Creating task-specific creativity assessment tools

Hong Liang Lee; Aik-Ling Tan; Hong Liang Lee; Aik-Ling Tan

doi:10.3934/steme.2025010

STEM Education

2025, Volume 5, Issue 2: 187-206. doi: 10.3934/steme.2025010

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Topical Sections

Creating task-specific creativity assessment tools

Hong Liang Lee ,
Aik-Ling Tan ^,

Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; hongliang.1999.hl@gmail.com, aikling.tan@nie.edu.sg

Academic Editor: Feng-Kuang Chiang

Received: 03 October 2024 Revised: 15 January 2025 Accepted: 20 January 2025 Published: 19 February 2025

Development of creativity is one of the desired outcomes of integrated STEM learning and can serve as an indicator of high-quality education. Reliable evaluation of creativity can serve as an indicator of the success of integrated STEM learning. Current methods of creativity assessment such as the Torrance Test of Creativity (TTCT) have limitations as they are domain-generic and may not accurately reflect creativity valued by specific domains. Furthermore, creativity has been argued to be a dynamic phenomenon, which tests such as the TTCT fail to measure accurately. To consider disciplinary peculiarities, this study examined the value of considering disciplinary epistemic practices and task requirements in evaluating creativity. We adapted the Scientific Creativity Test (SCT) by incorporating elements that are more domain- and task-specific to vertical farming integrated STEM learning and trialed it with pre-service teachers. To measure changes in creativity over time, behavior of pre-service teachers when they are engaged with the integrated STEM activity was monitored through video recordings. Scoring of the adapted SCT revealed a decrease in creativity, but low sample size and "memory" effects meant that no meaningful conclusions were drawn. Behaviors during the integrated STEM learning associated with higher creativity were identified. Findings suggested that the two creativity assessment tools are not substitutable but are complementary—the SCT is suited as an easy-to-administer assessment for a larger number of students, while monitoring behavior of students during integrated STEM learning is suited for smaller groups and can shed light on more aspects of the student's creativity. Recommendations for future studies on the SCT and behavior-monitoring were made.
- STEM,
- education,
- creativity,
- assessment,
- task-specific
Citation: Hong Liang Lee, Aik-Ling Tan. Creating task-specific creativity assessment tools[J]. STEM Education, 2025, 5(2): 187-206. doi: 10.3934/steme.2025010

Related Papers:

Abstract

Development of creativity is one of the desired outcomes of integrated STEM learning and can serve as an indicator of high-quality education. Reliable evaluation of creativity can serve as an indicator of the success of integrated STEM learning. Current methods of creativity assessment such as the Torrance Test of Creativity (TTCT) have limitations as they are domain-generic and may not accurately reflect creativity valued by specific domains. Furthermore, creativity has been argued to be a dynamic phenomenon, which tests such as the TTCT fail to measure accurately. To consider disciplinary peculiarities, this study examined the value of considering disciplinary epistemic practices and task requirements in evaluating creativity. We adapted the Scientific Creativity Test (SCT) by incorporating elements that are more domain- and task-specific to vertical farming integrated STEM learning and trialed it with pre-service teachers. To measure changes in creativity over time, behavior of pre-service teachers when they are engaged with the integrated STEM activity was monitored through video recordings. Scoring of the adapted SCT revealed a decrease in creativity, but low sample size and "memory" effects meant that no meaningful conclusions were drawn. Behaviors during the integrated STEM learning associated with higher creativity were identified. Findings suggested that the two creativity assessment tools are not substitutable but are complementary—the SCT is suited as an easy-to-administer assessment for a larger number of students, while monitoring behavior of students during integrated STEM learning is suited for smaller groups and can shed light on more aspects of the student's creativity. Recommendations for future studies on the SCT and behavior-monitoring were made.

References

[1]	Bryan, L.A., Moore, T.J., Johnson, C.C. and Roehrig, G.H., Integrated STEM education. In STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education, C.C. Johnson, E.E. Peters-Burton, & T.J. Moore, Eds., 2015, 23–27. Taylor and Francis Inc.
[2]	English, L.D., Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2017, 15: 5–24. https://doi-org.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
[3]	Bybee, R.W., Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 2010, 70(1): 30–35.
[4]	Ugras, M., The effects of STEM activities on STEM attitudes, scientific creativity and motivation beliefs of the students and their views on STEM education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2018, 10(5): 165–182. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.05.012 doi: 10.15345/iojes.2018.05.012
[5]	Carruthers, L. and MacLean, R., The dynamic definition of creativity: Implications for creativity assessment, in Dynamic perspectives on creativity: New directions for theory, research and practice in education, R.A. Beghetto, & G.E. Corazza, Eds., 2019,207–223. Springer.
[6]	Kaufman, J.C. and Beghetto, R.A., Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 2009, 13(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688 doi: 10.1037/a0013688
[7]	Baer, J., The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 2015, 37(3): 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1047480 doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1047480
[8]	Kaufman, J.C., Plucker, J.A. and Baer, J., Essentials of Creativity Assessment, 2008. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[9]	Hu, W. and Adey, P., A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 2002, 24(4): 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912 doi: 10.1080/09500690110098912
[10]	Barbot, B., Lubart, T.I. and Besancon, M., "Peaks, slumps and bumps": Individual differences in the development of creativity in children and adolescents, in Perspectives on creativity development. New directions for child and adolescent development, Barbot B. Ed., 2016, 33–45. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[11]	Beghetto, R.A. and Karwowski, M., Unfreezing creativity: A dynamic micro-longitudinal approach. In Dynamic perspectives on creativity: New directions for theory, research and practice in education, R.A. Beghetto, & G.E. Corazza, Eds., 2019, 7–25. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
[12]	Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE), 21st century competencies, 2021, October 18. Ministry of Education, Singapore. Retrieved from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/21st-century-competencies
[13]	World Economic Forum, Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the fourth industrial revolution. 2020, World Economic Forum 2020. Available from: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Schools_of_the_Future_Report_2019.pdf
[14]	Kanlı, E., Assessment of creativity: Theories and methods, in Creativity - a force to innovation, P. Jain, Ed., 2020. IntechOpen. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93971
[15]	Sternberg, R.J., What's wrong with creativity testing? The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.237 doi: 10.1002/jocb.237
[16]	Corazza, G.E., Potential originality and effectiveness. Creativity Research Journal, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627 doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
[17]	Plucker, J., Beghetto, R.A. and Dow, G., Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 2004, 39: 83–96.
[18]	Amabile, T.M. and Pillemer, J., Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 2012, 46(1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.001 doi: 10.1002/jocb.001
[19]	Baer, J., Theory in creativity research: The pernicious impact of domain generality, in Creativity under duress in education?: Resistive theories, practices, and actions, C.A. Mullen, Eds., 2019,119–135. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
[20]	Mullen, C.A., Creative synthesis: Combining the 4C and systems models of creativity, in Creativity under duress in education?: Resistive theories, practices, and actions, C.A. Mullen, Eds., 2019, 3–25. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
[21]	Crismond, D.P. and Adams, R.S., The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 2012,101(4): 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
[22]	Tan, A.L., Ng, Y.S., Koh, J., Ong, Y.S. and Tan, D., Applying concepts of plant nutrition in the real world: Designing vertical farming systems. Science Activities, 2022, 60(1): 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2022.2138249 doi: 10.1080/00368121.2022.2138249
[23]	Treffinger, D.J., Young, G.C., Selby, E.C. and Shepardson, C., The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented: Assessing creativity: A guide for educators, 2002. University of Connecticut, University of Virginia, & Yale University, USA.

Author's biography Mr. Hong Liang Lee is a secondary-school science teacher in Singapore. He is a graduate from the Natural Sciences and Science Education faculty of NIE-NTU and is interested in designing science lessons that develop 21^st century competencies in students; A/P Aik-Ling Tan is an Associate Professor of Science Education with the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She specializes in science education and STEM curriculum design

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)