The Effects of Video Games on Creativity: A Systematic Review, Schemes and Mind Maps of Mechanics

Download The Effects of Video Games on Creativity: A Systematic Review and more Schemes and Mind Maps Mechanics in PDF only on Docsity! 1 The Effects of Video Games on Creativity: A Systematic Review Seyedahmad Rahimi & Valerie Shute Florida State University Abstract Creativity contributes to both personal and societal growth. Recently, new methods for assessing and fostering creativity using video games have been proposed and tested. In this chapter, we start by presenting the multifarious definitions and theories of creativity. We then examine the effects of video games on creativity via empirical studies, and discuss how video games can be useful for improving creativity. Our main findings show that not all video games can enhance creativity—some game genres have more potential to enhance creativity than others. Specifically, video games that have most potential for enhancing creativity are those that facilitate flow, allow the players to co-create the game, and enhance players’ intrinsic motivation. We conclude with some specific suggestions on ways to increase creativity in videos games. Keywords: Creativity, video games, creativity assessment, creativity instruction, stealth assessment, 21st century skills Creativity is an important part of humans’ lives, and has been viewed as a key factor in moving civilizations forward (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). For instance, according to the World Economic Forum (Gray, 2016), creativity is one of the ten most important skills people need to be successful in the fourth industrial revolution. The individual, social, and economic importance of creativity has led to increased interest of scientists and psychologists in studying the nature, assessment, and improvement of creativity (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). On an individual level, creativity plays a vital role in solving everyday problems related to one’s job or life in general (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). At the societal level, creativity can lead to new scientific breakthroughs, conflict resolutions, and life-changing inventions (Ashton, 2011). Moreover, in a world of numerous startups and entrepreneurship opportunities, companies 2 need creativity to survive. Therefore, creativity is fundamental to a thriving economy (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). From an educational perspective, creativity has been included in Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational learning objectives (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). Creativity is placed at the highest level of learning objectives in Bloom’s taxonomy—higher than remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and evaluating. Krathwohl (2002) defines the creating category of learning objectives as “putting elements together to form a novel, coherent whole or make an original product” (p. 215). This elevation of creativity was one of the reasons that led PISA (Programme of International Student Assessment) to begin developing an assessment of creative thinking for PISA 2021. Although the construct of creativity has been around for millennia, creativity research is not that old. Since the 1950s, starting with Guilford’s APA presidential address, psychologists and learning scientists have approached creativity from various perspectives. In recent years, new methods for assessing and fostering creativity have been proposed and tested—for example, using video games. In fact, research related to game-based assessment and improvement of creativity is burgeoning, but there are still many unanswered questions. In this chapter, we (1) briefly present various definitions and theories of creativity; (2) examine the effects of video games on creativity via empirical studies; (3) discuss how video games can be useful for improving creativity, and (4) suggest new approaches to increase creativity in videos games. What is Creativity? One simple definition of creativity refers to any product (e.g., idea, solution, art, story) that is novel and appropriate (Amabile, 1988; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). A novel product is 5 Amabile and Pratt (2016) later included moderators in the social theory of creativity. These moderators are not necessary for creativity but can enhance it (or undermine it when they don’t exist): (1) synergistic extrinsic motivation (e.g., reward and recognition that can increase intrinsic motivation); (2) a sense of progress in creative idea development (i.e., when a task needs creativity and when it’s achieved, progress is made); (3) work or task meaningfulness (i.e., the extent to which one perceives a task or problem as positive or significant); and (4) affect (i.e., positive or negative mood which can lead to more or less creativity, respectively). The componential theory of creativity can be used as a powerful explanation for why some video games (we discuss those games in the next sections of this chapter) have high potential for fostering creativity. For example, apart from relevant knowledge and skills needed, one needs high task intrinsic motivation to be creative. Video games are intrinsically motivating (Gee, 2005) that’s why people from different ages can spend hours on end playing video games. Moreover, in well-designed videos games, players often follow a story line by completing game levels, gaining certain statuses, and achieving different goals (Shute & Ke, 2012). All of these events make the players feel the sense of progress that Amabile and Pratt (2016) addressed. Additionally, this theory suggests that positive or negative mood can influence creativity. Video games are usually played for fun which leads to a boost in people’s affective state (e.g., Hutton & Sundar, 2010). One of the models we discuss in this paper related to video games is the 4-C model of creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). According to this model, creativity can be seen as comprised of four levels: (a) mini-c creativity, which includes creativity that is personally meaningful (e.g., creative interpretation of some event, action, and/or experience); (b) little-c, or everyday creativity (e.g., Richards, 1990); (c) Pro-c, which is effortful creativity, leading to a 6 professional level of expertise which is higher than the little-c creativity; and (d) Big-C creativity, representing the work of great individuals whose creations are still used decades or even centuries later (e.g., Simonton, 1991). Moreover, as Kaufman and Beghetto point out, although rare, we can expect to see a progression from mini-c to Big-C or at least to Pro-c during one’s lifespan. This promising spectrum of creativity motivates different groups of scientists to focus on one type of creativity (e.g., improving little-c creativity in schools) with the hope of helping people to produce higher types of creativity later in life (e.g., Pro-c creativity in academia or industry). We believe that video games can be useful and promising vehicles for both assessing and enhancing little-c creativity. The goal of this brief review of creativity theories and models was to show how complex and multifaceted creativity is and how some creativity theories and models may be related to video games. The complexity of creativity makes it hard to fully assess and support creativity. Our aim of this chapter is to describe a possible method for assessing and improving creativity, specifically little-c creativity using video games. The Effect of Video Games on Creativity In this section, we review empirical studies that have investigated the effects of video games on creativity. We conducted this systematic review with the following four questions in mind: 1. What approaches are being used to investigate video games’ effects on creativity? 2. Which game genres and particular games have been used to improve creativity? 3. What are the main effects of video games on creativity? 4. How do certain genres of games as well as specific games enhance creativity? Methodology and Results 7 To collect the studies for our review, we used keyword strings such as (“creativity” AND “video games” OR “digital games”) in the in the title, abstract, or subject headings of the documents, and searched several databases: Google Scholar, ERIC, and Web of Science, as well as specific journals focusing on creativity, such as: Creativity Research Journal, Journal of Creative Behavior, and Thinking Skills and Creativity. Occasionally, we looked for resources in the references section of collected papers. Finally, we searched for Master’s theses and Ph.D. dissertations using the same keywords in the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. After the first round of screening and selection, we selected high-quality studies (from 2006 to 2019) and ended up with 16 studies (Table 1) of which 10 are journal articles, 3 are conference papers, 1 is a book chapter, 1 is a Master’s thesis, and 1 is a Ph.D. dissertation. The studies were conducted in several countries in North America, Asia, and Europe with a broad range of ages starting from preschoolers to graduate students. Table 1 Empirical Studies Investigating the Effect of Video Games on Creativity. 1st Author (year) Country Age (EL) Game Genre Main Findings Jackson (2012) USA 12 (5th) 205 games MG Videogame playing, regardless of the game genre, predicted creativity. Hamlen (2009) USA 9 to 11 (4th - 5th) NR MG No significant relationship was found between time playing video games, regardless of the game genre, and creativity. Hamlen (2013) USA 9 to 11 (4th - 5th) NR MG A negative relationship with the level of creativity and time spent playing video games. Fessakis (2013) USA 4 to 6 (PS) Crayon Physics Puzzle A statistically significant increase in the average fluency measure, but not in originality. Hsiao (2006) Taiwan 9 and 10 (4th) RMG Puzzle Positive relationship between divergent thinking and divergent feeling with gameplay. 10 perceived that particular gaming experience (e.g., playing the video game or completing a task in the video game). These studies reported the percentage of agreement/disagreement among participants on various survey items, such as, “I believe playing ‘game X’ helped me improve my creativity.” The third category of research on video games and creativity includes experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Studies in this category investigated the effectiveness of one or more video games on participants’ creativity after gameplay. Pretest and posttest comparisons (typically using creativity tests such as the TTCT) provided evidence for video games’ effectiveness in promoting creativity. However, a couple of studies in this category used observational techniques (e.g., in person or via screen recording) to collect data on participants’ creativity while playing video games. Each of these three categories has its pros and cons. For example, correlational and perception studies rely heavily on self-report measures, rendering the validity of the findings questionable. However, these studies are cost- and time-effective, informative, easy to conduct, and thus can include large sample sizes. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies are generally more costly than survey-type studies, and may suffer from small sample sizes. But using performance-based measures of creativity, findings from such experimental studies could provide more valid findings compared to the correlational and perception studies. Using findings derived from all three categories will enable us to triangulate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of video games relative to creativity. Next, we discuss our findings regarding our second research question: Which game genres and particular games have been used to improve creativity? 11 Game Genres and Games with Creativity Potential In this section, we present various game genres as well as specific games used by researchers in various studies. The specific findings of these studies are discussed in detail in the following section. As mentioned above, correlational studies do not generally focus on any specific game genre. Instead, participants in those studies simply report the games they have played, and researchers categorize those games by genre. For example, Hamlen (2009) and Jackson et al. (2012) reported that the games their participants frequently play resided in fourteen and six game genres, respectively. The fourteen genres reported by Hamlen (2009) were subsequently categorized (by playing frequency) into four categories: (1) Action and Sports, (2) Simulation, (3) Racing, Platform, Music, Adventure, Digital Role-Play, Survival Horror, and Puzzle, and (4) Massively Multiplayer Online Game, Strategy, Traditional, and Educational. Similarly, Jackson et al. (2012) categorized 205 reported games into five genres (categorized from most to least popular): (1) Violent, (2) Action-adventure and Sports, (3) Interpersonal (games that involved caring for others; e.g., Sims or Animal Crossing), and (4) Racing/driving. According to Jackson et al. (2012), playing video games, regardless of the game genre, was significantly correlated with all of the six creativity measures (based on figural TTCT) used in the study except for the racing/driving genre which was only significantly correlated with two of the six measures of creativity. In contrast, perception, experimental, and quasi-experimental studies typically involved game genres with a higher potential for improving creativity. For participants assigned to an active control group (i.e., participants who also played a video game, but not the treatment game), they were assigned to play a game genre with a lower potential for creativity (e.g., a 12 racing or a shooting game). Genres with the potential to improve creativity include sandbox, puzzle, and simulation games. Sandbox games do not have a linear narrative that the player has to follow (Squire, 2007). Instead, the player can freely experiment in the game environment and build his or her own world. One example of a sandbox game is Minecraft (Figure 1), which is one of the most popular games of all time with 91 million people playing it every month (Peckham, 2016; Gilbert, 2018). Figure 1. Minecraft game environment (from Peckham, 2016) Minecraft has four game modes. In the survival mode, the player has a life bar and must “mine” resources from the 3D LEGO-like environment and fight enemies to survive. In the spectator mode, the player can explore the worlds created by others without the need to fight for survival or without being seen by others. In the adventure mode, players can play and interact with worlds created by others. Finally, in the create mode, the player can freely explore and create his own world. Players in Minecraft have re-built real-world locations and buildings as well as fantasy worlds from their creativity and imagination (see Levy, 2014 for 14 amazing creations in Minecraft). Seven out of sixteen studies in our review (Blanco-Herrera et al., 2019; 15 the real world. One of the studies we examined used SimCity in an urban geography course and investigated the game’s potential for enhancing students geographic creativity (Kim & Shin, 2016). Figure 4. Screenshot of a city in SimCity (Electronic Arts Inc., 2019) The rest of the games in our review are similarly categorized under these three genres (i.e., sandbox, puzzle, and simulation games). Also note that some other games used in control groups in our targeted studies (e.g., the racing game NASCAR, or the shooting game Serious Sam) were hypothesized to have no or little impact on students’ creativity. However, the results were sometimes surprising (we discuss those findings in the next section). We now discuss the specific findings of the studies we reviewed to answer our third research question: What are the main effects of video games on creativity? 16 The Effects of Video Games on Creativity In this section, we summarize the findings of our sixteen studies comprising three different categories: correlational studies, observational and perception studies, and experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The findings of the correlational studies are mixed. Hamlen (2009) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between the time students play video games per week and their creativity—measured by the TTCT. The participants in Hamlen’s study were 105 fourth and fifth graders enrolled in four suburban elementary schools in the US. Participants first completed a questionnaire about their gaming background (e.g., the amount of time they usually spend playing video games per week, the video games they play, and the devices they play those games on). Then, they completed the TTCT. The results of a multivariate regression analysis showed no relationship between time spent playing video games and students’ creativity scores (F (6, 96) = 1.2, p > .05)—holding gender and grade-in-school constant. In a similar correlational study, Jackson and colleagues (2012) investigated the relationship between students’ use of information technology (i.e., computers, the Internet, cellphones, and video games) and creativity. The 491 fifth-grade students who participated in this study were from 20 middle schools across Michigan, and an after-school center for underserved groups in Detroit. Students completed a survey about demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, IT questions (e.g., the amount of time using a type of technology, the most frequently played video game), and a six-item figural test developed based on the TTCT (e.g., one item was an egg-shape line drawing presented on a blank sheet of paper, and the participants had to draw an object using that shape). Unlike what Hamlen found, results showed a positive and significant correlation between the time spent by students playing video games 17 and all six test items of creativity (with a .01 level of significance). However, the correlation should not be misconstrued as causation. Finally, there were no significant relationships between creativity scores and use of other technologies. Hamlen (2013) later criticized Jackson et al.’s (2012) study by saying that the creativity test items in that study were completed at home, and thus, the results may not be reliable. She also pointed out that her previous study (i.e., Hamlen, 2009) was conducted in a timed and controlled laboratory environment with the presence of researchers. Hamlen (2013) re-analyzed her 2009 study’s data, investigating the factors that predicted time spent playing video games. Specifically, she examined the factors (including demographic data, gameplay strategies and skills, and creativity) that predicted time spent playing video games during a typical week. The results of a regression analysis showed a negative relationship between creativity (i.e., a composite variable in the regression model comprised of verbal fluency, verbal originality, verbal flexibility, figural originality, and figural fluency) and the number of hours spent playing video games. That is, the lower the level of creativity, the more time a student spends playing video games in a typical week ( = -.19, t = –2.70, p = .008)—holding other variables constant. Hamlen (2009; 2013) and Jackson et al. (2012) both investigated the effects of video gameplay on creativity. Apart from certain flaws in the methodologies used in these studies (e.g., use of self-report measures and at-home surveys), it seems that considering video games from all genres as equally potential for enhancing creativity (Jackson, 2012) or as equally irrelevant to the enhancement of creativity (Hamlen, 2009) can be both informative and misleading. In response to the findings of these correlational studies, the results seem mixed—(a) more gameplay leads to more creativity from Jackson et al.’s study, vs. (b) more gameplay is associated with less 20 opportunity to develop their creativity. However, John (2015) found different results. In an ethnographical study, John included 97 high-school students from a major city on the east coast of the U.S. who played one or more digital role-playing video games (e.g., World of Warcraft, Skyrim, and Final Fantasy). John (2015) stated that responding to a survey item, 64.6% of the participants did not believe that games influenced their creativity. In the same study, 46.9% of the participants believed gamers are creative thinkers. These observational and perception studies show the potential of some puzzle games, a sandbox game, a simulation game, as well as some conflicting results about the potential of digital role-playing games. However, more rigorous experimental studies are needed to further investigate the effectiveness of such video games across various settings, contexts, and genres. The results of experimental and quasi-experimental studies tend to agree on the positive effects of certain video games on creativity. Additionally, there were some unexpected findings reported. In an experimental study, Moffat, Crombie, and Shabalina (2017) compared three games (a sandbox game—Minecraft, a puzzle game—Portal 2, and a shooting game—Serious Sam) on participants’ creativity, which was measured by the TTCT in both the pretest and posttest. The 21 participants were divided into three groups. Each group was assigned to play one of the three games. The researchers hypothesized that the Minecraft group would show a higher level of creativity on the posttest than the Portal 2 group, and the Portal 2 group would show a higher level of creativity than the Serious Sam group. Participants completed the pretest, played their assigned game for 30 minutes, and then completed the posttest. The results showed that none of the groups showed significant improvement from pretest to posttest on originality and fluency facets. However, two of the groups showed significant pretest-to-posttest improvement for flexibility—Serious Sam (t (11) = 2.25, p < 0.05), and Portal 2 (t (10) = 3.29, p 21 < 0.01). When combining all the three groups, an overall significant improvement from pretest to posttest emerged (t (37) = 3.99, p < 0.001). Two of these findings were surprising. First, not only did not the Minecraft group improve their creativity from pretest to posttest, they showed negative (but not significant) results on the originality facet. Second, the Serious Sam group showed positive and significant improvements from pretest to posttest on the flexibility facet. The authors pointed out that the unexpected results may be related to participants’ affective states as they completed the posttest. That is, when playing a complicated game like Minecraft for only thirty minutes with no instruction, participants could get frustrated, and bring that frustration to the posttest with them. On the other hand, playing a more familiar shooting game could boost participants’ affective states and thereby enhance their creativity on the posttest. These findings show the importance of allocating an appropriate time for playing open- ended games like Minecraft. This also reflects the importance of affect in producing creative products (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Finally, the low sample size in this study could also be a reason for these unexpected findings. In a more recent and larger study, with a sample size of 352 participants, Blanco-Herrera, Gentile, and Rokkum (2019) compared the impact of playing Minecraft with no instructions, playing Minecraft with instructions (i.e., to be creative), playing a racing game called NASCAR, and watching a TV show on undergraduate students of a Midwestern university. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups. Participants played for 45 minutes in the game groups and watched an engaging TV show for the same amount of time in the TV-show group. They then completed measures of creativity: divergent thinking scale of alternative uses (Wallach & Kogan, 1965), convergent thinking remote association scale (Bowden & Jung- Beeman, 2003), and creative production alien drawing task (Kozbelt & Durmysheva, 2007). 22 Results showed that there was no significant effect of condition on the alternative uses scale or remote association scale. However, the condition effect was significant relative to the creative production alien drawing task (F (3, 294) = 7.74, p < .01)—controlling for the participants’ GPA. Mean comparisons showed that the participants in the Minecraft group with no instructions scored significantly higher on the convergent thinking task than those in the Minecraft group with directions, those in the NASCAR condition, and those watching a TV show. As expected, both groups playing Minecraft did score higher than the other two groups on all of the creativity measures. However, the researchers hypothesized that the Minecraft group who were asked to be creative would do better than the one with no instructions. This unexpected finding, again, shows that the conditions under which people play these games are critical as they can affect participants’ creativity. For example, participants’ affective state could be negatively impacted in this study as it was hard for the participants to figure out how to use Minecraft in only 30 minutes. In that case, participants could have lower creativity scores on the posttest due to their low affective states. Many other possible reasons could be listed for these findings. Studies in which Minecraft was used for a longer time could shed some light on these findings. To investigate the long-term effect of Minecraft on creativity, Checa-Romero and Pascual Gómez (2018) conducted a quasi-experimental study with 85 secondary school students from Alcalá de Henares in Spain. The authors developed an eight-week workshop as a part of a technology course in which students were introduced to Minecraft in a step-by-step manner. Students had to create a machinima of their “dream house” in Minecraft in two phases: (1) classroom play with Minecraft which included six workshop sessions to help students learn how to play Minecraft and how to create in this game, and (2) audiovisual machinima product creation in which the participants had to create a video to show their “dream house” to others. 25 designed and specified (the authors stated that they included these strategies in their game in the form of creative problem-solving missions to inspire students to think creatively). And in dimension 3, if designed well, the environment should foster the cognitive-related factors of creativity (i.e., fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaborative thinking), and affective-related factors (i.e., risk-taking, complexity, curiosity, and imagination). The authors evaluated the factors stated in dimension 3, after gameplay. To assess both students’ creative thinking (cognitive) and creative feeling (affective) related factors, the researchers used a test of creativity (Lin & Wang, 1994) which was developed based on the Creativity Assessment Packet (Williams, 1986). This creativity assessment includes two subscales of divergent thinking (by asking students to complete 12 figures which then were scored on fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration) and divergent feeling (a 3-point Likert scale questionnaire of 50 items on curiosity, adventure, challenge, and imagination). They reported a positive relationship between the creative thinking scores from the game (i.e., students’ performance data) and the divergent thinking and divergent feeling measures of creativity. In another controlled experimental study, Hsiao, Chang, Lin, and Hu (2014) used an improved version of the game they developed in 2006 and called it ToES. ToES includes sixteen learning tasks (designed based on the cognitive-affective interaction model) that are supposed to enhance participants’ creativity. Unlike the previous exploratory study with one group, in this quasi-experimental study, two fifth-grade classes (n = 51) were selected to participate in this study. One class was assigned as the experimental group (n = 27) who played the game, and the other class was assigned as the control group (n = 24) who did not play the game but were taught via traditional in-class instruction. The experiment took place in an electrical science class for nine weeks. The authors used the test of creativity with divergent thinking and divergent feeling 26 subscales (an adapted version of Creativity Assessment Packet, Lin & Wang, 1994) for the pretest and the posttest. Results showed that the experimental group scored significantly higher on the posttest than the pretest on both divergent thinking (t = 6.39, p < .001) and divergent feeling scales (t = 4.23, p < .001). The control group did not score higher on the posttest compared to the pretest on either the divergent thinking (t = 1.96, p > .05) or divergent feeling (t = −1.67, p > .05) scales. The results from an ANCOVA with the divergent thinking pretest as a covariate revealed a teaching strategy effect (game-based vs. traditional teaching) on the posttest divergent thinking scores (F (1,48) = 38.70, p < .0001, adj-R2 = .48, η2 = .45). The experimental group scored higher (M = 46.70, SD = 4.31) than the control group (M = 38.87, SD = 4.06) on the posttest of divergent thinking. A similar condition effect on the posttest (divergent feeling scale) was found as a result of an ANCOVA with divergent feeling pretest as a covariate (F (1,48) = 15.90, adj-R2 = .72, η2 = .25). The experimental group scored higher (M = 117.62, SD = 11.18) than the control group (M = 111.41, SD = 13.75) on the posttest for divergent feeling. In summary, researchers have started examining the effectiveness of video games on creativity with a wide lens through correlational studies (Hamlen, 2009, 2013; Jackson et al., 2012). The findings of these studies are mixed—some showing positive effects of video games on creativity and some showing no or negative effects of video games on creativity. These studies are informative, however, in highlighting the need for a closer look at some specific game genres and even games needed for researchers in this area to disambiguate these mixed results. Regarding the other studies we reviewed, they fall into two groups. The first group includes studies that tried to evaluate the potential of video games to foster creativity via 27 observations (e.g., Inchamnan et al., 2013) or participants’ perceptions (e.g., Hewett, 2016; Sáez- López et al., 2015). The second group consisted of experimental research studies comparing high potential games (e.g., Minecraft, Portal 2, Crayon Physics Deluxe) with games that were not expected to show significant effects on creativity (e.g., Blanco-Herrera et al., 2019; Fessakis, & Lappas, 2013). Based on the results of these studies, we can make the following conclusions. First, it is clear that not all video games enhance creativity. Second, certain genres—such as sandbox, puzzle, and simulation games—seem to hold the most potential to enhance creativity. Third, using games from across all game genres but under restricted conditions (e.g., short amount of time or with explicit directions to “be creative”) are not likely to lead to creativity improvement. Finally, some games that are not expected to enhance creativity may indirectly lead to more creativity; for example, by boosting players affective states and eventually improving their creativity. As a result of our review, we identified two main gaps in the research on video games and creativity. First, games that can potentially enhance creativity lack specific creativity supports within the game. Researchers in the field of human-computer interaction have conducted extensive research on applying creativity theories to design and develop creativity- support tools (Resnick et al., 2005; Shneiderman, 2007; 2009). That research has consequently been used by various software companies to develop creativity-support tools (e.g., Adobe products). The same application of support tools can be included in the design and development of video games. That is, creativity support tools can be developed that help players think of new ideas, or help them practice creative thinking in a more explicit way. Moreover, by including creativity supports (e.g., brainstorming tools) in video games, more people may be able to experience being creative. 30 Conclusions and Future Steps In this chapter, we briefly reviewed creativity definitions and theories of creativity related to video games. We also examined the effectiveness of video games on creativity via a systematic literature review, and finally discussed how video games could improve creativity. According to the literature, some video games directly enhance creativity (e.g., Minecraft, Portal 2) and some indirectly boost creativity through modifying players’ affective state (e.g., Serious Sam). Moreover, the studies we included in our review were conducted with participants of very different ages—from preschool to graduate school. Given the highly successful video game industry and the importance of enhancing people’s creativity, we—as educators, psychologists, scientists, policymakers, and parents—should not miss the opportunity that video games provide for enhancing creativity. There are ways with which we can improve video games’ potential to enhance creativity. One suggestion, as we briefly introduced above, is to use video games as creativity assessment vehicles. Shute (2011) introduced a new assessment methodology called stealth assessment. This involves the design, development, and weaving of assessments directly and invisibly into the fabric of any complex learning environment, particularly video games. During gameplay, players interact with the game environment and produce rich sequences of actions. In stealth assessment, the evidence needed to assess targeted skills (e.g., creativity) is thus provided by the players’ interactions with the game itself. Inferences on competency states are stored in a dynamic model of the learner (at various grain sizes and at different time points). This contrasts with a typically singular outcome of activity—the norm in educational environments. Stealth assessment may also be used to support learning and maintain flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). 31 Shute and her colleagues have assessed creativity using a game they developed called Physics Playground (PP; Shute, Almond, & Rahimi, 2019). PP is a 2D web-based game designed to assess and support students’ conceptual physics understanding. In PP, players draw various objects on the screen using a mouse, and once drawn, these objects become “alive” and interact with other objects. By playing PP, students improve their qualitative understanding of Newtonian mechanics and how physical objects interact. Students can be creative in their solutions, and they can also use the game’s level editor to design their own creative levels. Defining a creativity model with its sub-constructs of fluency, flexibility, and originality, and identifying the in-game indicators that provide evidence for those sub-constructs (e.g., the number of unique solutions to a level can be an indicator of fluency), Shute and her colleagues assessed creativity via stealth assessment in Physics Playground (Kim & Shute, 2015; Shute & Rahimi, in press; Shute & Wang, 2016). The results of their validation study showed that the stealth assessment of creativity significantly correlated with the external measure of creativity they used (i.e., the Alternative Uses Test; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Following the same methods of creativity assessment, game designers can diagnostically assess players creativity and provide the proper support to enhance creativity. Another path video game designers and researchers can take is to design next-generation video games specifically for enhancing creativity. Those games may be designed based on creativity theories to include the aspects that foster creativity and avoid the ones that hinder creativity. We discussed one example of such an approach in our review (Hsiao et al., 2014; Hsiao et al., 2006). Video games for creativity should be able to facilitate creative thinking processes when one is engaged in deriving a creative solution or product. To achieve these goals, 32 we need more research with rigorous experimental methodologies to examine the effect(s) of video games on creativity. One way to improve video games’ potential to enhance creativity is through designing, developing, and testing various theory-driven creativity support systems in games. For example, inspired by the research conducted by Shneiderman (2009), we are currently planning a study to investigate the effectiveness of two types of creativity supports embedded within Physics Playground’s level editor. We are currently developing two support systems based on two schools of thought related to enhancing creativity—Inspirationalism and Structuralism (Shneiderman, 2009). Inspirationalists believe that creativity may be enhanced by getting inspired from reviewing the prior work by others in the area, using brainstorming tools and strategies, making remote associations, using analogies, and other techniques and tools intended to inspire one to be more creative. Structuralists believe that people can enhance their creativity if they follow an order or do things in a specific order. We will investigate if inspirational supports (i.e., access to the previous levels, a brainstorming tool, and remote association support), structural supports (i.e., step-by-step guideline throughout the level design process), or both supports are effective in enhancing students’ creativity. Ideally, video games equipped with effective creativity support systems and valid and reliable assessments can be used as useful tools for enhancing people’s creativity. Current research on assessing and enhancing people’s creativity using video games is a promising, yet young, area of research for creativity researchers that we hope to hear more from in the near future. 35 Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755 Hamlen, K. R. (2009). Relationships between computer and video game play and creativity among upper elementary school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.40.1.a Hamlen, K. R. (2013). Trends in children’s video game play: Practical but not creative thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.3.a Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416 Hewett, K. J. E. (2016). The Minecraft project: Predictors for academic success and 21st century skills gamers are learning through video game experiences [Ph.D., Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi]. https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1861722622/abstract/5FB16F0873F3439 EPQ/6 Hsiao, H., Chang, C.-S., Lin, C.-Y., & Hu, P.-M. (2014). Development of children’s creativity and manual skills within digital game-based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12057 Hsiao, H.-S., Wong, K.-H., Wang, M.-J., Yu, K.-C., Chang, K.-E., & Sung, Y.-T. (2006). Using cognitive affective interaction model to construct on-line game for creativity. In Z. Pan, R. Aylett, H. Diener, X. Jin, S. Göbel, & L. Li (Eds.), Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (Vol. 3942, pp. 409–418). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11736639_52 36 Hutton, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Can video games enhance creativity? Effects of emotion generated by dance dance revolution. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503540 Inchamnan, W., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2013). Does activity in computer game play have an impact on creative behaviour? 2013 IEEE International Games Innovation Conference (IGIC), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGIC.2013.6659169 Inchamnan, W., Wyeth, P., Johnson, D., & Conroy, D. (2012). A method for measuring the creative potential of computer games. In M. Herrlich, R. Malaka, & M. Masuch (Eds.), International Conference on Entertainment Computing—ICEC 2012 (Vol. 7522, pp. 270–283). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33542-6_23 Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006 John, L. E. (2015). Casting magic missile: The effect of role-playing video games on creative thinking [M.A.T., The George Washington University]. https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1658197966/abstract/5FB16F0873F3439 EPQ/11 Karsenti, T., & Bugmann, J. (2017). Exploring the educational potential of Minecraft: The case of 118 elementary-school students. International Association for Development of the Information Society, 175–179. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688 37 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In Praise of Clark Kent: Creative Metacognition and the Importance of Teaching Kids When (Not) to Be Creative. Roeper Review, 35(3), 155– 165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.799413 Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Resource review: Creativity. Change, 39(4), 55–58. JSTOR. Kim, M., & Shin, J. (2016). The pedagogical benefits of SimCity in urban geography education. Journal of Geography, 115(2), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2015.1061585 Kim, Y. J., & Shute, V. J. (2015). Opportunities and challenges in assessing and supporting creativity in video games. In Video Games and Creativity (pp. 99–117). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801462-2.00005-9 Kloonigames. (2014). Crayon Physics Deluxe. http://www.crayonphysics.com/ Kozbelt, A., & Durmysheva, Y. (2007). Understanding creativity judgments of invented alien creatures: The roles of invariants and other predictors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(4), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01072.x Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 Levy, K. (2014). 14 amazing creations people vave built In the game Minecraft, which Microsoft just bought for $2.5 billion. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazing- things-people-made-in-minecraft-2014-9 Lin, X.-T., & Wang, M.-R. (1994). Creativity assessment packet. Psychological Publishing. Moffat, D. C., Crombie, W., & Shabalina, O. (2017). Some video games can increase the player’s creativity. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 7(2), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2017040103