An educational computerized game to train creativity: First development and evidence of its creativity correlates

iáo dụC: tiếp Cận liên ngành và xuyên ngành268 al., 2004a), convergent thinking skill was not necessarily required in the game that mostly relies on associating concepts without strict requirements to select the best ideas. Alternatively, it could also mean that our game performance measures did not explicitly capture this ability. In case of insight problem solving, it is a complex, higher process cognition that can be difficult to understand scientifically (Batchelder & Alexander, 2012). The collection of classic insight problems, such that was used in our studies, is very heterogeneous in which each insight problem has its own character to provoke insights (Chu & MacGregor, 2011). Overall, the relationship between insight problem solving and game performance across three rounds was not found, although a significant finding emerged regarding the creative performance in one of the rounds in the game. We conjecture that the low number of insight problems used in our studies might have limited our observation of the participants’ insight problem solving skill. The relationship between game performance and personality Exploratory analyses showed that, although openness to experience often relates to creativity (Feist, 1999), it does not correlate with the creative performance in the game. This means that how creative and open-minded a person is does not relates to how creatively they will play the game and implies that individuals with either high or low creative divergent thinking can be encouraged to practice forming creative associations in the game. Feedback for the game, limitations and suggestions for future research By collecting game feedback, it was found that most participants still depended on semantic relatedness to form associations. This suggests that more explicit, stricter game rules can be made to encourage breaking this pattern. Moreover, analyses of game behavior help us to understand how participants perform in the game. In contrast to the presumption of Osborn (1957) that more ideas generated will increase the average creativity of those ideas, our results showed that this is not the case within the game. Specifically, the more concept cards used to form associations, the less creative those associations are. This can be explained that, with a set of both related and unrelated concepts presented in the game (concepts from the same category versus concepts from different categories), a tendency to associate related concepts by using semantic relatedness will result in more cards played but less creative explanations for their associations. Our finding of a negative relationship between game fluency and game creativity supports other studies (Baruah & Paulus, 2008; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2007), suggesting that fluency and creativity Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục 269 may not necessarily be complementary to each other. This implies that clear and explicit instructions should be made to encourage players focusing on the quality (creativity) instead of the quantity (fluency) of associations in the game. There are some points that should be addressed in future research, such as extending our concept card database and consider adding more game elements to retain enjoyment and benefits to players with scientific evidence. A development of an automatic scoring system will also be beneficial for the analysis of game performance. Taken together, our research offers some first evidence of creativity correlates of a potential creativity training game, which focuses on developing conceptual combination practice, an important cognitive skill for creative thought. REFERENCES 1. Azriel, J A., Erthal, M. J., & Starr, E. (2005). Answers, questions, and deceptions: what is the role of games in business education? Journal of Education for Business, 81 (1), 9-14. 2. Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39, 523–541. 3. Batchelder, W.H. & Alexander, G.E. (2012). Insight problem solving: a critical examination of the possibility of formal theory. Journal of Problem Solving, 5 (1), 56-100. 4. Chan, J., & Schunn, C.D. (2015). The importance of iteration in creative conceptual combination. Cognition, 145, 104–115. 5. Chu, Y., & MacGregor, J. (2011). Human performance on insight problem solving: a review. The Journal of Problem Solving, 3 (2), 119-150. 6. Duncker, K. (1945; original in German 1935). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (270), i113. 7. Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 8. Feldhusen, J. F., Trepfinger, D. J., & Bahlke, S. (1970). Developing creative thinking: the Purdue Creativity Program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 4, 85-90. 9. Finke, R.A. (1996). Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 381–393. Kỷ yếu Hội tHảo quốc tế CáC vấn đề mới trong khoa họC giáo dụC: tiếp Cận liên ngành và xuyên ngành270 10. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7 (3), 155-170. 11. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. 12. Guilford, J.P., Christensen, P.R., Merrifield, P.R., & Wilson, R.C. (1960). Alternative Uses Manual. Sheridan Supply Co. 13. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller. B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2014). Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 133–134. 14. Howard-Jones, P. A., Blakemore, S.-J., Samuel, E. A., Summers, I. R., & Claxton, G. (2005). Semantic divergence and creative story generation: an fMRI investigation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 240–250. 15. Im, H., Hokanson, B., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2015). Teaching creative thinking skills: a longitudinal study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33 (2), 129-142. 16. Kang, B., & Tan, S. H. (2014). Interactive games: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, achievement, and satisfaction. Journal of Management and Strategy, 5 (4), 110-116. 17. Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: the solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12(2), 181-194. 18. McFadzean, E. (1998). Enhancing creative thinking within organisations. Management Decision, 36 (5), 309-315. 19. Meador, K. S. (1994). The effects of synectics training on gifted and non-gifted kindergarten students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 55-73. 20. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. 21. Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., & Mumford, M. D. (1992). Process analytic models of creative capacities: evidence for the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 125–155. 22. Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15 (2-3), 107–120. 23. Mumford, M.D., Baughman, W.A., Maher, M.A., Costanza, D.P. & Supinski, E.P. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problemsolving skills: IV. Category combination, Creativity Research Journal, 10 (1), 59-71. Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục 271 24. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking (Rev. Ed.). New York: Scribner. 25. Peirce, J.W. (2007) PsychoPy - Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscientific Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13. 26. Phye, G. A. (1997). Inductive reasoning and problem solving: The early grades. In J. G. Ryne (Ed.), Handbook of academic Learning (pp. 451-471). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 27. Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: the effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933-946. 28. Right Management (2014). The Flux Report: building a resilient workforce in the face of flux. Retrieved from: https://www.rightmanagement.co.uk/wps/wcm/ connect/350a18c6-6b19-470d-adba-88c9e0394d0b/Right+Management+Flux- +Report+Spread.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 29. Ritter, S.M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1 (3), 243-253. 30. Sassenberg, K., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 506-514. 31. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 361–388. 32. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: approaches and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38 (3), 149–179. 33. Simmons, W.K., & Barsalou, L.W. (2003). The similarity-in-topography principle: reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3-6), 451-486. 34. Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance tests of creativity thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press. 35. Van Eijck, K., & de Graaf, P. M. (2004). The big five at school: The impact of personality on educational attainments. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 24-42. 36. Wan, W. W. N., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2002). Effects of novel conceptual combination on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 227-240. Kỷ yếu Hội tHảo quốc tế CáC vấn đề mới trong khoa họC giáo dụC: tiếp Cận liên ngành và xuyên ngành272 37. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189-212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NÂNG CAO SỰ SÁNG TẠO QUA GAME GIÁO DỤC TRÊN MÁY TÍNH: PHÁT TRIểN VÀ KẾT QUẢ BAN ĐẦU VỀ MốI TƯƠNG QUAN VớI CÁC THANG ĐO TƯ DUY SÁNG TẠO Tóm tắt: Sáng tạo, khả năng tạo ra những ý tưởng mới và hữu ích, là một trong những kỹ năng làm việc được mong muốn nhất trong thế kỷ 21. Bất chấp nhu cầu này, các ý tưởng sáng tạo vẫn khan hiếm vì chúng ta có xu hướng kích hoạt các thông tin và khái niệm liên quan đến nhau về mặt ngữ nghĩa, và do đó bị hạn chế trong việc tạo ra các ý tưởng mới và độc đáo. Do đó, chúng tôi thực hiện một nghiên cứu, và nghiên cứu này nằm trong chuỗi dự án nghiên cứu phát triển và thử nghiệm một phần mềm huấn luyện bằng game máy tính giúp thực hành việc liên kết khái niệm xa. Trong nghiên cứu này, trò chơi được lập trình bằng phần mềm PsychoPy2, và sau đó mối tương quan giữa kết quả trò chơi với một số thang đo tư duy sáng tạo được kiểm định, bao gồm tư duy phân kỳ, tư duy hội tụ và giải quyết vấn đề sáng tạo. Kết quả cho thấy tư duy phân kỳ là trọng tâm cần thiết để thực hiện trò chơi. Chúng tôi thảo luận tiềm năng và những sự cải tiến có thể được phát huy cho cách tiếp cận huấn luyện tư duy sáng tạo bằng game máy tính này ở cuối bài. Từ khóa: Tư duy sáng tạo, Huấn luyện bằng game, Tư duy phân kỳ, Tư duy hội tụ, Giải quyết vấn đề sáng tạo.