Co-Creativity Assessment Methodology

Deliverable 2.3.2 is the final instalment of a document detailing the C2Learn Co-creativity Assessment Methodology, its rationale, method, tools and accompanying operationalisation. The assessment methodology will be utilised to test the use of C2Learn’s computational tools, embedded within the pedagogical interventions and creative learning practices made available through the C2Space and its subcomponents or C2Experiences, in real-life educational settings. The core aim of C2Learn’s Co-creativity Assessment Methodology is to evaluate C2Learn’s impact on students’ (co-)creativity.

Handbook of Research on Creativity, 2013

BJSTR, 2021

2015

2004

2004

2018

Creative learning and learning creativity: scrutinising the nature of creativity and developing strategies to foster creativity in education', in O'Siochru, C., ed. Psychology and the study of education: critical perspectives on developing theories. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 31-47.

This article presents a model of 42 models of creativity from the research literature. Weaknesses in the last five years of research journal publishings on creativity are then specified and understood with reference to this model of models. A new model of creativity--a garbage can type model--called the "Four Cycle Model"--that corrects certain, but not all, weaknesses in that research literature including well-known models by Amabile, Simonton, Sternberg, Martindale, Gruber, Runco, and others is presented. Thirteen types of variables are included in this new model: long-term background variable types (culture, socio-economics, self type), creation variable types (mental fluency and association breadth, subcreations, creativity processes, creation dynamics, question finding dynamics, creative output), audience variable types (audience hot topics), short term background variable types (career, environment, workstyle). Of these thirteen, subcreations plays the linchpin role, in various ways. Four feedbacks are explicitly modeled: one, creative outputs change long term background variables of the creator which in turn change creative outputs; two, creative outputs change short term variables of the society which in turn change creative outputs; three, creative intermediate outputs change questions pursued by the creator which determine creation process steps done which specify creation functions applied which change creative outputs; and four, mental flexibility and breadth of association achieved change subcreations invented, which, in turn, change mental flexibility and association breadth possible. The Four Cycles Model, that this paper presents, includes seven other models of creativity within it, explained in this article: the subcreations model, insight model, creation dynamics model, question finding dynamics model, darwinian systems model, culture mix model, and population automaton model. 303 variables affecting creativity are encompassed in these models. The Four Cycle Model also includes models of other long-term and short-term background aspects that influence creativity (culture, self image, workstyle, career dynamics, work environment, and social processes). A 44 page creativity questionnaire produced from this model is attached as an appendix. A stratified sample of 63 creator types in Japanese society is presented as the target population the questionnaire is being administered to now and over the next few years. Hypotheses and research questions derived from the 4 cycle model are summarized at the end of the article.

2008

This paper considers some of the implications in expanding the teaching of creativity to art and design students from one class, taught by one person, to numerous classes taught by a team. In the process, a range of issues have to be addressed. These involve defining what sort of creativity is being taught, how content may be adapted to a more formal presentation, how the subject might be taught and by whom. In particular, the problem of assessment is examined and especially attempts to make it more objective. Using Best's [1982] contention that the process is identified by the product, emphasis is placed on assessing evidence of creativity in terms of product outcome. However, given the importance of the creative concept, the assessment process has to be capable of detecting the level of intellectual content. It is suggested that the Novelty-Creativity Taxonomy of Kaufmann [2004] and the Hierarchy of Creativity proposed by Cowdroy and Williams [2006] offer a means to resolve th...