the creative and innovative processes and positively impact the creation of various forms of creative work or innovations³⁴. Creative self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to develop, produce, or create creative work or innovations³⁵.

According to this concept, individuals have a natural tendency to control their own lives. During this process, efficacious beliefs play a significant role, and creativity is also a result of one’s creative self-efficacy³⁶. Therefore, creative self-efficacy acts as a mediator, influencing both the INB of individuals and their ability to produce creative and innovative work^37,38.

Recent meta-analytic evidence underscores the effectiveness of structured interventions in enhancing creativity and INBs. Haase et al.⁹ conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of creativity enhancement methods for adults, showing that diverse approaches—including divergent thinking exercises, problem-based activities, and experiential learning—produce significant positive effects on creativity development. Likewise, in their review of five decades of creativity training studies, provided robust evidence that such training reliably improves creative performance across populations, though outcomes vary depending on program design and implementation quality. These findings highlight the importance of embedding evidence-based creativity training methods into educational practice and offer a strong rationale for programs like the Integrated Thinking Promotion Program (ITPP) in fostering INBs among undergraduate students.

The ITPP is grounded in constructivist theory and the cultivation of a thinking culture in the classroom. Constructivism emphasizes active, self-directed knowledge construction, which aligns with structured learning experiences that challenge students to generate, test, and refine ideas rather than passively receive information. Complementing this foundation, the cultivation of a thinking culture involves five key pedagogical principles: modeling, explanation, opportunities for use, stimulating interaction, and providing feedback. Research on classroom-based creativity interventions^39,40 has shown that such strategies—particularly modeling and feedback—significantly enhance students’ capacity to transfer creative thinking skills into novel contexts, making them especially relevant for developing INBs.

To operationalize these principles, the ITPP integrates training components that reflect the hallmarks of successful creativity and innovation interventions identified in prior research. These include: (1) Duration, specifying the time allocation for activities, as research suggests that structured, time-bound tasks enhance focus and engagement^9,37; (2) General and Behavioral Objectives, ensuring that goals are transparent and measurable, which aligns with findings from meta-analyses that emphasize goal clarity as a driver of training effectiveness¹⁰ (Sio & Lortie-Forgues, 2024); (3) Core Content, selecting materials that encourage divergent and integrative thinking, supported by evidence that problem-based and experiential learning activities enhance innovation-related outcomes⁴¹. These activities, such as project-oriented problem-based learning, hands-on digital making, and iterative feedback, provide students with opportunities to practice creativity in authentic contexts and strengthen their ability to generate novel and effective solutions. (4) Implementation Methods, which combine individual exploration with collaborative problem-solving, reflecting best practices in group-based creativity interventions²; (5) Teaching Materials, incorporating devices and resources designed to prompt ideation and reflection, consistent with findings that structured tools improve creative task performance⁴²; and (6) Assessment, employing pre- and post-measures of INB to evaluate impact, echoing recommendations from systematic reviews that stress rigorous evaluation to ensure reliability and transferability^9,37.

By aligning its structure with evidence-based approaches, the ITPP addresses a central challenge in higher education: how to design interventions that move beyond abstract encouragement of creativity to provide students with concrete opportunities to practice and internalize INBs. Integrating constructivist pedagogy with structured training components, the program offers a prototype that not only enhances individual students’ capacity for innovation but also contributes to national developmental priorities emphasizing creativity, innovation, and problem-solving skills as critical drivers of future economic and social progress.

Aims of the study

The present study aims to examine the effects of ITPP as extra-curricular activity on undergraduate students’ INBs. The comparisons are made between ITPP (experimental group) and business as usual (control group) to address the research questions that is there a significant difference in undergraduate students’ INBs between the experimental and control groups?

Methods

Study design

A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest control group design was employed to examine the effects of the Integrated Thinking Promotion Program (ITPP) on undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors. Random assignment at the individual level was not feasible, as students had already been enrolled in intact class sections at the beginning of the semester. Therefore, the two existing class sections were assigned by lottery to serve as the experimental and control groups. This procedure reflects the characteristics of a quasi-experimental design, as group allocation was determined by an external selection method rather than individual randomization. The experimental activities were implemented as supplementary learning experiences in addition to the standard curriculum and were conducted following regular instructional sessions.

Participants

The study was conducted during the first semester of the 2023 academic year under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Innovation. A total of 63 undergraduate students from a university in Thailand participated, all of whom were enrolled in the logistics program within the Faculty of Business Administration. At the beginning of the semester, students were pre-assigned by the university administration to specific class sections according to standard academic procedures and instructor availability. The inclusion criteria were: (1) being male or female students currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree; (2) the ability to communicate in Thai; and (3) willingness to participate in the research. All participants provided informed consent prior to the study. The final sample comprised 28 students in the experimental group and 35 in the control group.

Research procedure

After obtaining approval from the research ethics committee and permission to conduct the ITPP program experiment, the participants were informed of the research objectives and signed consent forms. They were also assured of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. This research was implemented in accordance with the ethical standards and procedural regulations set forth by the institutional review board (IRB) for human subjects. Both groups were assessed for their innovative behaviors (INB) prior to the intervention to establish baseline measures. The experimental group then received the ITPP program as an extracurricular activity for three weeks, implemented by the researcher with support from the course instructor and staff who served as program assistants. Meanwhile, the control group continued with regular instruction provided by the same course instructor and staff as the experimental group. This arrangement was designed to minimize potential instructor-related bias by ensuring that both groups received comparable instructional support. Following the three-week intervention, both groups were reassessed for their INBs to obtain scores for comparative analysis.

The ITPP intervention program

The ITPP refers to a set of integrated activities as extra-curricular activities which consists of 13 activities, with 4–5 activities conducted per week in a sequential order. Each activity involves approximately 25–30 min of training, and it was finished of training within three weeks. Each activity designed to develop key components which leading to INBs. An overview of the time period, activities, and objectives for each activity is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of weekly activities and objectives for training in the ITPP.

Time period	Activities/objectives
Week 1: ITPP 1 comprises four activities, each lasting 90–120 min	Activity 1 “Draw Yourself”: This activity aims to cultivate safety atmosphere for encouraging participants to express themselves confidently, informing the research purpose and the key variables, collaboration in the research process
	Activity 2 “Thinking Competition”: This activity focused on strengthening the fundamental elements of creative thinking, this activity fosters a variety of innovative approaches to problem-solving. It plays a pivotal role in nurturing innovation by encouraging participants to explore diverse and novel methods for addressing challenges innovation
	Activity 3 “Exchange Perspectives”: This activity promotes an open-minded attitude towards embracing new knowledge and experiences
	Activity 4 “Embracing Challenges”: The objective is to instill resilience in the face of uncertainty, fostering the ability to navigate through ambiguous situations
Week 2: I ITPP 2 involves five activities, each lasting 90–120 min	Activity 5 “Enhancing the Picture 1”: This activity enhances creative thinking by utilizing images as diverse stimuli for generating varied responses
	Activity 6 “Inventor’s Heart”: Focused on cultivating a fondness for modifying and inventing new ideas
	Activity 7 “Thinking Techniques”: This activity aims to promote diverse problem-solving techniques, encouraging participants to think outside conventional frameworks
	Activity 8 “ Possibility”: The aim is to cultivate confidence in creative self-efficacy, motivating participants to acquire and apply a diverse range of techniques in crafting innovative works
	Activity 9 “My Working Style”: This activity promotes a dedicated and joyful approach to work, nurturing perseverance in overcoming challenges for successful task completion
Week 3: ITPP 3 consists of four activities, each lasting 90–120 min	Activity 10 “Enhancing the Picture 2”: This activity focuses on strengthening the core components of creative thinking by using images as diverse stimuli for eliciting responses
	Activity 11 “Creative Imagination Work”: This activity focuses on encouraging participants to utilize imagination in creating innovative works, breaking away from conventional thinking
	Activity 12 “ Creative Work Creation”: This activity aims to reinforce creative self-efficacy, instilling confidence in applying learned skills for creative work and developing new products
	Activity 13 “We Can Do It”: Aims to build strengthen in creative self-efficacy by collaborating with others to create innovative works based on predefined conditions through brainstorming methods

Measures

The Innovative Behavior (INB) Scale measured the level of INB among undergraduate students. It comprises of 12 items categorized into four sub-dimensions: opportunity exploration, generativity, championing and application. There are three questions for each sub-dimension. This scale was adapted from Sangsuk and Siriparp⁴³ based on the conceptual framework developed by Jensen⁶. Additionally, this research instrument was administered to a sample of 1,200 undergraduate students to examine its appropriateness and psychometric properties⁵. The sub-dimension “opportunity exploration” was referred to the level of seeking for information, collecting data for create something new. The sub-dimension “generativity” was referred to ability to produce new idea in term of design for innovative products, method or tolls. The sub-dimension “championing” was referred to ability to evoke the ideas of others. And the sub-dimension “application” was referred to ability to transform abstract ideas into concrete forms or convert abstract concepts into more specific or detailed representations.

Instrument scoring

The INB Scale using a five-point Likert scale (with scores ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). For each sub-dimension, there are the same weight across all sub-dimensions. The sample item for “opportunity exploration” was “I actively seek opportunities to learn new things and develop my knowledge and skills. This includes enrolling in short courses related to my interests, attending exhibitions, participating in academic conferences, and taking part in workshops on topics that intrigue me. The sample item for sub-dimension “generativity” was “ I am expanding on existing concepts to generate new and beneficial ideas within my field of study” The sub-dimension “championing” was “I encourage my friends to read articles related to new innovations or technologies from diverse sources such as magazines, academic journals, print media, textbooks, or the internet” The sub-dimension “application” was “I stay informed about the latest advancements in innovations related to my field of study, such as scientific inventions, IT technology innovations, electronics, medical advancements, food and pharmaceutical products, new marketing techniques, innovative teaching methods, and more”.

The reliability of each component of the INB scale, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, ranged from 0.70 to 0.74 across the four subscales, with an overall reliability of 0.83. Item discrimination, assessed through item-total correlations, ranged from 0.31 to 0.67. A first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus version 7.4 to examine the construct validity of the INB scale. The hypothesized four-factor model—comprising opportunity seeking, idea generation, championing, and idea application—was grounded in prior theoretical and empirical research on INB (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2000). The model demonstrated an excellent fit to the data, χ² (1, N = 1200) = 1.29, p = 0.25, χ²/df = 1.29, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.01, and RMSEA = 0.02, all of which exceeded conventional thresholds for good fit. Standardized factor loadings were 0.71 (opportunity seeking), 0.95 (idea generation), 0.71 (championing), and 0.28 (idea application). While the factor loading for idea application fell below the recommended cutoff of 0.50, it was retained due to its theoretical importance in representing INB. The model achieved satisfactory fit without adjustments⁵.

Data analysis

To address the research questions regarding the effects of the ITPP on the INB of undergraduate students, independent t-tests, paired t-tests, and MANOVA were employed to compare mean scores between the experimental and control groups, as well as before and after the intervention. Independent t-tests were conducted to examine differences between the two groups, while paired t-tests were used to evaluate within-group changes from pretest to posttest. MANOVA was applied to assess overall group differences across multiple dependent variables simultaneously, thereby reducing the risk of Type I error. Prior to conducting these analyses, the necessary statistical assumptions were examined. For the t-tests, univariate normality was assessed using skewness (Sk) and kurtosis (Ku). For MANOVA, the assumptions of multivariate normality, homogeneity of covariance matrices, multicollinearity, and independence of observations were tested and verified.

Results

Participants characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the 63 participants in the Innovative Teaching and Practice Program (ITPP), divided into an experimental group and a control group.

Undergraduate students participating in this experiment study in the same academic field, logistic. The first classroom is designated as the experimental group, while the other classroom is designated as the control group. The participants were predominantly female, accounting for 55.56% (35 participants), while males made up 44.44% (28 participants). The overall average age of participants was 20.47 years (SD = 0.60). The experimental group had a mean age of 20.50 years (SD = 0.64), and the control group had a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 0.56). All participants were juniors, representing 100% of the sample. Participants’ GPA was mostly in the range of 3.01–3.50. All participants were from the Social Sciences and Humanities field, accounting for 100% of the sample. Detail for demographic data of the participants presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic data of the participants involved in the ITPP.

General Information (N = 63)	Experimental Group	Control Group	Total
	Number	Number	Number	Percentage
Gender
Male	9	9	28	44.44
Female	19	26	35	55.56
Average Age (SD)	20.50(0.64)	20.43(0.56)	20.47(.60)	–
Year of Study
Junior	28	35	63	100.00
Grade Point Average
2.012.50	2	2	4	6.35
2.51–3.00	4	9	13	20.63
3.01–3.50	12	16	28	44.44
3.51–4.00	10	8	18	28.57
Field of Study
Social Sciences and Humanities	28	35	63	100.00
Total			63	100.00

The comparison of INB pre-test and post-test score of experimental and control group

Before comparing the INB pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups using t-test and MANOVA, preliminary assumptions regarding data suitability were examined.

For the analysis of t-test, the distribution of the data was analyzed to examine the preliminary analysis agreement. It founded that the data in both the experimental and control groups exhibit a normal distribution which deemed acceptable to demonstrate a normal univariate distribution. The examination of data distribution prior to the experiment revealed that the skewness (Sk) and kurtosis (Ku) values of innovative behavior scores for both the experimental group (Sk = 0.20, Ku = 0.12) and the control group (Sk = –0.05, Ku = –0.09) were within the acceptable range (–1 to + 1). This indicates that the data distribution for both groups approximated normality, supporting the assumption of normal distribution before conducting further statistical analyses.

The comparison results for each dimension of INB and the total INB score indicate that before the experiment, there was a statistically significant difference in the overall scores of innovative behaviors among undergraduate students between the experimental and control groups (t = 2.55, p < 0.05). However, when examining each dimension of INB separately, it was found that there were no significant differences in certain dimensions. Specifically, in the sub-dimensions of opportunity exploration and championing, the differences were not statistically significant (t = 0.09, 1.90, p > 0.05 consecutively). After the experiment, it was observed that both the overall scores of INB and the scores in each sub-dimension of INB in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group at the 0.01 level in every sub-dimension. The post-test comparisons indicate that the experimental group demonstrated substantial improvements over the control group across all dimensions of INB.

Effect size calculations for Cohen’s d using G^*Power 3.1, with α = 0.05 and power (1 − β) = 0.80, indicated large effects for Opportunity Exploration (d = 1.39), Generativity (d = 1.93), Championing (d = 1.34), and Application (d = 1.64). The total INB score also showed a very large effect (d = 2.14). These findings suggest that the ITPP program had a strong and substantial impact on enhancing undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors (see Table 3).

Table 3.

The results of the comparison of INB pre-test and post-test score between experimental and control group.

Dimension	Group	n	Pre-test M	SD	t (df = 61)	p	Post-test M	SD	t (df = 61)	p
Opportunity exploration	Experimental	28	3.51	0.82	0.09	.93	4.32	0.53	6.78**	.00
	Control	35	3.50	0.70			3.29	0.65
Generativity	Experimental	28	3.43	0.87	2.78**	.01	4.30	0.58	7.31**	.00
	Control	35	2.89	0.68			3.18	0.62
Championing	Experimental	28	3.37	0.98	1.90	.06	4.31	0.69	6.15**	.00
	Control	35	2.95	0.76			3.27	0.65
Application	Experimental	28	3.82	0.86	3.82**	.00	4.35	0.65	6.30**	.00
	Control	35	3.04	0.77			3.31	0.64
Total score of innovative behavior	Experimental	28	3.53	0.80	2.52*	.02	4.32	0.55	7.83**	.00
	Control	35	3.09	0.52			3.26	0.51

**p < .01;

*p < .05.

Prior to the main analysis of MANOVA, key assumptions were examined. Skewness and kurtosis values for all dimensions were within the acceptable range of ± 2, indicating approximate multivariate normality. Box’s M test was non-significant (p > 0.05), supporting the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices between groups. Intercorrelations among the four dimensions were all below 0.80, and variance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged from 1.12 to 2.04, demonstrating the absence of multicollinearity. Finally, independence of observations was ensured by the study design, as each participant contributed a single set of scores and groups were mutually exclusive.

To ensure a more profound understanding and control for Type I error inflation the MANOVA was employed to analyze differences in the subdimensions by adopting a Bonferroni adjusted critical value of 0.0125 (0.05/4). The result found that there were significantly different in all dimensions of INB. In terms of opportunity exploration sub-dimension, the experimental group (Mean = 4.32, SD = 0.53) was significantly higher than the control group (Mean = 3.29, SD = 0.65), F = 45.97, p < 0.000). Also, the generativity sub-dimension, the experimental group (Mean = 4.30, SD = 0.58) was significantly higher than the control group (Mean = 3.18, SD = 0.61), F = 53.41, p < 0.000). And then the championing sub-dimension, the experimental group (Mean = 4.31, SD = 0.69) was significantly higher than the control group (Mean = 3.27, SD = 0.65), F = 37.83, p < 0.000). And the last sub-dimension, application, the result shown that there was significantly higher of the experimental group (Mean = 4.35, SD = 0.65) than the control group (Mean = 3.31, SD = 0.64), F = 39.66, p < 0.000).

Additionally, the effect size for the MANOVA, calculated using partial η² (partial eta squared) in G^*Power 3.1 with α = 0.05 and power (1 − β) = 0.80, indicated large effects of the ITPP program on all INB sub-dimensions: Opportunity Exploration (η² = 0.43), Generativity (η² = 0.47), Championing (η² = 0.38), and Application (η² = 0.39). The total INB score showed a very large effect (η² = 0.50), confirming the strong impact of the program on undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors.

The comparison of INB score on before and after participation on experiment of experimental and control group

To obtain more understanding of the impact of ITPP, a comparison of scores before and after the experiment was conducted using paired t-test. The results indicated that in the experimental group, the overall scores of INB and scores in each sub-dimension after the experiment were significantly higher than those before the experiment, with statistical significance at the 0.01 level. In contrast, in the control group, there were no significant differences in scores before and after participation in the experiment across all dimensions and the total score of INB.

The experimental group demonstrated substantial improvements across all dimensions of innovative behavior from pre- to post-test, with large effect sizes ranging from Cohen’s d = 0.78 to 1.03. At post-test, comparisons between the experimental and control groups revealed large to very large effects across all dimensions (Cohen’s d calculated using G^*Power 3.1, with α = 0.05 and power (1 − β) = 0.80): Opportunity Exploration (d = 1.50), Generativity (d = 1.68), Championing (d = 1.41), Application (d = 1.41), and the total INB score (d = 1.63). These findings indicate that the ITPP program had a strong and meaningful impact on enhancing undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors (see Table 4).

Table 4.

The results of the comparison of INB before and after participate in the experiment between experimental and control group.

Dimension	Period of time	n	Experimental group/Mean	SD	t (df = 27)	P	n	Control group/Mean	SD	t (df = 34)	p
Opportunity exploration	Before	28	3.43	.87	4.86**	.00	35	2.89	.62	-1.25	.09
	After	28	4.30	.58			35	3.18	.68
Generativity	Before	28	3.37	.69	4.84**	.00	35	2.95	.65	1.77	.08
	After	28	4.31	.98			35	3.27	.76
Championing	Before	28	3.82	.65	4.83**	.00	35	3.04	.64	1.79	.10
	After	28	4.35	.86			35	3.31	.77
Application	Before	28	3.53	.55	3.03**	.00	35	3.09	.51	1.71	.18
	After	28	4.32	.80			35	3.26	.52
Innovative behavior	Before	28	3.51	.53	4.77**	.00	35	2.99	.65	1.36	.22
	After	28	4.32	.82			35	3.25	.70

**p < .01, SD, Standard deviation, df, Degree of freedom.

To address issues regarding statistical sensitivity and potential effect-size inflation, a post-hoc power analysis was conducted. Results confirmed that the study had sufficient power to detect the observed effects. All sub-dimensions of innovative behavior, as well as the total INB score, achieved power values close to 1.00, even under the Bonferroni-adjusted alpha (α = 0.0125). This suggests that the large observed effect sizes were unlikely to result from sampling error. The minimum detectable effect (MDE) ranged from d = 0.72 to d = 0.87, indicating strong sensitivity to medium-to-large effects but limited sensitivity to small effects.

Discussions

The findings of this research provide significant contributions in multiple dimensions related to theoretical concepts, practical training, and student development concerning creativity and innovation, particularly the impact of the ITPP program as an extracurricular activity on undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors. This study empirically demonstrates that structured extracurricular programs can foster innovative behaviors, contributing to the growing body of evidence that educational interventions play a central role in preparing students for the demands of a rapidly changing, innovation-driven society^11,44,45.

Overall change in innovative behaviors

The results of pre-test and post-test comparisons revealed that while both experimental and control groups experienced an increase in innovative behavior (INB) scores, the experimental group achieved significantly higher gains. This underscores the efficacy of the ITPP program in cultivating innovation-oriented competencies. Importantly, this finding supports prior research which argues that INB is not a static trait but can be developed through structured training interventions^39,46. From a theoretical perspective, this reinforces the constructivist principle that learners actively build knowledge and behavioral dispositions through engagement in targeted learning environments^47,48.

Opportunity exploration

Within the sub-dimension of opportunity exploration, post-experiment results in the experimental group demonstrated a significant increase compared to pre-experiment scores. This outcome may be linked to activities such as perspective exchange and role modeling, which encouraged openness to experience and adaptability to novel circumstances. These experiences facilitated behavioral shifts that align with openness to new knowledge and experiential learning opportunities. The incorporation of role models who shared their innovation and business creation experiences further reinforced participants’ motivation to embrace challenges. This outcome aligns with studies showing that openness to experience is positively associated with creativity and INBs^49–51. Moreover, the integration of constructivist approaches provided authentic contexts in which students could test and refine their thinking, echoing the view that innovation emerges when learners are exposed to new perspectives in collaborative learning settings^47,48.

Generativity

The experimental group also outperformed the control group in the sub-dimension of generativity, reflecting enhanced capacity to produce a diverse range of ideas. This improvement is closely related to divergent thinking activities such as “Thinking Competition” and “Enhancing the Picture,” which exposed learners to varied stimuli and encouraged rapid, flexible responses within time-limited tasks. The finding resonates with prior research highlighting that divergent thinking training strengthens fluency, flexibility, and originality^44,52,53. Such activities operationalize the theoretical foundation that generativity is a core feature of creative thinking and a precursor to INB, offering practical evidence that structured extracurricular activities can nurture this capacity in higher education settings.

Championing

Another key dimension where the experimental group showed substantial improvement is championing, which refers to the ability to advocate, persuade, and influence others to adopt new ideas. This development may stem from program components such as the “Embracing Challenges,” “Possibility,” and “Creative Work Creation” activities, which focused on strengthening resilience and creative self-efficacy. Championing is crucial because innovative ideas must be promoted and defended within social contexts in order to be realized. These findings are consistent with research showing that creative self-efficacy enhances individuals’ willingness to take risks and promote their ideas to others^35,54,55. Importantly, this aligns with broader organizational research highlighting that individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to engage in innovative performance and influence group outcomes¹¹. Thus, the program’s design contributed not only to idea generation but also to the social processes necessary for innovation to thrive.

Application

The final sub-dimension, application, which involves transforming ideas into tangible products or practices, also showed a significant increase in the experimental group relative to the control group. Activities such as “We Can Do It,” “My Working Style,” and “Inventor’s Heart” emphasized collaborative creation, problem-solving, and overcoming creative barriers, thereby reinforcing practical engagement with ideas. This dimension reflects the core distinction between creative thinking and INB—while the former emphasizes ideation, the latter centers on implementation and value creation^56,57. The outcomes observed in this study align with prior scholarship showing that project-based, experiential, and collaborative approaches are effective in bridging the gap between idea generation and application^58,59. Thus, the ITPP program successfully translated creative potential into concrete outputs, validating its design as a practice-oriented intervention.

The effect size analysis provides strong evidence that the ITPP program significantly enhanced undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors. Post-test comparisons showed consistently large effects across all dimensions, with the greatest gains in Generativity and overall INB. Within-group analyses confirmed substantial pre- to post-test improvements, and MANOVA results revealed large effects for all sub-dimensions and a very large effect for the total score. A post-hoc power analysis further supported the robustness of these findings, with all INB dimensions achieving power near 1.00 even under Bonferroni adjustment (α = 0.0125), suggesting the large effects were unlikely due to sampling error. Nonetheless, the study was primarily sensitive to medium-to-large effects, and potential effect size inflation cannot be ruled out given the lack of randomization and relatively small sample size^60,61. Thus, while the evidence strongly supports the program’s effectiveness, caution is warranted when generalizing these results.

Overall, the findings highlight the multidimensional nature of INB and demonstrate that targeted, constructivist, and practice-oriented interventions can foster meaningful innovation in higher education. The ITPP program illustrates the potential of extracurricular initiatives as strategic tools to cultivate students’ opportunity exploration, generativity, championing, and application, thereby advancing both educational practice and theoretical understanding of innovation development.

The prototype of short-term programs as extra-curricular activity to promote innovative behaviors for undergraduate students

Innovative behaviors (INB) are considered highly correlated with creative thinking, particularly in generating new and useful ideas or creative thoughts⁵⁶. However, what distinguishes INB from creative thinking is the former’s aim to actualize those ideas rather than merely conceiving them⁵⁷. The development of the program involves integrating various key focal points that are crucial for influencing INBs collectively into a general thinking program. The significant outcome of developing the ITPP program is the creation of a prototype that promotes INB among undergraduate students. It’s designed as supplementary activities for short-term courses and has been evaluated for its effectiveness in fostering INB.

This integration includes various concepts used in a holistic approach, such as creativity disposition, creative self-efficacy, creative quotient, thinking and creativity development programs, emphasizing constructivist approaches to knowledge creation and cultivating a culture of thinking in classrooms. The integrative components of the program activities aimed at fostering INBs for graduate students comprise 13 different activities, each conducted over 4–5 sessions per week, with each session lasting approximately 25–30 min.

The overall training duration spans 3 weeks. The opportunity for graduate-level learners to practice and experience learning in these innovation-oriented activities is beneficial for their development of existing ideas into idealized concepts. Based on the positive findings, it is evident that participating in short-term supplementary programs has a significant influence on fostering INBs among learners, especially at the undergraduate level. Such activities are deemed suitable as supplementary course components for undergraduate-level education management programs.

The ITPP program effectively enhanced INBs—opportunity exploration, generativity, championing, and application—through diverse, practice-oriented activities. The findings highlight that innovation depends not only on ability but also on opportunity, environment, and targeted interventions, underscoring the value of extracurricular programs in strengthening undergraduate innovation and advancing its theoretical understanding.

Theoretical and practical implications

Theoretically, this study extends current knowledge by demonstrating that short-term extracurricular programs can effectively promote INBs in undergraduate students. By integrating constructs such as creativity disposition, divergent production, and creative self-efficacy into a holistic training program, this research contributes to creativity and innovation theory by illustrating how specific pedagogical designs can cultivate innovation readiness. This complement extends the meta-analytic evidence that creativity training is effective when grounded in diverse and active learning strategies³⁹.

Practically, the findings suggest that higher education institutions should consider incorporating short-term extracurricular programs like the ITPP into their curricula as supplementary components. These programs are low-cost, scalable, and adaptable across disciplines, making them viable tools for fostering innovation skills among undergraduates. Such an approach also resonates with global calls for higher education to prepare students with 21st-century skills, including creativity, innovation, and problem-solving^11,46. For policymakers, these findings highlight the potential of extracurricular programs to complement formal curricula in promoting innovation capacity at the national and institutional levels.

Conclusions

This study not only resulted in a comprehensive integrated program that promotes INB among undergraduate students, but also produced a prototype of a short-term program. This program serves as an extra-curricular activity suitable for integration into teaching and learning management across all undergraduate-level courses. Its aim is to yield outcomes in developing innovation or fostering INB among students in the curriculum. The goal of undergraduate education management is multifaceted, aiming to develop professional expertise in each field of study within the curriculum. The educational management approach includes clear course outlines and subjects according to well-defined and clear curricula. Therefore, the ITTP program, being an integrated short-term program, poses challenges in enriching the educational management for higher education managers effectively. It is suitable for adaptation across all courses that aim to stimulate and enhance students’ INB, greatly benefiting educational management in higher education. This is particularly pertinent for curriculum developers, educators, administrators at the higher education level, educational psychologists, and other stakeholders.

Research limitations and suggestion for further study

Some limitations for this study should be noted and further explored in the future. First, since students who participated in this work were at certain vocational university in Thailand. This study began after receiving permission to access the field with the participants had been duly arranged and prepared, the random assignment of participants to take part in the experiment was therefore not feasible. The quasi- experiment was conducted for this study; further study should consider using other type of methodology or setting context. Second, due to time constraints with the intervention activities being limited to just 3 weeks, and with multiple activities scheduled within each week, the future studies, the effects of implementing of ITTP program in real educational contexts with flexible and extended timeframes should be explored. Third, using a single instructor and supporting team per group may have introduced potential confounding effects. Future research should involve multiple instructors or teams and replicate the study across courses or institutions with undergraduate students. Longer interventions and longitudinal follow-ups could also assess the sustained effects of the ITPP program on undergraduate students’ innovative behaviors. Fourth, although the findings show strong effectiveness, the lack of randomization and small sample size may have inflated effect sizes, and the study was more sensitive to medium-to-large effects, potentially overlooking smaller changes. These limitations constrain generalizability. Future research should replicate the study with larger, randomized samples across diverse contexts and use longitudinal designs to assess the sustainability of gains and detect smaller effects. Fifth, the intervention was implemented directly by the research team, which may have contributed to inflated effect sizes due to researcher involvement, as noted in prior studies⁶⁰. Future studies should consider using independent instructors or facilitators, with standardized manuals and protocols, to reduce potential bias and enhance generalizability of the findings.

Author contributions

Study design: UR, SW Data collection: UR, SW Data analysis: SW, UR Study supervision: SW Manuscript writing: UR, SW Critical revision for important intellectual content: UR, SW.

Funding

This research has been supported by the Thailand Science Research and Innovation Fund Chulalongkorn University (SOCF67270011); and Thinking, Disposition, and Mental Health-Research Unit (RU69_003_2700_001), Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All experiments were approved for human subjects by institutional review board for human subjects group 2 of Chulalongkorn University (no. 660145). Before the experiment began, the researchers sent an official letter for permitted to the dean of certain universities to request collaboration in using setting. After permitted the recruitment and data collection began. The participants were provided with the consents form explaining the purpose of the study, assurance that confidentiality would be maintained, and that participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason. The experiment took place at certain in Thailand between August and September 2023. The participants who signed the written informed consent form were assigned as experimental and control group. In addition, the informed consent was obtained from all participants. After finished the experiment the control group was provided the ITPP program for fair treatment.