Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Game-based creativity assessment system: the application of fuzzy theory

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“Creative development” and “creativity” have become important topics in the field of education research. The assessment of creativity is a key to understanding how instructional strategies influences the creative process and the output of learners. At present, most methods of assessing creativity are paper-and-pencil tests scored by individuals. Despite the professional training of evaluators, subjectivity in scoring assessments remains inevitable. Therefore, a completely objective tool of measurement is crucial for the progress of education to eliminate the subjectivity in manual grading. This paper presents at first place a review of the literature related to the development of creativity, the assessment of creativity, and further on the means of measuring creativity, particularly in a digital game environment. Our focus is on the application of computing technologies for the assessment of creativity, while exploring the possibility of using computerized systems such as fuzzy logic and hybrid methods to produce objective measurement results. The results of Pearson correlation coefficient between the fuzzy inference scores and the Williams CAP scores is 0.805, which shows the strong construct validity. Additionally, the fuzzy inference system can eliminate subjectivity in scoring and provide analysis results to enhance creativity, unlike paper-and-pencil scores provided without explanations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alessi SM, Trollip SR (1991) Computer-based instruction: methods and development. Prentice

  2. Basadur M, Hausdorf PA (1996) Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creat Res J 9:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Besemer SP, O’Quin K (1987) Creativity product analysis: testing a model by developing a judging instrument. In: Isaksen SG (ed) Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics. Bearly, Buffalo, NY, pp 367–389

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brown DC (2008) Guiding computational design creativity research. Proceedings of NSF International Workshop on Studying Design Creativity’08, University of Provence, France

  5. Burstein J (2003) The e-rater scoring engine: automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In: Shermis MD, Burstein J (eds) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, pp 113–121

    Google Scholar 

  6. Children’s Welfare League Foundation (2009) The 2009 children’s online gaming behavior report in Taiwan. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://www.children.org.tw/news.php?offset=5&id=2204

  7. Chuang TY, Chen WF (2009) Effect of computer-based video games on children: an experimental study. J Educ Technol Soc 12(1):1–10

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Chou WZ (1998) Developing computerized assessment systems on the WWW. Proceedings of ICCAI’98, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, pp 543–550

  9. Colangelo N, Kerr B, Hallowell N, Gaeth J (1992) The Iowa inventiveness inventory: toward a major of mechanical inventiveness. Creat Res J 5:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. David MW, Isaac IB, Anne S (2004) Automated tools for subject matter expert evaluation of automated scoring. Appl Meas Educ 17(4):323–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dempsey JV, Haynes LL, Lucassen BA, Casey MS (2002) Forty simple computer games and what they could mean to educators. Simul Gaming 33(2):157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Domino G (1994) Assessment of creativity using the ACL: a comparison of fore scales. Creat Res J 7:21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ellis S, Lawrence B (2009) The influence of the creative learning assessment (CLA) on children’s learning and teachers’ teaching. Literacy 43(1):3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gallos JV (2009) Artful teaching: using the visual, creative and performing arts in contemporary management education. In: Armstrong S, Fukami C (eds) Handbook of management learning, education and development. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  15. Guildford JP (1967) The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ho RG (1997) From computerized assessments and computer-based testing to network assessment testing. Test Couns 144:2972–2974

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hocevar D, Bachelor P (1989) A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In Handbook of creativity. Springer US, pp 53–75

  18. Hong JC, Hwang MY, Hsu TF, Chen YJ (2012) The relations between students’ anxiety and interest in playing an online game. Turk Online J Educ Technol 11(2):255–263

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hung PH, Hwang GJ, Su IH, Lin IH (2012) A concept-map integrated dynamic assessment system for improving ecology observation competences in mobile learning activities. Turk Online J Educ Technol 11(1):10–19

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kazançoğlu Y, Aksoy M (2011) A fuzzy logic-based quality function deployment for selection of e-learning provider. Turk Online J Educ Technol 10(4):39–45

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ke F (2008) A case study of computer gaming for math: engaged learning from gameplay? Comput Educ 51(4):1609–1620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kirschenbaum RJ (1989) Understanding the creative activity of students. Creative Learning Press, Mansfield Center

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ko S (2002) An empirical analysis of children’s thinking and learning in a computer game context. Educ Psychol 22(2):219–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar VK, Kemmler D, Holman ER (1997) The creativity styles questionnaire-revised. Creat Res J 10:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lau S, Cheung PC (2010) Creativity assessment: comparability of the electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests. Think Skills Creat 5(3):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee CS, Wang MH, Hagras H (2010) A type-2 fuzzy ontology and its application to personal diabetic-diet recommendation. Fuzzy Syst, IEEE Trans on 18(2):374–395

    Google Scholar 

  27. Li LS (2000) Research on the development of an online assessment system of technologies in high school life. (Master thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan

  28. Lin XT, Wang MR (1994) Creativity assessment packet. Psychological Publishing, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lin YJ (2001) Adaptation of a network assessment system in a computer lab: An example of English Class in an elementary school. (Master thesis). National Taichung University of Education, Taichung

  30. Liu EZF, Lin CH, Jian PS, Liou PY (2012) The dynamics of motivation and learning strategy in a creativity-supporting learning environment in higher education. Turk Online J Educ Technol 11(1):172–180

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ludwig AM (1992) The creative achievement scale. Creat Res J 5(2):109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mao LW, Chen LA, Lin XT, Guo YY (2000) Creativity research. Psychology publisher Press, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reis SM, Renzuli JS (1991) The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gift Child Q 35:128–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rong GH (1997) From “computerized test and computer test” to see cyberization test. Test Guid J 144:2972–2974

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sawyer RK (2006) Education for innovation. Think Skills Creat 1(1):41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Segal M (1998) Your child at play: conversation, creativity, and learning letters, words, and numbers. Three to five years: Newmarket Pr

  37. Sternberg RJ (1986) Intelligence, wisdom, and creativity: three is better than one. Educ Psychol 21:175–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sternberg RJ (2012) The assessment of creativity: an investment-based approach. Creat Res J 24(1):3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1999) The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. Cambridge University Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sun GT, Chen XF, Wu TX (1998) Research on how feedbacks of online adaptive assessments affect examinees’ emotions of answering questions and motivation. Proceedings of ICCAI’98, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, pp 543–550

  41. Tayal DK, Saxena PC, Sharma A, Khanna G, Gupta S (2014) New method for solving reviewer assignment problem using type-2 fuzzy sets and fuzzy functions. Appl Intell 40(1):54–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Teresa AW, Robert JH (2006) Development of a new critical thinking test using item response theory. Psychol Assess 18(1):100–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Torrance EP (1974) Torrance tests of creative thinking: norms-technical manual. Scholastic Testing Service, Bensenville

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wagner C, Hagras H (2010) Toward general type-2 fuzzy logic systems based on zSlices. Fuzzy Syst, IEEE Trans on 18(4):637–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wainer H (2000) Computerized adaptive testing: a primer (2nd). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wang BY (1995) Current assessment theories. Psychological Publishing Co., Ltd., Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wu JJ (1999) Chinese version of divergent thinking test. Student Affairs Committee, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  48. Williams FE (1980) Creativity assessment packet (CAP): manual. D.O.K. Pub, Buffalo

    Google Scholar 

  49. Williams WM, Yang LT (1999) Organizational creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yang JC, Chien KH, Liu TC (2012) A digital game-based learning system for energy education: an energy conservation pet. Turk Online J Educ Technol 11(2):27–37

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yeh YC (2006) Creative teaching: past, now, and future. Psychological Publishing Co., Ltd, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8:338–353. Hall Professional Technical Reference

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper has been supported in part by the National Science Council of Taiwan under the research project number NSC 98-2511-S-024-004-MY3, NSC 99-2511-S-024-003-MY3, and NSC 102-2511-S-024-006.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of Tainan, 33, Sec. 2, Shu-Lin St, Tainan 700, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Tsung-Yen Chuang & Wen-Ya Shiu

  2. Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction, National Central University, No.300, Jhongda Rd, Jhongli City, Taoyuan County, 32001, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Eric Zhi-Feng Liu

Authors
  1. Tsung-Yen Chuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Zhi-Feng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wen-Ya Shiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsung-Yen Chuang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chuang, TY., Zhi-Feng Liu, E. & Shiu, WY. Game-based creativity assessment system: the application of fuzzy theory. Multimed Tools Appl 74, 9141–9155 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-2070-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-2070-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation