1. INTRODUCTION
Creativity is one of the fundamental
characteristics of humankind which was highly important in evolution of
civilizations and humanity. In fact, it is the basis for inventions and
scientific/aesthetic achievements. Prior research reveals that creativity is
not a gift for special individuals, but it is an aspect of everyone’s soul. On
the other hand, gaming is an integral part of any kids’ life, which begins with
its birth.
Gaming is a natural gift granted to
any humankind to become able to grow. In recent years, industrialization waves
made everyone forget such an important activity, but due to its entity, it is
still appearing in some ways. The world is changing and so many problems prone
to appear. Innovative and creative individuals are the key players to deal with
such problems.
They use their imagination and
creativity to answer new questions. This creativity could be improved when
people are younger. Thus, students could be the focal point for such changes.
On the other hand, as mentioned, gaming significantly affects their creativity
(AMORY et al., 1999; BEGHETTO, 2007).
Creativity is variously defined by
different authors as the balanced unfolding and converging of experience and
entrepreneurship as the management of radical change (NYSTRÖM, 1993; MARKOVIC
and SALAMZADEH, 2012). In a more recent definition, creativity is defined as an
idea or action that is original and useful, as well as cognitive processes and
overt behaviors that result in new ideas, products or performances and that are
judged by some audience to be new, original, useful and/or aesthetically
pleasing (SANNINO; ELLIS, 2015).
At the same time, it is frequently
conceived of too narrowly, as exclusively concerned with aesthetics-“creativity
is about art, isn't it?” creativity is also regarded frequently as simply a
matter of thinking and especially free and unconstrained thinking (CROPLEY,
2016). Generating novel and useful ideas for specific or loosely defined
problems is another notion to consider creativity (ULRICH, 2015).
In sum, as a phenomenon in the cycle
of life, it begins and ends with existence of human and living beings. Life is
a self-renewal process through action upon the environment. This is the essence
of what is called creativity (TAN, 2015). The process of discovering new ideas
that are both original and useful in their context is also called creativity (ANDERSEN;
KRAGH, 2015). On the other hand, prior research shows that gaming could improve
this ability and gift in children (CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 1999).
Decades ago, Vandenberg (1980) and
other authors highlighted the role of games in promoting creativity of children,
and this issue is still controversial. For instance, Gunawardhana and
Palaniappan (2015) paid attention to psychology of digital games and their
impact on creativity of youngsters. This new wave of research is emerged
simultaneously with new waves of games, especially computer games.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Creativity is variously defined by
different scholars of this domain. Treffinger et al. (2002) compared 120
definitions of creativity in papers exploring the ‘traits’, ‘characteristics’,
and other personal ‘attributes’ distinguishing highly creative individuals from
their peers. From these definitions they compiled a list of creative
dispositions (cognitive, personality, and biographical), cited in at least
three sources, clustering them into four categories: (i) Generating ideas; (ii)
Digging deeper into ideas; (iii) Openness and courage to explore ideas; and
(iv) Listening to one’s ‘inner voice’. Robbins (1997) defines creativity as
combining ideas in a unique way, or creating integrity among such ideas.
Parnes and Harding (1962) defined it
as what leads to a new approach, which could be interesting in some ways. To
Mednick (1962), creativity was reorganizing a set of elements in a new way that
meets certain needs or could be useful. On the other hand, games and play are
an essential part of child development (YOUNG et al., 2012).
Moreover, prior research has shown
that the primary benefit of gaming is the increased motivation that comes with
an active learning (ROSATO, 1995). Gaming could be influential in some ways,
such as (i) improving social status, (ii) increasing creativity, (iii)
personality improvement, (iv) making people more active, and even proactive,
(v) emotional improvement, etc. The interesting issue is that these two
concepts are highly entangled in nature. It means that gaming and creativity
both are about exploring new things, new trends, ideas, etc.
As mentioned earlier, creativity is
an integral part of any humankind’s life. Creativity is widely invoked in
certain educational and other public discourses, and has been quite extensively
theorized and investigated in some circles, but still receives little attention
in primary school students who improve this gift by games (ALLISON, 2004).
Computer games and simulators
enhance learning through visualization, experimentation, and creativity of play
(BETZ, 1995). In some cases, it is argued that students use games to explore,
discover, and question, ultimately constructing concepts and relationships in
authentic contexts (YANG, 2012).
Ott and Pozzi (2012) called digital
games as “creativity enablers for children”. As a matter of fact, their
analysis of the available data showed that during the 3-year study, students'
creative skills and attitudes appreciably increased, in particular those
related to figuring out and enacting original solution strategies for the
digital games at hand. In contrary, some studies provide initial evidence that
video game play may not, in fact, influence children's general creativity
levels (e.g. see HAMLEN, 2009).
Prior research showed that computer
simulations enhance learning through visualization and creativity, as players
are able to visualize their creative actions (AMORY et al., 1999). Moreover, in
some cases, students treated the online learning method as taking a computer
game class (JANG, 2009).
Tüzün et al. (2009) investigated the
effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and
motivation in geography learning. This study showed that computer games can be
utilized in formal learning environments to support students in learning about
geography. Students achieved statistically significant learning gains when
learning about world continents and countries through the Global Village game.
In addition, some studies have explored relationships between time spent
playing video games in a typical week and general creativity, as measured by a
common assessment (HAMLEN, 2009).
Dacey (1989) studied the peak
periods of creative growth across the lifespan. In his research, he developed a
test for assessing the creativity of primary school students. The test did not
show any significant different between male and female students; however, the
test measured their creative abilities.
Holt (1988) investigated the
creativity of 58 students and studied that how their creativity could increase
through different practices. These studies continued to appear in the
literature, until more recent studies paid attention to new aspects of such
issues in question.
Kaufmann (2003) mentions that it is argued
that the concept of creativity is too loosely defined, and too much driven from
a bottom-up operationalist view. It is also argued that current popular
definitions of creativity, by focusing on novelty and appropriateness, do not
distinguish the concept of creativity in a satisfactory way from standard
definitions of the concept of intelligence, which also focus on novelty and
appropriateness as key defining features. Then, he provided a framework to make
the conceptualization more understandable.
Also, Proctor and Burnett (2004)
measured cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity in
elementary students. They developed a measurement tool which was highly used in
upcoming research papers. In more recent research papers, some scholars tried a
more specific approach and concentrated on gamin and its effect on creativity.
For instance, Tekin et al. (2012)
investigated the effect of educational game activities on the levels of
creativity of the students attending to elementary schools in Turkey. They
found gaming as a critical issue to be taken into account in order to improve
creativity of the students. Kafai and Burke (2015) also reached the same
conclusion in their research.
3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The researchers used a combination
of two recognized models, i.e. Torrance and Goff’s (1990) test and Corbin’s
(1974) conceptualization, to form the conceptual framework. Corbin (2001)
mentions the importance of lifelong skill and health-related factors in
measuring physical actions [games]. Paul Torrance, “Father of Creativity” 3 was
instrumental in developing tests for creative ability in individuals, as well
as providing decades of research and education.
In 1962, he wrote about the value of
addressing creativity in schools, and of the need for teachers and parents to
be guides and supporters of creative individuals. Building on Guilford's work,
Torrance (1974) developed the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The same
test is used here in this research. He defined creativity as the capacity to
detect gaps, propose various solutions to solve problems, produce novel ideas,
re-combine them, and intuit a novel relationship between ideas. There are three
main elements to be described in this framework.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
Source:
based on Torrance and Goff’s (1990) test and Corbin’s (1974) conceptualization)
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research design in this study
was purely quantitative. This research design enabled us to investigate the
research questions squeezed from standard approaches of Torrance and Goff’s
(1990) test and Corbin’s (1974) conceptualization. Then a pretest was done, and
then a test was conducted after computer gaming.
A control group was also used to
control the intervening variables. Moreover, in this study, students of 3 main
districts of Tehran municipality were studied. Based on the available data of
the ministry, there were 51740 students studying in these three districts.
Thus, 381 students were randomly selected as the research sample.
A cluster sampling approach was used
to gather the data. Then, the students were grouped in two groups. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check the normality of the data, and T test
for Pairwise comparisons were used to test the hypotheses.
5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The main research question in this
research is that whether computer games affect creativity of students at
primary level in schools or not? Moreover, there are three research questions
to answer this question, which are: (i) To what extent does computer games affect
the originality of students’ thinking?, (ii) To what extent these games affect
their flexibility, and (iii) To what extent these computer games affect their
fluency?
6. FINDINGS
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results
are presented in the following table.
Table 1: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results
|
|
Computer games
|
Flexibility
|
Fluency
|
Originality
|
Creativity
|
|
N
|
381
|
381
|
341
|
381
|
381
|
|
Mean
|
3.6831
|
3.9155
|
3.7077
|
3.9225
|
2,3287
|
|
S. D.
|
1.13018
|
1.02611
|
.84641
|
.86203
|
1,32
|
|
Constant
|
.311
|
.343
|
.385
|
.328
|
.315
|
|
Positive
|
.161
|
.171
|
.259
|
.232
|
.286
|
|
Negative
|
-.311
|
-.343
|
-.385
|
-.328
|
-.189
|
|
Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic
|
.311
|
.343
|
.385
|
.328
|
.280
|
|
sig
|
.057
|
.064
|
.088
|
.073
|
.061
|
H1:
Computer games positively affect the originality of thinking in students.
To test the mentioned hypothesis, T test was used.
Following table shows the result of the test. The results show that all the
hypotheses are accepted. Then, it could be argued that computer games affect
originality of thinking in students. This effect is higher in intellectual games
rather that puzzle or enigma.
Table 2: Test results (n=341)
|
Computer games
|
Pre test t
|
Post test t
|
d.f.
|
Sig.
|
Result
|
|
Puzzle
|
0.988
|
24.927
|
340
|
0.000
|
accepted
|
|
Enigma
|
0.922
|
19.244
|
340
|
0.000
|
accepted
|
|
Intellectual
|
1.12
|
32.407
|
340
|
0.000
|
accepted
|
H2:
Computer games
positively affect the flexibility of students.
The following table shows the test results for this
hypothesis. All the hypotheses are accepted based on the test results. However,
Puzzle games are more effective ones.
Table 3: Test results (n=341)
|
Computer games
|
Pre test t
|
Post test t
|
d.f.
|
Sig.
|
Result
|
|
Puzzle
|
1.21
|
29.927
|
340
|
0.000
|
accepted
|
|
Enigma
|
1.02
|
27.244
|
340
|
0.000
|
accepted
|
|
Intellectual
|
1.19
|
29.407
|
340
|
0.000
|
accepted
|
H3:
Computer games
positively affect the fluency of students.
The following table shows the test results for this
hypothesis. All the hypotheses are accepted based on the test results. However,
intellectual games are more effective ones.
7. CONCLUSION
According to our findings, computer games affect the
creativity of students at primary school level. Based on the results, computer
games positively affect the originality of thinking in students. This effect is
higher in intellectual games rather that puzzle or enigma. These findings are
in line with the findings of Jones et al. (1978), Clemente (1990), Clemente et
al. (2015), and in contrast with those of Lee et al. (2004). Moroever, computer
games positively affect the flexibility of students. However, Puzzle games are
more effective than other types. This argument is in line with Jones et al.
(1978), Clemente (1990), and in contrast to findings of Vandenberg (1980).
Also, computer games positively affect the fluency of students. However,
intellectual games are more effective ones.
In sum, authors suggest that intellectual games which are
less dependent on facilities and resources are better targets for improving
creativity among students. Thus, enough time must be spent to achieve this
goal. Although intellectual games are less prone to improve creativity of
adults, these games could be more appropriate for primary level students.
Since such games could increase the creativity of
students at primary schools, teachers must be trained to use such games.
Finally, many entities might join this trend and improve the status quo. This
research might be conducted at different levels and in different provinces in
order to see the results. Some intervening variables might be added to the
model to increase our understanding of the matter in question.
REFERENCES
ALLISON, D. (2004). Creativity, students’ academic writing,
and EAP: exploring comments on writing in an English language degree
programme. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, v. 3, n. 3, p. 191-209.
AMORY, A.; NAICKER, K.; VINCENT, J.; ADAMS, C. (1999). The
use of computer games as an educational tool: identification of appropriate
game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, v.
30, n. 4, p. 311-321.
ANDERSEN, P. H.; KRAGH, H. (2015). Exploring
boundary-spanning practices among creativity managers. Management
Decision, v. 53, n. 4,
p. 786-808.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2007). Ideational code‐switching: Walking the talk
about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, v.
29, n. 4, p. 265-270.
BETZ, J. A. (1995). Computer games: Increase learning in an
interactive multidisciplinary environment. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, v. 24,
n. 2, p. 195-205.
CLEMENTE, F. M.; COUCEIRO, M. S.; MARTINS, F. M. L.;
MENDES, R. S. (2015). Using network metrics in soccer: A macro-analysis. Journal
of human kinetics, v. 45,
n. 1, p. 123-134.
CLEMENTE, K. (1990). Playing with performance: the element
of the game in experimental dance and theater. The Journal of Popular Culture, v.
24, n. 3, p. 1-10.
CORBIN, E. I. (1974). The autonomous ego functions in
creativity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
CROPLEY, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering (p.
155-173). Springer Singapore.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1999). 16 Implications of a Systems
Perspective for the Study of Creativity. In Handbook of creativity (p.
313-335). Cambridge University Press.
DACEY, J. S. (1989). Peak periods of creative growth across
the lifespan. The Journal of Creative Behavior, v.
23, n. 4, p. 224-247.
GUNAWARDHANA, L. P. D.; PALANIAPPAN, S. (2015). Psychology
of Digital Games and Its Effects to Its Users. Creative Education, v.
6, n. 16, p. 17-26.
HAMLEN, K. R. (2009). Relationships between computer and
video game play and creativity among upper elementary school students. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, v. 40, n. 1, p. 1-21.
HOLT, K. (1988). Product innovation management: a workbook for management in industry.
Butterworths.
JANG, S. J. (2009). Exploration of secondary students’
creativity by integrating web-based technology into an innovative science
curriculum. Computers & Education, v. 52, n. 1, p. 247-255.
JONES, W. H.; CHERNOVETZ, M. E.; HANSSON, R. O. (1978). The
enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for males and females?. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v. 46, n. 2, p. 298.
KAFAI, Y. B.; BURKE, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming:
Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational
Psychologist, v. 50,
n. 4, p. 313-334.
KAUFMANN, G. (2003). What to measure? A new look at the
concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, v.
47, n. 3, p. 235-251.
LEE, J.; LUCHINI, K.; MICHAEL, B.; NORRIS, C.; SOLOWAY, E.
(2004, April). More than just fun and games: Assessing the value of educational
video games in the classroom. In CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors
in computing systems (p. 1375-1378). ACM.
MEDNICK, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative
process. Psychological review, v. 69, n. 3, p. 220.
NYSTRÖM, H. (1993). Creativity and entrepreneurship. Creativity
and Innovation Management, v. 2, n. 4, p. 237-242.
OTT, M.; POZZI, F. (2012). Digital games as creativity
enablers for children. Behaviour & Information Technology, v.
31, n. 10, p. 1011-1019.
PARNES, S. J.; HARDING, H. F. (Eds.). (1962). A
source book for creative thinking. Scribner.
PROCTOR, R. M.; BURNETT, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive
and dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students. Creativity
Research Journal, v. 16,
n. 4, p. 421-429.
MARKOVIC, R. M.,
& SALAMZADEH, A. (2012). The Nature of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs
and Entrepreneurial Activities. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing: Germany.
ROBBINS, S. P. (1977). Reconciling management theory with
management practice. Business Horizons, v. 20, n. 1, p. 38-47.
ROSATO, J. L. (1995). All I ever needed to know about
teaching law school I learned teaching kindergarten: Introducing gaming
techniques into the law school classroom. Journal of Legal Education, v.
45, n. 4, p. 568-581.
SANNINO, A.; ELLIS, V. (2015). Learning and Collective
Creativity. Routledge.
TAN, A. G. (2015). Connecting Theory, Research, and
Practice in the Psychology of Creativity: An Introduction to a Special
Issue. The Journal of Creative Behavior.
TEKIN, M.; YILDIZ, M.; YILDIRIM, Y.; MUTLU, O.; SAHAN, H.
(2012). Examination of the effect of educational game activities on the levels
of creativity of the students attending to elementary schools in Turkey.Energy
Education Science And Technology Part B-Social And Educational Studies, v.
4, n. 3, p. 1337-1344.
TORRANCE, E. P.; GOFF, K. (1990). Fostering academic creativity in gifted students (ERIC EC Digest
No. E484). Arlington, VA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED321489). Retrieved March, 1, 2016.
TREFFINGER, D. J.; YOUNG, G. C.; SELBY, E. C.; SHEPARDSON,
C. (2002). Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators. National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
TÜZÜN, H.; YILMAZ-SOYLU, M.; KARAKUŞ, T.; İNAL, Y.;
KIZILKAYA, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’
achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education, v.
52, n. 1, p. 68-77.
ULRICH, F. (2015). A Group Creativity Support System for
Dynamic Idea Evaluation. In Nordic Contributions in IS Research (p.
137-151). Springer International Publishing.
VANDENBERG, B. (1980). Play, problem‐solving, and creativity. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, y. 1980, n. 9, p. 49-68.
YANG, Y. T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring
intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem solving
and learning motivation. Computers & Education, v.
59, n. 2, p. 365-377.
YOUNG, M. F.; SLOTA, S.; CUTTER, A. B.; JALETTE, G.; MULLIN,
G.; LAI, B.; YUKHYMENKO, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle a review
of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of educational research, v.
82, n. 1, p. 61-89.