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

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (508.69 KB, 15 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

CrEativity CorrElatES

Vũ Bích Phượng1

Abstract: Creativity, the ability to generate new and useful ideas, is one of the 
most desirable employability skills in the twenty-first century. Despite this need,
creative ideas are scarce because we have a tendency to activate semantically
related information and concepts and thus are constrained from producing new,
unconventional ideas. Thus, we conducted this current study as part of a research
project to develop and test a gamification training program that helps the practice of
far conceptual combination. In this study, a computerized game was programmed
in PsyhoPy2, and then validated by correlating 49 participants’ game performances
with several creativity measures, including divergent thinking, convergent thinking
and insight problem solving. The results suggest that divergent thinking is central
and necessary for game performance. Potential for an effective gamification
approach and possible improvements for the game training was finally discussed.
Keywords: Creative thinking, game training, Divergent thinking, Convergent 
thinking, Insight problem solving.

Introduction

In the fast-changing and uncertain economic outlook, creative thinking has
been one of the top five employability skills of employees that organizations desire
(Right Management, 2014). Previous studies have developed several training
programs and suggested that creativity can be trained (for example, Feldhusen,
Treffinger, & Bahlke, 1970; Im, Hokanson, & Johnson, 2015; McFadzean, 1998; Ritter
& Mostert, 2017). Specifically, a meta-analysis on training effectiveness suggested
that training programs targeting cognitive components of creativity often yield the
best results (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a). The objective of this research was
to develop a training program that targets the underlying cognitive mechanism
of creative thinking. In the following paragraphs, the cognitive foundation of this

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục

259

creativity training will be elaborated on. Then, several elements and advantages of
this computerized game will be specified.

Creativity commonly refers to the generation and recognition of new and
useful ideas (Mumford, 2003). However, creative thoughts happen less often than
conventional thoughts due to a cognitive structure called schema, which maps
knowledge into domains and categories (Gentner, 1983). A conceptual structure
theory proposes that, because of this cognitive mapping of knowledge, concepts
(such as objects and events) and their compatible attributes are processed within
a single semantic space (Simmons & Barsalou, 2003). This semantic relatedness
explains, for example, why we often have the first thought about “apple” as an
exemplar of fruit, instead of thinking about technologies (Apple Inc.). Moreover,
the more compatible properties the concepts share, the more likely they will be
activated together. For example, “dog” is related to “cat” because they are both pets,
have fur and four legs. This tendency to process information in schemas explains
why we often reach a common, conventional solution when solving problems.
However, once problems present information in an unexpected manner, such as
in case of riddles, conventional thinking cannot provide alternative perspectives to
solve these problems. For example, in this riddle: “What goes up and down but does
not move?”, “go” and “move” both describe changes in location. Therefore, this
challenging, unexpected situation requires a newer, more creative approach to solve.
Instead of thinking about something that goes up and down in terms of positions, it
will make more sense if we think about something that increases and decreases (and
the answer is “temperature”).

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

skill, while a control group did not. In another study, stories created by using a set
of unrelated words were judged as more creative than by a set of related words,

suggesting that semantic divergence in combining concepts is necessary for creative
thought (Howard-Jones et al., 2005).

Given that cognitive training with a focus on unique requirements of creativity
is more likely to be effective (Scott et al., 2004b), the computerized game developed in
this research will incorporate the practice of conceptual combination to train creative
thinking. Given the four main accounts to be considered when designing a creativity
training program (Scott et al., 2004b) including targeted cognitive process and skill of
creativity, means of delivery, training technique and type of exercises. Firstly, in terms
of targeted cognitive process and skill, the training program in this research focuses
on developing conceptual combination and divergent thinking skill. This cognitive
approach has been shown to have large effect size and high successful rate (Scott et
al., 2004b). Secondly, the delivery of our training is computerized and gamified. It
has been found that game-based learning environment can be entertaining while
also engaging the leaners and enhancing their intrinsic motivation (Azriel, Erthal, &
Starr, 2005; Hamari et al., 2014; Kang & Tan, 2014).

Thirdly, our game training uses visualization as a creativity technique. It is
suggested that, because visual images can be scanned and mentally transformed,
this will benefit the creative thoughts by allowing rapid detection of incompatible
properties of objects or events (Finke, 1996). In the literature, the studies which
target distant associations to enhance creative thinking have also applied imagery
technique (Scott et al., 2004a). Moreover, using universal images can ensure that the
training is language independent. Therefore, the practice of conceptual combination
in the game is based on visual, colored representations of a wide range of concepts,
taken from different semantic categories. For example, there are “dog” and “fish”,
which are typically known as animals, and there are “durian” and “orange”, which
are typical fruits. This collection of both related (“dog” and “fish”) and unrelated
(“fish” and “durian”) concepts will encourage players to visualize and generate
associations among them. For the final element, type of exercise, we want to make the

game domain-unspecific by using colored images of familiar, common concepts that
can be encountered every day as training stimuli. This means that the skill gained
through the exercises can be applied in various settings without specific technical
knowledge, making this game training appropriate for the general population.

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục

261

and several criteria were developed to measure game performance. However, due to
copyrighted contents, the details of the game will not be discussed in this article. In
this study, we validated the game by correlating game performance measures with
several creativity tests scores. We hypothesized that there were positive correlations
between game performance and the creativity measures. Additional information
about the participants’ personalities and their opinions about the game were also
collected.

Method

Participants. A total of 49 undergraduate university students (40 females) from

the University of Social Sciences and Humanities Ho Chi Minh city (USSH), Vietnam,
were recruited. Their mean age was 20.71 (SD = 2.01). Most of them (94%) were 
majored in psychology. The experiment took approximately one hour to complete
and the participants were rewarded with ₫30,000.

Creativity measures. Prior to the main testing, a pilot study was conducted

to develop Vietnamese versions of the testing materials. Then these Vietnamese
materials were used in this main study. Stimuli were programmed in Vietnamese
language in PsychoPy 2 (Peirce, 2007). Please note that the details of the Vietnamese
tests are not revealed here because they have not been published.

Divergent thinking. Researchers have recognized that creativity is not a single

act but a complex phenomenon, involving, but not limited to, generating many ideas
and selecting the most creative, suitable idea (Mumford, 2003). Thus, one of the
creative processes to be measured in this study was divergent thinking, the ability to
generate multiple ideas or solutions. The Alternative Uses Test (AUT, Guilford, 1967)
is commonly used to evaluate divergent thinking skill. In this test, the participants
were required to list as many uses for a common object as possible in four minutes.
All participants were presented with two test versions, a brick and a newspaper.
The order of the versions were counterbalanced across the participants. Following
the AUT scoring guidelines (Guilford, Christensen, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1960),
performance in the AUT was judged based on how many ideas they could generate
(fluency), how flexible the participants were in changing perspectives (flexibility),
and how novel and useful the ideas were (creativity).

Convergent thinking. While divergent thinking is crucial for idea generation,

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

lapse - vivid - elephant). The participants were asked to find a fourth word that can

relate to all the cue words to form three meaningful words (the answer is memory: 
memory lapse, vivid memory, elephant memory). Because the original version of
RAT was in English, a Vietnamese version of RAT was constructed and piloted as
mentioned. The participants were presented with ten three-word combinations.
They had 20 seconds to solve each combination, and the order of the combinations
was randomized. Each correct answer earned one point, while an incorrect score
earned zero.

Insight problems solving. Besides idea generation and idea selection, creative

thought is also crucial when solving problems, especially insight problems that
represent information in an unexpected, challenging manner. Although minimal
technical knowledge is required, these insight problems can only be solved by
overcoming functional fixedness, in which typical thought and perceptions about the
problem block awareness of the solution (Batchelder & Alexander, 2012). We used
the Duncker’s candle problem (Duncker, 1945) and the Maier’s two-string problem
(Maier, 1931) to measure insight problem solving. The order of the problems was
randomized. The participants had three minutes to read and solve each problem.
Each correct answer received one point while an incorrect answer received a zero.

Game instruction video. Instructions on how to play “The Associates” game

was recorded by a video using the built-in screen recording function of Windows
10. In this video, the gaming screen was showed and accompanied with verbal
explanations about how to play the game and how to earn scores.

Demographic data and personalities. We collected demographic data such

as age, gender and major subject. Self-reported creativity was also measured on a
Likert scale from 0 (not very creative) to 4 (very creative). A short, standardized
version of the Big Five personality scale (Van Eijck, & de Graaf, 2004) was translated
into Vietnamese to collect subjective measures of extroversion, friendliness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness. This questionnaire includes
30 items, in which six items assess each personality trait on a Likert scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Feedback for the game.A questionnaire was used to assess whether the

instructions for the game were sufficient, and whether the participants enjoyed playing
the game. It also asks for suggestions and recommendations for improvements. This

questionnaire includes 10 multiple-choice and short-answer questions.

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục

263

Game rules. Given a set of concepts presented as graphic cards, the participants

were asked to form as many creative associations between the concepts as possible
by placing the cards next to each other. The participants could freely associate the
concepts using their properties and attributes, although associations based on the
color of the images were not encouraged and deemed invalid as real-life concepts
may have different colors (for example, a concept card of “apple” may represent a red
apple, but in real life apples can be green). They continued develop their connections
of ideas. Each round of game lasted for 10 minutes and they completed three rounds.
For each association they made, a verbal explanation was required. The computer
screen and the participants’ talks while playing the game were recorded for scoring
and analysis.

Scoring game performance. Five game performance measures were developed,

including fluency, flexibility, and creativity. The fluency score was the total number 
of the cards used to form associations. The flexibility score was the total number 
of associations with valid, comprehendible explanations. Each explanation for
an association earned one point. For example, participant A earns one point by
associating “fridge” with “eye glasses”, explaining that they are “things made of
metal”. In case participant A continues to associate “eye glasses” with “cctv” by the
same “metal” explanation again, this does not earn a point. A sum score of flexibility
was calculated for all participants. The higher the score was, the more flexible
the participants were in changing perspectives and approaches when forming
associations. Each explanation for the associations was then given a creativity score. 
This was judged based on the novelty and usefulness of the ideas, on a Likert scale

from 0 (not at all creative) to 4 (very creative). To account for the dependence on
quantity, a mean score of creativity for each participant was calculated by dividing
the sum creativity score by the number of associations. This means that the mean
score of creativity equaled the sum score of creativity divided by the sum score of
flexibility. Importantly, 30% of the sample was scored by three Vietnamese raters
to analyze the consistency and agreement in judging creativity. The inter-rater
reliability of the creativity scores was calculated with a two-way random intra-class
correlation coefficient analysis and considered substantial (ICC = 0.82).

Procedure. Recruited participants were welcomed to a quiet lab room at the

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

Results

Divergent thinking and game performance. Preliminary tests showed that

non-normal distributions existed for AUT fluency, game density and game intersection.
These three variables were logarithmically transformed and used throughout the
analyses.

Pearson’s bivariate correlations were performed to examine the relationship
between three AUT scores and five game performance measures. The results
showed that AUT fluency significantly correlated with game fluency (r = .315, p = 
.029) and game flexibility (r = .390, p = .007). This means that people who generated 
more ideas in the divergent thinking test also used more concept cards and formed
more associations in the game. No significant correlations were found between AUT
creativity, flexibility and other game performance measures (Table 1).

Table 1. Correlations Between Creativity Measures and Game Performance

1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD

1. AUT fluency (log) - .81 .12

2. AUT flexbility .681** - 4.33 .95

3. AUT creativity .233 .219 - 2.59 .32

4. RAT .020 -.016 .021 - 5.24 1.90

5. Game fluency .315* .247 -.150 .113 - 24.59 9.93

6. Game flexibility .390* .200 -.040 .115 .786** - 17.30 6.77
7. Game creativity .110 -.059 .205 -.178 -.390** -.220 1.00 .26

Note. *p< .05, ** p<

.01.

</div>
(8)<div class='page_container' data-page=8>

Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục

265

Table 2. Summary of Multiple Linear Regression Analyses with Divergent Thinking Measures 
as predictors of Game Performance

Predictors Game fluency

a Game flexibility b Game creativity c

b SE β p b SE β p b SE β p

AUT

creativity -7.56 4.46 -.24 .097 -2.84 3.06 -.13 .358 .17 .13 .20 .183
AUT

fluency

(log) 26.65 16.15 .32 .106

28.31 10.88 .50 .013* .54 .44 .25 .227

AUT

flexibility .87 1.96 .08 .659 -.77 1.32 -.11 .563 -.07 .05 -.27 .184
Note. *p< .05. **p<.0. N = 45; aR2= .16, bR2= .18, cR2= .09.

Convergent thinking and game performance. Pearson’s bivariate correlations

were computed between the total number of correct RAT answers and five game
performance measures. The results showed that RAT did not correlate with any
game performance measures (Table 1), suggesting that conceptual combination
practice in the game did not relate to convergent thinking skill.

Insight problem solving and game performance. A one-way multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to examine whether game
performance significantly differ in the three groups of participants who solved zero
(n = 19), one (n = 25) and two (n = 5) insight problems. Preliminary check showed that 
the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrixes was met, Box’s M 
= 32.40, F(15,4125.375) = 1.83, p =.026. The results showed no differences in all game 
performance measures between the three groups, F(10,76) = .642, p = .774, Wilks’

Lambda = .850, partial η2 = .078, suggesting that game performance did not differ

depending on insight problem solving.

Exploratory analyses for game behavior, sample characteristics and 
participants’ game feedback. Game behavior was analyzed by checking the

relationships between all game performance measures. Pearson’s bivariate
correlations showed that game fluency significantly and positively correlated with
game flexibility (Table 1). However, game fluency negatively correlated with game
creativity (r = -.39, p = .007), suggesting that the more cards used to form associations, 
the less creative the associations were.

</div>
(9)<div class='page_container' data-page=9>

they perceived themselves to be slightly above average in being creative and open to
new experience. There was a significant positive correlation between openness and
AUT creativity (r = .293, p = .041), suggesting that those who reported to be more 
open had higher creative performance in the divergent thinking test. No significant
correlations between personality, RAT and game performance were found, however
(Table 3). Group differences in self-reported creativity and openness with regards to
insight problem solving were insignificant, F(4, 90) = .528, p = .716, partial η2 = .023.

Table 3. Correlations Between Self-reported Creativity, Openness, Game Performance and 
Creativity Measures

1 2

1. Openness (squared)

-2. Self-reported creativity (squared) .756**

-3. Game fluency -.046 -.156

4. Game flexibility -.003 -.171

5. Game creativity -.060 -.115

6. AUT fluency (log) .177 -.041

7. AUT flexibility .116 -.063

8. AUT creativity .293* .115

9. RAT -.176 -.071

Note. *p< .05, ** p< .01.

Regarding feedback for the game, most participants (75.5%) agreed that the
instructions for the game were very clear. Only 14.3% indicated that the associations
they formed in the game were generated randomly, while the rest of the participants
reported that they depended on semantic and functional relatedness to form the
associations.

Discussion

</div>
(10)<div class='page_container' data-page=10>

Phần 2. cÔNG NGHỆ VÀ GIÁO Dục

267

contrast, inconsistent relationships were found between game performance and
convergent thinking, the ability to select a single best idea, and insight problem
solving, an interplay of divergent thinking and convergent thinking skills. While
performances in the RAT test of convergent thinking and insight problem solving

did not show significant correlations with overall measures of game performance,
additional analyses revealed that they had some associations with performance in
one of the game rounds in the first study.

Our research adds to the study of conceptual combination and creativity by
developing a computerized game that provides exercises for conceptual combination.
It has been suggested that new ideas can be generated for existing concepts using
conceptual combination, a mental synthesizing process in which previously
unrelated concepts are combined (Ward et al., 1999). As conceptual combination
provides new perspectives to a problem and leads to the production of novel ideas,
it is suggested that manipulations intended to encourage this practice can contribute
to creative performance (Meador, 1994; Mumford, Baughman, Maher, Costanza, &
Supinski, 1997; Phye, 1997). The exercise of conceptual combination in our game
share some similarities with the paradigm of category-exemplar generation in the
work of Mumford and colleagues (Mobley, Doares, & Mumford, 1992; Mumford
et al., 1997). In these studies, participants were presented with a list of typical
exemplars (e.g. chair) from several taxonomic categories (e.g. furniture). Labels
of the categories were not shown to avoid verbal priming. The participants were
requested to generate a category label that can account for all presented exemplars
before generating more exemplars for this new category. In our game, several
concepts from different categories were presented and the participants were asked
to combine them in a meaningful, creative ways, hinting that they should avoid
using the original categories of concepts to form the associations.

</div>
(11)<div class='page_container' data-page=11>

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

</div>
(12)<div class='page_container' data-page=12>

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

</div>
(13)<div class='page_container' data-page=13>

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.

</div>
(14)<div class='page_container' data-page=14>

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: />

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.

</div>
(15)<div class='page_container' data-page=15>

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 thơng 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, trị 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.

</div>