Computer games development and appreciative learning approach in enhancing students' creative perception

Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/compedu

Computer games development and appreciative learning approachin enhancing students’ creative perception

Yee Leng Eow a,*, Wan Zah bte Wan Ali b,1, Rosnaini bt. Mahmud b,2, Roselan Baki c,3

a Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiab Foundations of Education Department, Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiac Department of Language and Humanities, Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 16 June 2009Received in revised form 28 July 2009Accepted 31 July 2009

Keywords:Improving classroom teachingPedagogical issuesSecondary educationTeaching/learning strategies

0360-1315/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.019

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3011786; fax: +6E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y.L. Eow), w

1 Tel.: +60 03 89468174.2 Tel.: +60 03 89468173.3 Tel.: +60 03 89468179.

Creativity is an important entity in developing human capital while computer games are the current gen-eration’s contemporary tool. This study focused on the teaching of computer games development in orderto enhance the creative perception of secondary school children. The study applied randomised subjects,with control group experimental design, which involved 69 Malaysian form one students, aged13–14 year-old. Different pedagogical strategies were being investigated on the abilities to enhance stu-dents’ creative perception. Treatment group adopted appreciative learning approach, which was based onAppreciative Inquiry (AI) theory. Meanwhile, control group adopted self-paced learning, followed by do-it-yourself session. Previous studies indicated that although appreciative learning approach is still in itsinfancy development, the approach is gaining its momentum in educational settings as it focuses onstrengthening a person’s capacities and potential. Students’ creative perception was assessed using Kha-tena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI). It was found students in treatment group gained amean score of 71.82, which was significantly higher at .05 level of significance compared to the meanscore of 50.49 exhibited by the control group. Yet, both treatment and control groups showed significantincreases in pre-to-post-test scores. Dimensions within KTCPI were further analysed in order to present abetter picture of students’ creative perception. As a conclusion, different pedagogical strategy generateddifferent level of creative perception enhancement.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Creativity is regard as one of the most important skills a child should learn since it is essential in building a well-rounded personalityand tolerant view of the world (Wilson, 2003). Sternberg (2003) claimed that schools generally undervalue creativity as teachers think it isno different from general intelligence. However, Sternberg extended creativity as beyond the intellectual domain. Sternberg added thatcreativity is not just a matter of thinking in a certain way, but rather an attitude toward life. In had been stated in previous writing thatpeople are creative because they decided to be creative (Sternberg, 2000). Both Kostova (2007) and Rutledge (2008) stated that creativityexists as an inherent force in people. Azadegan, Bush, and Dooley (2008) supported the notion that creativity is a static capability. Littleevidence presented on the effectiveness of creativity training workshop (Simonton, 2000). Birdi (2005) asserted that creative trainingworkshop did not have much effect on the improvement of idea generations. On the other hand, Sadre and Brock (2008) reviewed thathighly creative children and adolescents may often behave in ways that may appear to be symptoms of mental illness. Thus, this biologicaltrait caused multiple systems, including family, school, and mental health professionals in failing to recognize and nurture the creativeaspect. These findings seemed to impress that creativity is an inborn strength that sometimes people even failed to identify it.

However, is creativity really a static trait? Can creativity be taught and learned? Previous researchers and authors denied creativity as astatic trait and convincingly acknowledge it as having vast opportunities to be improved (Carson & Becker, 2003; Makel, 2009; Northcott,

ll rights reserved.

0 03 [email protected] (W.Z.b.W. Ali), [email protected] (R.bt. Mahmud), [email protected] (R. Baki).

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 147

Miliszewska, & Dakich, 2007; Petrowski, 2000; Selker, 2005; Sternberg, 2003; Tan & Law, 2004; Titus, 2007; Torrance, 1993; Wilson, 2003).Since creativity is a learnable skill, in this study, computer games development was used as a tool to engage students. The rationale for theaction taken was that computer games corresponded with the young generation’s habits and interests (Eow & Roselan, 2008; Funk, Buch-man, Jenks, & Bechtoldt, 2003; Inal & Cagiltay, 2007; Oblinger, 2006; Pivec, 2007; Rosas et al., 2003; Yee, 2006). Computer games devel-opment is one of the ideal ways reaching out to students whom have grown up in the playstation generation (Kearney & Skelton, 2003).What could be a better way than applying the same technology, which has been the students’ contemporary interest in order to excite andengage them?

In the meantime, learning approach needs to be applied in order for students to enhance their creativity optimally (Reid & Petocz, 2004).Kiili (2005) explained that the use of technology alone does not motivate nor enhance students’ creativity whom have been living in themidst of technology all their lives. Even if technology could help enhance students’ creative perception, Sassen (2004) argued that digitaltechnology alone cannot be dependent onto produce new classroom dynamic such as fostering creativity among students. The authorstressed on pedagogical strategies as the ability to further contributing to creativity enhancement. Therefore, although computer gamesdevelopment can be fun, it is not an easy stand-alone option to enhance creativity among students of the 21st century. As a result, appre-ciative learning approach, which is based on Appreciative Inquiry (AI) theory, was applied as a pedagogical strategy to enhance students’creativity in the study conducted. This is because AI theory focuses on strengthening a person’s capacities and potential (Cooperrider &Whitney, 2005). Consequently, it will give way to imagination and innovation.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia wanted school to create students who are not only literate butalso mentally strong (Bernama, 2007a). He commented that many people can read and are educated, but not creative, innovative and thinkout of the box. It is also one of the objectives in The National Education Blueprint 2006–2010, to develop human capital in order to be cre-ative, innovative and marketable (Bernama, 2007b). In addition, a study done by Chua (2002) shown that the standard mean score for cre-ative thinking index among Malaysian secondary school students was much lower than American students of the same age. Malaysianemployers also indicated its employees as having insufficient creativity (Ramli & Abu, 2006). Thus, with these justifications, there is a needto facilitate Malaysian students in boosting their creativity, and in this study, specifically students’ creative perception.

2. Literature review

2.1. Computer games development

Research done by Yee (2006) indicated that on average, youth spent 22 hours on computer games per week, with 70% of them spentat least 10 continuous hours in a virtual world at one sitting In addition, Becker (2007) pointed out that the current generation is grow-ing up with a pastime that demands interaction and play. Computer games corresponded with the young generation’s habits and inter-ests (Eow & Roselan, 2008; Henderson, 2005; Inal & Cagiltay, 2007; Oblinger, 2006; Pivec, 2007; Roussou, 2004). As a result, it isbecoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact of computer games as the contemporary culture of today’s youth. Therefore, educationalpractitioners are recommended to use computer games within meaningful learning environment to promote learning and students’ self-development. However, most schools in Asian countries are traditionally regarded as social institutions where teachers transmit stan-dardized knowledge with chalk and talk method (Tan & Law, 2004). The current norm not only seriously hold back students from explor-ing new ideas (Vint, 2005) and being creative (Northcott et al., 2007), but also being deemed as dull and uninteresting by students (Eow& Roselan, 2008).

Selker (2005) stated that people use computers for many creative tasks such as creating text, graphics and engineering solutions. Inaddition, Selker commented that people need social supports for creative usage of computers, as this will help to keep them motivatedand consider alternatives. Prensky (2007) stressed that students should be allowed to go as far as they could with technologies they loveto use, characterizes their age and at the same time be able to prepare them for their 21st century as well. Keyboarding and word-process-ing skills used in preparing assignments in schools do not promote technological sophistication level currently deemed necessary (Nied-erhauser & Lindstrom, 2006). Egenfeltd-Nielsen (2007) suggested moving towards a new generation of educational use of computer gamesthat covers a broader scope, not just as an information transmission tool. Therefore, computer games development can be a task beyondinformation transmitter that is able to fulfil the need of this play station generation.

Nevertheless, the cost for computer games development which commonly reported in millions of dollars is often used as a reason toargue against the utilization of it in educational settings (Oblinger, 2006). However, as technologies progress aggressively, games develop-ment tools become more widely available and affordable for a non-professional. Some games development tools are available for a reason-able licensing fee or features needed while some can even be downloaded free. For examples, Game Maker, Torque Game Builder, Golden TGame Engine, The Game Creators and 3D Game Studio. Yet, games development is still not an easy task especially for lower secondary stu-dents since they are not exposed to any computer languages before (Habgood & Overmars, 2006; Saulter, 2007). Computer games devel-opment is a new learning experience for these students. Although computer games development is new to secondary school students, it iswell established in higher education (Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, 2007; University of Central Lanchashire, 2007; Uni-versity of Luton, 2008; University of Worcester, 2009). Researchers had tapped on areas such as software-engineering education (Cagiltay,2007), teaching geometric modeling and computer graphics through computer gaming (Schaefer & Warren, 2004), game assessmentthrough the representation of students and assessors as virtual characters (Ip, Capey, Baker, & Carroll, 2009), gender differences and impli-cations on the games played (Ogletree & Drake, 2007), and factors influencing game flow experience (Killi, 2005).

Consequently, after much consideration regarded the constraints of time, financial, equipments, students’ current cognitive abilities andexpertise resources, this study had come to Game Maker (Fig. 1) as the best solution tool for Malaysian lower secondary students in devel-oping their own computer games. Game Maker provides a simple game developing environment. Students were expected to have the abil-ities to create complete games without being an expertise in traditional programming languages. Habgood and Overmars (2006) stated thatas long as the students can use Windows without breaking into cold sweat, they have all the qualification needed to start making their owngames using Game Maker. Game Maker software requires computers running with Windows 98SE, Me, 2000 or XP; DirectX-compatiblegraphics card with at least 32 MB of memory; DirectX-compatible sound card and DirectX 8 or later software to be installed on the com-

Fig. 1. Screen shot from Game Maker 7.0. The main window is showing one of the levels developed by the student. Game Maker provides a simple and friendly gamedeveloping environment.

148 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

puter. The Malaysian schools’ computers fulfilled the Game Maker’s requirement for them to run the games efficiently and most impor-tantly, Game Maker can be downloaded free from http://www.yoyogames.com/make.

2.2. Appreciative learning approach

Computers and internet are part of their life; staying connected through technology is essential; multitasking is natural; and doing ismore important than knowing. These are the characteristics of the younger generation identified by Frand (2000). With these character-istics, it is not surprising that the younger generation does not respond to traditional teaching approaches such as chalk and talk or lecture(Prensky, 2001). Students need to be guided by interesting task integrated with contemporary artefact in a constructive environment.Therefore, the treatment group of this study adopted appreciative learning approach as a teaching and learning practice in computer gamesdevelopment class.

Appreciative learning approach applied is based on Appreciative Inquiry (AI) theory. Cooperrider and Whitney (2005, p. 2) definedappreciative and inquiry as:

Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us; affirming past and present strengths, suc-cesses, and potentials; to perceive those things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems 2. to increase in value, e.g. theeconomy has appreciated in value. Synonyms: VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To ask questions; to be open to seeing new potentials and possibilities.Synonyms: DISCOVERY, SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION, STUDY.

Cooperrider and Whitney (2005) explained that AI theory assumes every living system as having many untapped, rich and positiveinspirations. AI theory focuses on the co-evolutionary search for the best in people and the relevant world around them. In AI practices,instead of negation and criticism, the 4Ds stages of discover, dream, design and destiny help merging the past and present capacities suchas achievements, assets, unexplored potentials, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, high point moments, and visions into possiblefutures without the intention of solving any existing problems (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Therefore, instead of focusing on problems,what is not working and why; AI theory seeks to discover what is working particularly well with the students and what they desire toachieve (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Lebrun, 2007). Positive images of oneself and the world around them were expected to inspirethe subjects for more volunteered action and innovation. Subsequently, it counters initial negative images, beliefs, and expectations. Atthe same time, by going through the new experience of developing computer games, students would be able to bridge the gap betweentheir previous and present knowledge and skills in computer games. In addition, appreciative learning approach provides many opportu-nities for students to be heard; explore; dream; taking actions, and share their products and dreams. Therefore, as suggested by Dovestonand Keenaghan (2006), there is a great potential of applying AI practices in classroom setting.

2.3. Creative perception

Creativity is complex and there is no single or universally accepted definition of creativity, as it is a function of many factors operative inthe society at a time (Tan & Law, 2004; Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002). Creativity has been defined in numerous ways. Forexample, creativity is defined as a process by Torrance (Millar, 1997); as a product (Johnson & Lamb, 2007; Ray, 1969); as a press, the qual-ity of environment that nurture creativity (Rhodes, 1961); and as a person (Gardner, 1993). There have been inconsistencies concerning thedefinition of creativity. Different researchers defined creativity differently according to their context of study.

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 149

Creative perception being assessed in the study was based upon the rationale that an individual has a psychological self comprisedcreative and non-creative ways of behaviours (Khatena & Torrance, 1998). Khatena and Torrance (1998) further added that a person’screative perception was reflected in the personality characteristics of the individual; in the way he thought or the kind of thinking strat-egies he employed; and in the products that emerged as a result of his creative strivings. Meanwhile, Tymieniecka (1988) representedcreative perception as a phase comprising the entire self-interpretive operational system of an individual. Khatena (1977) stated thatcreative perception is measurable as it is related to creative components of personality. Thus, when creative perception is being oper-ationalized, it is broken down into specific behaviours. These specific behaviours comprise of acceptance of authority, self-confidence,inquisitiveness, awareness of others, disciplined imagination, environmental sensitivity, initiative, self-strength, intellectuality, individ-uality and artistry.

Although most teachers valued creativity, only a few actually supported creative expression in their classroom (Runco, 2003; Sternberg,2003) This unintentionally act was carried out through the dismissed of students’ creative expression in unique, novel, or unexpected ideas.Both Beghetto (2007) and Kennedy (2005) described the habitual dismissal of unique ideas spells trouble for the cultivation of creativethinking. Fried (2005) added that it does not take a long time for students to realize that learning in school means letting go of curiosity,creativity and meaningful learning. He further added that by the time students reaching fourth or fifth grade, they will think what they areexperiencing in school is normal. Thus, when learning in schools becomes working out or guessing the answers that teachers expected tosee or hear; students will tend to consider creative expression as not worth the intellectual risk or effort. Claxton, Edwards, and Scale-Con-stantinou (2006) suggested that it is possible to organize life in schools and classrooms in such a way that young people not only have theopportunity to express their creativity, but systematically become more creative. This can be done by stimulating students’ imaginationthrough particular technique, working routines, and methods.

Tighe, Picariello, and Amabile (2003) stated that teachers must take active steps to create a classroom environment where students feelsafe of taking intellectual risks in expressing their creativeness. This can be started with teachers themselves being open to students’ re-sponses, even if those responses are with little relevancy to the conversation or work (Tighe et al., 2003). Appreciative Inquiry theory stres-ses on appreciation and positive reception of others’ ideas or creations. Hence, appreciative learning approach is an ideal way in providingopportunities for students to express themselves creatively without fear, as teachers do not practice criticism, disapproval, or condemna-tion. Creativity relies not just on the ability to think, attend or reflect in certain ways, but on the inclination to do so by having pleasure atthe same time (Claxton et al., 2006). Therefore, in order for students to express themselves creatively, firstly, they should perceive them-selves as being a creative person. Teachers can help by acknowledge the students’ interests, beliefs, and values. Appreciative learning ap-proach is putting the necessary weight in acknowledging students’ interests, beliefs, and values by bringing out the best from them.Therefore, this study applied appreciative learning approach in computer games development class as to enhance students’ creativeperception.

3. Objective of the study

Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) commented that the study of computer games and its’ players cannot be mapped into one researchdiscipline, as it possibly involve areas of study such as computer science, education, psychology, youth, media or cultural studies concur-rently. Therefore, the study that had been carried in this article aimed to look at a bigger combination of technology, pedagogy, and cre-ativity. Both computer games development and appreciative learning approach are new to educational setting. This combination has notbeen tapped specifically for creativity enhancement among lower secondary students. The combination of computer games developmentand appreciative learning approach might provide a potential quality of an environment that helps nurture and enhance creativity. In thisstudy, computer games development was functioning as a tool and appreciative learning approach as a pedagogical strategy to enhancestudents’ creative perception. Thus, the objective of the study was to investigate whether the application of appreciative learning approachwithin computer games development class helped enhanced students’ creative perception. Hence, the questions to be answered are asfollowed:

(i) Did appreciative learning approach group gained better creative perception in computer games development class compared to con-trol group?

(ii) Were there any significant differences in students’ creative perception before and after going through computer games developmentfor both appreciative learning approach group and control group?

4. Methodology

4.1. Research design

The research design being used in the study was randomised subjects, with control group experimental design. The rationale for theused of experimental design was due to the effort in assessing the effectiveness of appreciative learning approach being applied in com-puter games development activity with the interest of enhancing students’ creative perception. Treffinger et al. (2002) suggested experi-mental or quasi-experimental designs for the effort in assessing the impact of a programme on creativity. Added to it, Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh,and Sorensen (2006) recommended the use of randomised subjects with control group experimental design, as it is one of the simplestdesign, yet one of the most powerful of all experimental designs.

The study was carried out concurrently for both treatment and control groups. The duration of the study was 4 weeks and the totalhours taken was 16 hours for each group. Game Maker software was used in both groups of the study for computer games developmentpurposes. The research was done without direct participation of the researchers. Each of the group was facilitated by an independent tea-cher. It was an attempt by the researchers to minimize the biases that might affect the results of the control group experimental research.Researchers remained objective by working at an emotional distance, and interacting as little as possible with researched subjects and the

Fig. 2. Screen shot from one of the computer games developed by a student in treatment group.

150 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

context. The control group adopted self-paced learning with game module as a guide and followed by do-it-yourself (DIY) session. Facil-itator helped students when being asked to do so. Other than that, facilitator in control group did not play a significant role in guiding stu-dents throughout the study.

As for treatment group, students developed their own computer games (Fig. 2) within the appreciative learning approach which con-sisted of discover, dream, design, and destiny stages (4Ds stages), revolving in the respective sequence (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Dis-cover stage was done with the intentions for the gamer students to see new potentials and possibilities. In discover stage, groupconversation was carried out by facilitator with reference to the positive guided questions prepared by researchers. It was the starting pointof inquiry in a non-threatening, engaging and interesting way (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). During group conversation, students listened toeach other’s stories of success as defined by a person’s values and got to know each other at the same time. Group conversation lasted about20–30 minutes. Then, it was followed by discovering of knowledge and skills in Game Maker. Students discovered through self-explorationguided by game module adapted from Habgood and Overmars (2006). This was similar to the self-paced learning session carried out bycontrol group.

Next, in dream stage, students were asked to dream of how they wanted their own games to be. They sketched or noted down ideasand dreams on papers. While giving out instructions, facilitator kept encouraging students to be bold and risk-taking in their imagina-tions. As for design stage, students started to develop computer games based on the dreams and desires they had generated earlier.During this stage, praises from facilitator were intensified. Lastly, but not least, was the destiny stage where facilitator guided studentsto create their own executable file in order for them to save it in the compact disc. With this portable storage, they were able to sharetheir products with friends or family members. Besides that, students were again engaged in the group conversation. At this stage, facil-itator encouraged students to reflect the work that they had accomplished in discover, dream and design stages. Students were led tothink on how they are going to empower their skills and knowledge in Game Maker. At the end of the day, students noted down theirdestiny related to computer games development on a piece of paper in order for them to keep in mind about what they desired to do infuture.

4.2. Sample

In order to reduce the interaction between students from control group and treatment group, two schools were selected, respectively forthe purpose. Meanwhile, in assuring independent samples were drawn, only form one (grade 7) students aged between 13 to 14 year-old,who were interested in learning computer games development and had been playing computer games for at least the last 2 years and arestill actively playing, were randomly selected from the interested population generated in each school. Appropriate measurements weretaken in forming the two almost identical groups. Besides choosing two identical schools in term of academic performance, students’ socialstatus and discipline aspects in the same zone, few additional conditions were strictly assured for the two groups’ equivalence at the begin-ning of the research. The conditions that strictly considered for equivalency were students’ years of experience in playing computer games;computer competency; time spent playing computer games per week; age; gender; and creative perception. Statistical analyses on the dif-ferences between the control and treatment groups were determined and both groups were reformed until they met the condition of nosignificant differences at .05 level of confidence. Although both groups started with the number of 36 students, at the end of the study,researchers only considered the data from 34 students in treatment group and 35 students in control group as these were the studentswho had fully attended the activity conducted and managed to produce computer games of their own.

As for the random selection of students in both schools, it was done using SPSS programme. Thirty six students were chosen randomlyfrom each school based on the list of interested students that fulfilled the requirements stated previously by using SPSS programme (Data? Select cases ? Random sample of cases ? Sample ? Exactly 36 cases of the total cases). In that case, any initial differences among thestudents would not contribute to the differences between treatment and control groups. Instead, the appreciative learning approach wouldbe the one that caused the differences between treatment and control groups.

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 151

4.3. Instrument

In this study, creative perception in term of Creative Perception Index (CPI) was being assessed using Khatena-Torrance Creative Per-ception Inventory (KTCPI). KTCPI consists of two separate tests, which are What Kind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY?) and Something AboutMyself (SAM). Both WKOPAY? and SAM consist of 50 items each. It is a self-report measurement of creative perception. SAM based uponthe rationale that creativity is reflected in the personality characteristics of the individual, in the kind of thinking strategies he or she em-ployed, and in the products that emerged as a result of his or her creative striving (Khatena & Torrance, 1998). The scoring for SAM wasrecorded by counting the number of positive responses. Each check marked item was given a score. Therefore, scores for SAM ranged fromzero to 50. The dimensions being assessed through SAM were environmental sensitivity, initiative, self-strength, intellectuality, individu-ality, and artistry.

Meanwhile, WKOPAY? based upon the rationale that an individual has a psychological self, whose structures have incorporated creativeand non-creative ways of behaving. The scoring for WKOPAY? was done by referring to the key provided in the instruction manual (Kha-tena & Torrance, 1998). All blank responses were recorded as zero. Scores for WKOPAY? were ranged from zero to 50. The dimensions beingassessed by WKOPAY? were acceptance of authority, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, awareness of others and disciplined imagination.Scoring for each dimension was done by reference to the factor keys given in the instruction manual.

Khatena and Torrance (1998) added that both WKOPAY? and SAM sub-tests can be group or individually administered to children be-tween the ages of approximately 10 and 19 year-old. Subsequently, CPI was calculated by adding both WKOPAY? and SAM scores. As theacceptance of authority is the negative factor of creative perception, the scores were reversed before adding into CPI calculation. KTCPI waspurchased from Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., and translated into Bahasa Malaysia in order to suit the needs of local students. Based onthe data collected, the translated KTCPI generated a Cronbach’s alpha value .849. According to Ary et al. (2006), a coefficient of .80 for a testof creativity would be judged excellent. KTCPI was administered in both control and treatment groups before and after teaching studentscomputer games development. In the meantime, qualitative data such as transcribed interviews, photos, and videos captures were used tocomplement the quantitative data collected.

5. Findings

Analyses on normal distribution of WKOPAY? (What Kind Of Person Are You?), SAM (Something About Myself), and the total score ofCreative Perception Index (CPI) were done by using modified Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistical test for normality. Hair, Black, Babin, Ander-son, and Tatham (2005) stated that normal distribution of metric variable is the benchmark for statistical method involving F and t statis-tics. All the p-value generated for WKOPAY?, SAM, and CPI, before and after the study, were more than .05 except for the total score of SAMin the post-test for treatment group. However, the departure from normality for SAM in the post-test for treatment group was not too ex-treme as it recorded a p-value of .046. Besides that, when two samples were of about equal size, the effect of violation of the homogeneityassumption was not serious (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003). Thus, the post-test original value of SAM for treatment group was preferred inthe study. Therefore, it is reasonable to indicate that overall, the data came from a normal distributed population (Stephens, 2006, p. 155).Consequently, statistical methods involving F and t statistics were suitable to be used for the concerning data.

5.1. Did appreciative learning approach group gained better creative perception in computer games development compared to control group?

5.1.1. SAM (Something About Myself) sub-testThe independent samples t-test analyses that being carried out at .05 level of confidence generated no significant differences in the

mean scores of SAM between the control and treatment groups (Table 1) before the study was being carried out. As for the dimensionswithin SAM, Table 1 shows that the mean scores of environmental sensitivity, initiative, self-strength, and individuality dimensions forcontrol group found to be higher compared to the treatment group before computer games development activity. Meanwhile, as for themean scores of intellectuality and artistry dimensions, treatment group exhibited higher mean scores than the control group before thetreatment begun. Nevertheless, when further analyses using independent samples t-test were carried out, Table 1 exhibits the results of

Table 1t-Test analyses on the mean scores of SAM and the creative dimensions within SAM before computer games development activity.

SAM/dimensions Group Mean SD Levene’s test for equality of variances t-Test for equality of means

F Sig. t df Sig.

SAM Control 20.91 5.031 .319 .574 �.108 67 .914Treatment 21.06 6.015

Environmental sensitivity Control 3.40 1.538 5.555 .021 1.139 62.71 .259Treatment 3.03 1.141

Initiative Control 1.66 1.259 .065 .800 1.038 67 .303Treatment 1.32 1.408

Self-strength Control 4.00 1.925 .782 .380 .688 67 .494Treatment 3.71 1.605

Intellectuality Control 4.31 1.568 2.158 .147 �1.530 67 .131Treatment 4.97 1.977

Individuality Control 2.60 1.193 .903 .346 .237 67 .814Treatment 2.53 1.285

Artistry Control 1.54 1.010 2.457 .122 �1.388 67 .170Treatment 1.97 1.507

Table 2t-Test analyses on the mean scores of SAM and the creative dimensions within SAM after computer games development activity.

SAM/dimensions Group Mean SD Levene’s test for equality of variances t-Test for equality of means

F Sig. t df Sig.

SAM Control 26.77 6.306 1.119 .294 �6.379 67 .000Treatment 35.68 5.221

Environmental sensitivity Control 4.14 1.264 .390 .534 �1.981 67 .052Treatment 4.71 1.088

Initiative Control 1.89 1.323 .248 .620 �2.637 67 .010Treatment 2.79 1.533

Self-strength Control 5.71 1.934 5.595 .021 �5.816 57.56 .000Treatment 7.97 1.218

Intellectuality Control 5.66 2.248 3.624 .061 �4.054 67 .000Treatment 7.56 1.580

Individuality Control 3.26 1.039 .717 .400 �2.963 67 .004Treatment 4.06 1.205

Artistry Control 2.17 1.599 3.376 .071 �1.686 67 .096Treatment 2.76 1.304

152 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

no significant differences between these two groups at .05 level of confidence. Therefore, these results assured equivalency between treat-ment and control groups before the experimental research was being carried out.

After students went through computer games development activity, students in treatment group achieved a mean score of 35.68 in SAMsub-test (Table 2). This score was visually higher than the control group, which only gained a mean score of 26.77. Further analysis usingindependent samples t-test analysis proven that there was a significant difference between these two groups at .05 level of confidence (Ta-ble 2). As for the creative perception dimensions within SAM sub-test, Table 2 shows higher mean scores gained by students in treatmentgroup. Independent samples t-test analyses was carried out in order to evaluate their significant differences at .05 level of significance. Theresults in Table 2 highlight significant differences in four out of the six mean scores of creative perception dimensions within the SAM sub-test, except environmental sensitivity and artistry dimensions. Therefore, SAM sub-test proved that when students developed computergames within the appreciative learning approach environment, they tended to achieve better creative perception in terms of initiative,self-strength, intellectuality, and individuality.

5.1.2. WKOPAY? (What Kind Of Person Are You?) sub-testBefore going through computer games development activity, students in control group exhibited higher mean score in WKOPAY? sub-

test as compared to treatment group (Table 3). Nevertheless, independent samples t-test analysis at .05 level of confidence in Table 3 showsno significant difference between these two groups. On the other hand, Table 3 also illustrates that students from treatment group exhib-ited higher mean scores in all the dimensions within WKOPAY? sub-test before the study was being carried out. However, these highermean scores were only significantly applicable to acceptance of authority, self-confidence, and inquisitiveness dimensions. Although stu-dents in treatment group scored higher mean scores in awareness of others and disciplined imagination dimensions, Table 3 shows thatthese values were not significantly different from the control group. Therefore, the findings of WKOPAY? sub-test were the second assur-ance of equivalency between control and treatment groups before experimental research was being carried out.

After going through the computer games development activity with different pedagogical strategy, students from treatment groupgained a mean score of 36.15 in WKOPAY? sub-test, which was much higher than the 23.71 mean score gained by the control group.The results of independent samples t-test at .05 level of significance in Table 4 confirmed the significant difference in the mean score be-tween the treatment and control groups. As for the dimensions within WKOPAY? sub-test, students in treatment group began to show lessacceptance of authority, self-confidence, and awareness of others compared to students in control group (Table 4). Table 4 also illustrates

Table 3t-Test analyses on the mean scores of WKOPAY? and the creative dimensions within WKOPAY? before computer games development activity.

WKOPAY?/dimensions Group Mean SD Levene’s test for equality of variances t-Test for equality of means

F Sig. t df Sig.

WKOPAY? Control 23.43 6.740 3.000 .088 1.827 67 .072Treatment 19.97 8.864

Acceptance of authority Control 3.03 1.465 6.746 .012 �3.954 60.30 .000Treatment 4.71 2.008

Self-confidence Control 5.66 1.589 .925 .340 �2.237 67 .029Treatment 6.59 1.861

Inquisitiveness Control 2.46 1.291 .015 .904 �2.049 67 .044Treatment 3.15 1.500

Awareness of others Control 5.77 1.629 .080 .778 �1.482 67 .143Treatment 6.35 1.631

Disciplined imagination Control 3.60 1.943 .684 .411 �.562 67 .576Treatment 3.88 2.226

Table 4t-Test analyses on the mean scores of WKOPAY? and the creative dimensions within WKOPAY? after computer games development activity.

WKOPAY?/dimensions Group Mean SD Levene’s test for equality of variances t-Test for equality of means

F Sig. t df Sig.

WKOPAY? Control 23.71 5.768 16.32 .000 �11.84 44.55 .000Treatment 36.15 2.271

Acceptance of authority Control 3.89 1.586 13.26 .001 10.153 48.05 .000Treatment .88 .729

Self-confidence Control 6.54 1.721 3.70 .059 2.704 67 .009Treatment 5.56 1.260

Inquisitiveness Control 3.06 1.571 .01 .923 �.965 67 .338Treatment 3.41 1.480

Awareness of others Control 6.31 1.568 3.55 .064 .238 67 .813Treatment 6.24 1.156

Disciplined imagination Control 4.51 1.652 4.41 .039 �7.161 63.10 .000Treatment 7.03 1.243

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 153

that students in treatment group achieved better mean scores in inquisitiveness and disciplined imagination of the creative perceptiondimensions in WKOPAY? sub-test. Further analyses were carried out using independent samples t-test in order to evaluate their significantdifferences in the mean scores between the two groups. The results in Table 4 demonstrate significant differences in the mean scores be-tween control and treatment groups for creative perception dimensions such as acceptance of authority, self-confidence, and disciplinedimagination.

As a conclusion, WKOPAY? sub-test verified that students whom had developed computer games with appreciative learning approachas the pedagogical strategy, did not perceive themselves as working best in environment with authority dominance. Besides that, appre-ciative learning approach seemed to lower students’ self-confidence, which was much opposite with what being expected by the research-ers. However, appreciative learning approach did significantly help increased students’ disciplined imagination.

5.1.3. Creative Perception Index (CPI)Table 5 shows that students from control group exhibited higher CPI mean score with the value of 44.34 as compared to the value of

41.03 generated by treatment group before computer games development activity. Yet, when independent samples t-test for equality ofmeans was carried out at .05 level of significance, the results in Table 5 indicate no significant differences occurred between controland treatment groups. However, after weeks of going through computer games development activity with appreciate learning approach,students in treatment group gained a mean score of 71.82, which was significantly much higher than the control group that only gained amean score of 50.49 (Table 5). Therefore, as an overall conclusion, students in appreciative learning approach group gained better creativeperception in computer games development activity as compared to students in control group.

5.2. Were there any significant differences in students’ creative perception before and after going through computer games development for bothappreciative learning approach group and control group?

5.2.1. SAM (Something About Myself) sub-testStatistical analyses were carried out to compare the mean scores of SAM sub-test and the creative perception dimensions within it for

situations before and after computer games development activity. Generally, it was found that in control group, all mean scores for SAMand its’ creative perception dimensions after computer games development activity were much higher than before as indicated by thepaired differences means in Table 6. The initial statistical analyses for control group were complemented with paired samples t-test in or-der to evaluate its significant differences. The results generated in Table 6 highlight significant differences in the mean scores of SAM andall its’ dimensions except for initiative dimension between before and after the process of developing computer games. Therefore, it wouldnot be rationale to state that students in control group did not gain any benefits from computer games development activity.

Meanwhile, Table 7 reveals the statistical analyses for treatment group. As expected, the mean scores of SAM and all the creative per-ception dimensions within it were much higher than before. Further analyses were done using paired sample t-test. The results in Table 7supported the initial findings. All were significantly different at .05 level of significance. Therefore, students’ self-report on creative percep-tion within the SAM sub-test exhibited significant differences in the mean scores between before and after going through computer gamesdevelopment activity, in both treatment and control groups.

Table 5t-Test analyses on the mean scores of CPI before and after computer games development activity.

Group Mean SD Levene’s test for equality of variances t-Test for equality of means

F Sig. t df Sig.

Before Control 44.34 7.933 10.867 .000 1.401 58.86 .166Treatment 41.03 11.358

After Control 50.49 9.373 13.88 .000 �12.08 49.53 .000Treatment 71.82 4.556

Table 6Paired samples t-test analyses on SAM, WKOPAY? and CPI for control group before and after computer games development activity.

Paired differences t-Test for equality of means

Mean SD t df Sig.

SAM 5.857 6.459 5.365 34 .000Environmental sensitivity .743 1.578 2.785 34 .009Initiative .229 2.001 .676 34 .504Self-strength 1.714 2.652 3.824 34 .001Intellectuality 1.343 2.722 2.919 34 .006Individuality .657 1.454 2.674 34 .011Artistry .629 1.262 2.946 34 .006

WKOPAY? .286 5.859 .228 34 .775Acceptance of authority .857 1.801 2.816 34 .008Self-confidence .886 2.111 2.482 34 .018Inquisitiveness .600 1.943 1.827 34 .077Awareness of others .543 1.945 1.651 34 .108Disciplined imagination .914 1.884 2.870 34 .007

CPI 6.143 9.726 3.737 34 .001

Table 7Paired samples t-test analyses on SAM, WKOPAY? and CPI for treatment group before and after computer games development activity.

Paired differences t-Test for equality of means

Mean SD t df Sig.

SAM 14.618 5.898 14.451 33 .000Environmental sensitivity 1.676 1.451 6.739 33 .000Initiative 1.471 2.019 4.248 33 .000Self-strength 4.265 1.880 13.228 33 .000Intellectuality 2.588 2.271 6.645 33 .000Individuality 1.529 1.562 5.711 33 .000Artistry .794 1.789 2.589 33 .014

WKOPAY? 16.176 9.360 10.078 33 .000Acceptance of authority �3.824 2.139 �10.425 33 .000Self-confidence �1.029 2.007 �2.990 33 .005Inquisitiveness .265 1.582 .975 33 .336Awareness of others �.118 2.027 �.339 33 .737Disciplined imagination 3.147 2.476 7.412 33 .000

CPI 30.794 10.764 16.681 33 .000

154 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

5.2.2. WKOPAY? (What Kind Of Person Are You?) sub-testTable 6 indicate that students in control group gained higher mean scores for WKOPAY? sub-test and all its’ creative perception dimen-

sions after computer games development activity. However, when paired samples t-test analyses were conducted on the data, results inTable 6 indicates no significant different in the mean scores of WKOPAY? sub-test. Non-significant differences were also found in thedimensions of inquisitiveness and awareness of others. However, the dimensions of self-confidence, acceptance of authority, and disci-plined imagination in control group recorded significantly higher mean scores (Table 6).

Meanwhile, although Table 7 is showing students in treatment group as gaining increased mean score in the overall WKOPAY? sub-test,there were some decreased mean scores in acceptance of authority, self-confidence and awareness of others dimensions, after goingthrough computer games development activity complemented with appreciative learning approach. A slightly increased mean score re-corded in inquisitiveness dimension while a larger increased value was detected in disciplined imagination dimension. Further analysesusing paired samples t-test results in Table 7 show significant differences in the mean scores were traced in the overall of WKOPAY?sub-test, acceptance of authority, self-confidence and disciplined imagination dimensions.

As a summary, students’ self-report on creative perception within the WKOPAY? sub-test exhibited significant differences in the meanscores for situations before and after going through computer games development in treatment group, but not control group. Although nosignificant gained in the mean score recorded for WKOPAY? sub-test, yet students in control group still experienced higher mean scores inacceptance of authority, self-confidence, and disciplined imagination dimensions.

5.2.3. Creative Perception Index (CPI)Table 6 indicates an increased of 6.14 scores for CPI in control group after the computer games development activity. The increment was

tested to be significantly different at .05 level of significance. As for the treatment group, a much higher increment was recorded with 30.79scores difference (Table 7) compared to situation before computer games development activity was carried out. The difference was abso-lute significant as indicated in Table 7. As a conclusion, students’ self-report on creative perception based on KTCPI which consisted of SAMand WKOPAY? sub-tests illustrated significant differences in the mean scores for situations before and after going through computer gamesdevelopment, in both control and treatment groups.

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 155

6. Discussion

6.1. Creative Perception Index (CPI)

As a conclusive result, students from appreciative learning approach group (treatment) exhibited a significantly higher Creative Percep-tion Index (CPI) compared to the control group. The significantly higher index achieved by the treatment group might due to the learningenvironment created by facilitator which focused on friendly, supportive and unthreatened guided autonomy atmosphere in order for stu-dents to progress with more self-fulfilling. In that case, students would be able to look forward learning new things and having fun by doingso at the same time. Bencze (2007) pointed out that students could not change their perception and ways of thinking if they were lack inunderstanding of knowledge, skills and resources availabilities. In appreciative learning approach, facilitator tried to make students amendthe way they perceived themselves by enlightened them on the subject of knowledge, skills, and resources associated with computergames through group conversation during discover and destiny stages. This was done with the rationale for students to see things at biggerperspectives; act creatively in their world of computer games; and increase their creative perception when immersed themselves withcomputer games development.

Students often not aware of what they know and their potential (Bencze, 2007). The 4Ds. stages in appreciative learning approach mighthave encouraged students to express themselves and aware of what, why and how they did things in certain ways. Therefore, by goingthrough the appreciative learning approach, students became more aware of themselves and gradually they generated a higher creativeperception through computer games development. Appreciative learning approach applied in treatment group focused on the best partof the students in order for them to realize their real potential and facilitator did not belittle the students on the actions taken. In fact,facilitator gave students due acknowledgements with as much positive statements as possible during all the 4Ds. stages in appreciativelearning approach. Therefore, appreciative learning approach may be one of the ways in breaking mental blocks among students whichdescribed by Vidal (2005) as caused by family environment and educational systems.

Children are thinkers. However, nurturing children into thinking creatively or even having a better creative perception about them-selves needs to take account of what interest them. Just because children are able to do something does not mean that they would doit. Computer games development seemed to be able to attract students to engage themselves actively into learning new skills and knowl-edge. Although control group applied module-based learning and followed by do-it-yourself (DIY) session, that did not mean studentswould not benefited from the activity being carried out. In fact, students in control group exhibited a significant gained of 6.14 scores high-er than the pre-test mean score. Students in the study were chosen based on their involvement with computer games for at least during thelast 2 years. Therefore, as computer games were the interest for the samples of the study, students naturally worked on their own interestduring the study. Somehow, in treatment group, students had the advantage of building better bond with the facilitator and friendsthrough conversation group, praises, and encouragement throughout the process. These made them perceived better of themselves interms of creativity as a person compared to students from control group.

Students are having the strength of quickly master, use and apply technology ability, and fearlessness to try out new things as describedby Prensky (2007). Besides that, as computer games corresponded with the young generation’s habits and interests (Eow & Roselan, 2008;Henderson, 2005; Oblinger, 2006; Samsuddin & Latiffah, 2003), indirectly this could increase students’ creative perception after goingthrough computer games development activity, regardless of the pedagogical strategy being used. However, based on the research findings,different pedagogical strategy did produced different level of increment in creative perception index. Therefore, it will not be rationale tostate that students in control group did not gain any benefits from computer games development activity. The more appropriate statementwould be that, students in control group did achieve a higher creative perception after going through computer games development but notas much as students in treatment group did. In that case, what had been argued by Kiili (2005) that the use of technology alone does notmotivate nor enhance students’ creativity whom have been living in the midst of technology all their lives, was not totally true. The use oftechnology alone did help motivate and enhance students’ creative perception but not as much as when it was complemented with suitablepedagogical strategy, such as appreciative learning approach.

Meanwhile, from the constructivist point of view (Pivec, 2007), students in both treatment and control groups were being engaged asactive learners but with different learning approach. Students were actively participated in knowledge and skills acquisition. The differencewas that students in appreciative learning approach were guided with a more organized stages of pedagogical strategy, which consisted ofdiscovery, dream, design, and destiny stages. Although students in control group did produce new product, yet these students did not expe-rience constant encouragement and recognition from facilitator in order for them to put more initiatives in bringing changes in the gamesthey were developing. Most of the time, they were left by their own, assisted by the game module. The significantly higher CPI mean scoreachieved by students in treatment group could also meaningfully supported by the qualitative data consisted of photos and videos cap-tured during discovery and destiny stages. Students in treatment group were seen sharing information and enjoying the light moment withtheir friends and facilitator during discovery and destiny stages (Figs. 3 and 4). Therefore, learning is an active process that continuallyopens for modification due to human intervention and interaction.

On the other hand, from the view of appreciative inquiry theorist, the application of appreciative learning approach in classroom is ex-pected to strengthen students’ capacity to capture, anticipate, and heighten positive potential (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Since theappreciative learning approach gives way to imagination and innovation, students tended to perceive themselves of having higher self-strength at the end of the day. For example, the last stage of appreciative learning approach required students to determine their future des-tiny with the newfound knowledge and skills in Game Maker helped students to imagine positive future outcomes. The positive images ofoneself and the world could challenge a person to inspire action and innovation (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). These positive future out-comes as imagined by students could have countered their initial negative images, beliefs, and expectations about themselves. For instance,during discover stage, facilitator tried to make students aware that playing computer games was not a bad thing to do as used to perceive byothers and at the same time, it was not the only way to seek adventure since developing computer games could offer them a new adventure.These explained why students with appreciative learning approach tended to have better creative perception about themselves.

Nevertheless, the higher creative perception index for both control and treatment groups as compared to before the study was donecaused some concerns to researchers, as these indexes are intangible. The impressive pre-to-post-test gains do not necessarily indicate that

Fig. 3. Students enjoying the light moment during conversation group in discover stage.

Fig. 4. Students listened to their friend’s views attentively. However, hearing their friend’s voice was not enough for these students. They made efforts by leaning in front toget their friend’s expression as well when he was sharing out his experiences and views related with computer games.

156 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

students will attain the same mean scores of CPI in a few months later of their life. Therefore, instead of making it as one time activity,computer games development can be promoted as one of the co-curriculum activity throughout the year. It will help sustain the impressivepre-to-post-test gains. In addition, researchers are fully aware of the time, resources, and content constraints faced by teachers in the class-room environment. Most programs are normally delivered and then forgotten (Sindre, Line, & Valvag, 2003), but in computer games devel-opment activity, students expressed their desire to learn in-depth about games development in order to produce more exciting andinteresting computer games, as transcribed from the students’ inspiration during destiny stage. Therefore, computer games developmentis an activity that can motivate students to continuously work on and improve skills that corresponded with their interest.

6.2. Something About Myself (SAM)

The SAM sub-test findings are further discussed in detail according to its dimensions as followed:

6.2.1. Environmental sensitivityThere was no significant difference in environmental sensitivity dimension between the treatment and control groups after experimen-

tal study was carried out. Both groups gained significantly higher mean scores in environmental sensitivity dimension as compared to be-fore. The significantly higher mean scores in environmental sensitivity dimension indicated that through computer games developmentregardless of pedagogical strategy being used, students became more open to ideas of others; able to relate ideas with what can be seen,touched, or heard; interested in beautiful and humorous aspects of experience; and sensitive to meaningful relations (Khatena & Torrance,1998).

Students from both groups were actively participated in knowledge and skills acquisition. The difference was that students in appre-ciative learning approach were guided with a more organized stages of learning approach that consisted of discovery, dream, designand destiny stages. The non-significant higher mean score of 4.71 gained by treatment group as compared to the mean score of 4.14 gained

Fig. 5. Students sharing their knowledge and skills with friends.

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 157

by control group could be meaningfully explained by the qualitative data consisted of photos and videos captured during discovery anddestiny stages. Most students in treatment group were seen sharing information and enjoying the light moment with their friends andfacilitator during discovery and destiny stages (Figs. 3–5). These could be the evidences in proving students of being more sensitive tomeaningful relations either between human or between their own experiences with computer games.

6.2.2. InitiativeInitiative dimension as described by Khatena and Torrance (1998) is about tendency of students in directing and/or playing leads in

plays; producing new formulas or new products; and bringing change in rules or ways things were done. Students from treatment groupgained a significantly higher initiative dimension compared to students from control group. The significantly higher mean score in initia-tive dimension could be associated with the fact that learning is a constructive process where students constructed personal interpretationof experience combined with knowledge and skills learnt in order to bring changes to what was being presented in front of them (Pivec,2007). Stringer (2008) added that by sharing each other perspectives, it could help formulating more productive understandings of a sit-uation. Therefore, students in appreciative learning approach group were initiated to produce games with more differences compared tocontrol group, whom had not experience constant encouragement and recognition from facilitator or friends.

6.2.3. Self-strengthTreatment group exhibited a significant higher mean score of 7.97 in self-strength dimension compared to control group that only

showed a mean score of 5.71. Therefore, students whom developed computer games within appreciative learning approach environmenttended to find ways doing something different; risk taking; desired to do better; and perceived to be talented in many ways (Khatena &Torrance, 1998). However, both groups presented significant pre-to-post-tests gains. This means that computer games development helpedstudents to achieve better self-strength but the level of achievement in this dimension was additional enhanced by certain learning ap-proach being used.

As stated by Cooperrider and Whitney (2005), the application of appreciative learning approach in classroom is expected to strengthenstudents’ capacity to capture, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. Since the appreciative learning approach gives way to imagina-tion and innovation (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005), students tended to perceive themselves of having higher self-strength at the end of theday. The higher self-strength could also contributed by the shifted of perception and effectiveness by focusing on what is possible (Fitz-gerald, Murrell, & Miller, 2003) among students in treatment group. The last stage of appreciative learning approach, which required stu-dents to determine their future destiny with the knowledge and skills in Game Maker, helped students to imagine positive futureoutcomes. These positive future outcomes as imagined by students could have countered their initial negative images, beliefs, and expec-tations about themselves.

6.2.4. IntellectualityThere was a significant difference in intellectuality dimension between the treatment and control groups after the study was conducted.

The increased mean scores for treatment and control groups were 2.59 and 1.34, respectively. This clearly showed that students withappreciative learning approach gained a much higher intellectuality increment compared to control group. Therefore, appreciative learningapproach could help initiate intellectual curiosity among students. Besides that, it made students enjoyed challenging tasks when theirefforts earned respected recognition from friends and facilitator; guided students to construct their dream games; and encouraged studentsdoing things in their preferred ways at design stage (Fig. 6). Lastly but not least, destiny stage guided students to envision their destiny withtheir newfound knowledge and skills in Game Maker. As a result, appreciative learning approach enhanced students’ intellectuality to anoptimal degree.

6.2.5. IndividualityThe significantly higher mean score in individuality dimension exhibited by treatment group indicated that students preferred working

by oneself rather in a group. Aside from that, students expressed their capabilities to work long periods without getting tired and willing-

Fig. 6. Student designing his own computer game in his preferred ways at design stage without much interference from facilitator.

158 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

ness in completing the project on their own interest. Although students in treatment group tended to think for individual interest, yet atthe same time they were most willing in helping their friends to improve (Fig. 5). Qualitative data such as visual captures gave the bestevidences to the quantitative data related to students’ individuality generated in treatment group.

Nevertheless, students in control group were working on the same direction too, as the pre-to-post-tests results showed significantincrement in the mean scores. The possible justification for the findings might due to students in the study whom were chosen basedon their involvement with computer games for at least the last 2 years and are still actively playing it. Therefore, as computer gamesare the interest of the sample for the study, students in control group naturally worked on their own interest during the study for longduration without getting tired and completing the project on own interests.

6.2.6. ArtistryThere was a significant gained of .629 scores for control group and .794 scores for treatment group in artistry dimension. As described by

the constructivist theorists, human subjects are the constructors of their own knowledge and skills (Juniu, 2006). Computer games devel-opment was an opportunity for students to produce a product that they could take the ownership of it. It implied that students in bothgroups became more aware of their artistry dimension after going through computer games development, as they produced similar prod-ucts at the end of the study.

6.3. What Kind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY?)

As for the other sub-test of creative perception, What Kind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY?), the discussion for each dimension is asfollowed:

6.3.1. Acceptance of authorityThere was a significant decreased in the mean score of acceptance of authority dimension among students in treatment group after the

study was conducted. The significant decreased in acceptance of authority indicated that appreciative learning approach encouraged stu-dents to be more creative and being less obedient by not following the game module blindly. Sometimes, being less obedient can be veryuseful in students’ life development. It helped students in expressing their creativity without restricted by any boundary. In treatmentgroup, students were being guided in the manner that made them felt they were the one in charge of their own learning and be proudof it. They solved their problems by their own efforts and facilitator gave them the due recognition of what the students had producedthrough praises. Meanwhile, when students found some interesting effects, they tended to share their findings with friends (Fig. 5). Thiscould help students being less dependent on facilitator. It also enhanced students’ self-esteem when they felt being more advanced in theirexploration with Game Maker.

6.3.2. Self-confidenceBased on findings in Table 7, appreciative learning approach seemed to have lowered students’ self-confidence. On the other hand, stu-

dents in control group had a significant increase of self-confidence after going through the activity (Table 6). These contradicted with theresearchers’ expectation. Researchers had never anticipated that students in treatment group would became less confidence of themselvesafter going through computer games development activity with appreciative learning approach.

However, qualitative data through students’ transcribed interviews suggested that the decreased self-confidence generated in the quan-titative data could due to the difficulties faced by students while developing the games they desired, playable, logical, and in balanced se-quence. Computer games that were developed with the elements of challenges, curiosity and competition (Saulter, 2007) could furthermade students became more aware of their weaknesses. For example, during the dream stage, students were encouraged to dream ofthe games they desired to develop. However, through the interviews transcribed, students highlighted that they realized there were alot more knowledge and skills in Game Maker that they had yet to learn in order to design their dream games, which are with more chal-lenging features. This prevented them to proceed as they wished. Therefore, in this case, the lack of knowledge and skill could lead studentsinto having lower self-confidence.

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 159

Meanwhile, during the destiny stage, students were encouraged to think, talk, and write down about their future desires or destiniesrelated with computer games. These students noted down some wonderful destinies. However, with their limited knowledge and skillsin Game Maker, again it lowered their self-confidence. On the other hand, when students were not encouraged to think about their futuredestinies like what happened in control group or dream about games they desired to develop, they tended to have more self-confidence.Students seemed to be more satisfied or gratified with their current limited knowledge and skills, when they did not need to think of theirfuture destiny. Therefore, in this case, having a lower self-confidence may not be a bad thing as at the same time students were initiated toseek more knowledge and skills.

A number of students being interviewed expressed their desires to learn more about Game Maker or other more sophisticated softwarein future. Juniu (2006) pointed out that from the perspective of constructivist theories, knowledge constructed by human are tentative andincomplete as it will keep shifting and expanding. Therefore, the decreased self-confidence generated among students with appreciativelearning approach was reasonable, as it helps initiate students to acquire more skills and knowledge that they perceived lacked in.

6.3.3. InquisitivenessInquisitiveness relates to asking a lot of questions; feeling strong emotions; talking a lot; demanding recognition and insisting on rights;

and being obedient (Khatena & Torrance, 1998). During computer games development, visual captures showed most of the time; studentsin both groups were working on their own with the help of the game module. Students were treated more like independent learners. Inappreciative learning approach group, students themselves did not demand for recognition of their work. It was in fact the facilitator’s ef-fort in giving recognition in term of positive statements and praises on the students’ work done. These explained why it did not help in-creased students’ inquisitiveness in both groups.

6.3.4. Awareness of othersAwareness of others relates to being more respectful and polite; popular or well-liked and caring; getting along well with others; and

preferring to work in group (Khatena & Torrance, 1998). Computer games development activity regardless of pedagogical strategy did nothelp students perceived themselves as being more aware of others. Students were seen more comfortably working on their own throughqualitative evidences (Fig. 7). Computer games are in fact a very interpersonal activity.

6.3.5. Disciplined imaginationStudents in treatment group achieved a significantly higher disciplined imagination dimension compared to the control group. Dis-

ciplined imagination relates to being full of energy, imaginative and never bored, trying difficult tasks, preferring tasks that are chal-lenging; not giving up easily; finishing the task at hand; working hard; and seeking adventure (Khatena & Torrance, 1998). Theimpressive increment of students’ disciplined imagination in treatment group indicated that students had successfully created theirown games not only because of their high interest toward computer games but also complemented by the pedagogical strategy. Inappreciative learning approach practices, facilitator created a more organized learning environment through the 4Ds (discover, dream,design, destiny) stages.

Students are not view as lack of ideas from the perspective of constructivist theories (Bencze, 2007). They might be lack of skills andopportunities to think about their own ideas and turning ideas into construct. Therefore, educators need to put more efforts in providingopportunities for students to dream, think, and construct their ideas. Students’ products in term of computer games produced provedtheir efforts and hard work. Students’ destiny related to computer games in written paper also indicated that they were quite imagina-tive and would like to try some difficult tasks in future. In the meantime, visual captures showed students were very engaged with whatthey were doing and at certain times, they did not even bother about their surroundings. Students spent a long period in exploring GameMaker during discover stage and yet they quoted that it was fun and never bored with their exploration. All these evidences supportedthe quantitative finding of the very high significant differences in discipline imagination dimension between treatment and controlgroups.

Fig. 7. Students working on their own.

160 Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161

7. Limitations

Several limitations of this study are important to note. First, the insufficient and unequal number of male and female students in bothcontrol and treatment groups does not allow comparison between genders. For future research, it is recommended to measure a broaderset by controlling the number of male and female in order to be in even number before the research is carried out. Secondly, the researchwas quite a short term (4 weeks or 16 hours of interaction). A longitudinal design would be useful in assessing the cumulative effects ofdifferent pedagogical strategy on the change of students’ outcomes over time. Thirdly, the study was relied on students’ self-reported mea-sures as a primary source of data. Researchers acknowledge the disadvantages of depending mainly on psychometric instrument for theinformation on students’ creative perception.

8. Conclusion

As a conclusion, computer games development complemented with appreciative learning approach provide great opportunity inenhancing students’ creative perception. Nevertheless, the findings also affirmed that students’ creative perception could be enhancedthrough different pedagogical strategies but with different level of cultivation. With these positive findings, researchers are please to rec-ommend computer games development as a valuable tool and appreciative learning approach as a new pedagogical strategy to try out ineducational settings, specifically in enhancing students’ creative perception. Although this study has added to the growing literature onstudents’ creative perception, computer technology, and pedagogical strategy, caution is warranted, as this article is only part of the actionresearch being carried out in applying appreciative learning approach as a pedagogical strategy in computer games development class. Fu-ture researchers are suggested to investigate the effects of appreciative learning approach on other creativity aspects such as products pro-duced and creative process experienced by students during the learning process; and trying out on different educational settings.

References

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.Azadegan, A., Bush, D., & Dooley, K. J. (2008). Design creativity: Static or dynamic capability? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(7), 636–662.Becker, K. (2007). Digital games once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478–488.Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29(4), 265–270.Bencze, J. L. (2007). Constructivist learning theory. University of Toronto. <http://leo.oise.utoronto.co/~lbencze?Constructivism.html> Retrieved 18.08.07.Bernama, (2007a). Abdullah wants schools to create mentally strong students. 17 January 2007. <http://www.moe.gov.my> Retrieved 28.07.07.Bernama, (2007b). New education blueprint aims to take national schools to greater heights. 17 January 2007. <http://www.moe.gov.my> Retrieved 28.07.07.Birdi, K. S. (2005). No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(2), 102–112.Cagiltay, N. E. (2007). Teaching software engineering by means of computer-game development: Challenges and opportunities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3),

405–415.Carson, D. K., & Becker, K. W. (2003). Creativity in psychotherapy: Reaching new heights with individuals, couples, and families. New York: Haworth Press.Chua, Y. P. (2002). Corak pembelajaran dan pemikiran, keupayaan kreatif pelajar, dan cara penilaian guru pendidikan seni ke atas hasil kerja pelajar. Paper presented at the seminar

Kebangsaan Profesion Perguruan JPPG 2002., Alor Setar, Kedah. <http://www.mpbl.edu.my/inter/penyelidikan/seminarpapers/2003/chuaMPIKkk.pdf> Retrieved 29.02.08.Claxton, G., Edwards, L., & Scale-Constantinou, V. (2006). Cultivating creative mentalities: A framework for education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 57–61.Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Doveston, M., & Keenaghan, M. (2006). Growing talent for inclusion: Using an appreciative inquiry approach into investigating classroom dynamics. Journal of Research in

Special Education Needs, 6(3), 153–165.Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third generation educational use of computer games. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263–281.Eow, Y. L., & Roselan, B. B. (2008). An exploratory study on the reasons and preferences of six Malaysian students on the video games played. Journal of Environmental and

Science Education, 3(1), 19–25.Fitzgerald, S. P., Murrell, K. L., & Miller, M. G. (2003). Appreciative inquiry: Accentuating the positive. Business Strategy Review, 14(1), 5–7.Frand, J. (2000). The information age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. Educause Review, 35(5), 15–24.Fried, R. L. (2005). The game of school: Why we all play it, how it harts kids, and what it will take to change it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Funk, J. B., Buchman, D. D., Jenks, J., & Bechtoldt, H. (2003). Playing violent video games, desensitization, and moral evaluation in children. Applied Development Psychology,

24(2003), 413–436.Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.Habgood, J., & Overmars, M. (2006). The Game Maker’s apprentice. Game development for beginners. Berkeley, CA: APress.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Henderson, L. (2005). Video games: A significant cognitive artifact of contemporary youth culture. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play.

<http://www.diagra.org/dl/db/06276.11341.pdf> Retrieved 14.06.07.Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455–464.Ip, B., Capey, M., Baker, A., & Carroll, J. (2009). Evaluating coursework in computer games degrees: Students and assessors as virtual characters. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 25(1), 80–100.Johnson, L., & Lamb, A. (2007). Critical and creative thinking – Bloom’s taxanomy. Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. <http://

eduscapes.com/tap/topic69.htm> Retrieved 12.11.07.Juniu, S. (2006). Use of technology for constructivist learning in a performance assessment class. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(1), 67–79.Kearney, P., & Skelton, S. (2003). Teaching technology to playstation generation. Paper presented at the proceedings of 16th annual NACCQ, Palmerston North, New Zealand, July

2003.Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Khatena, J. (1977). The Khatena-torrance creative perception inventory for identification diagnosis facilitation and research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21(4), 517–525.Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1998). Khatena torrance creative perception inventory – instruction manual. Bensenville, IL, USA: Scholastic Testing Service.Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2005), 13–24.Killi, K. (2005). Content creation challenges and flow experience in educational games: The IT-Emperor case. Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 183–198.Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning. Report 8. Bristol, England: FutureLab. <http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm>

Retrieved 26.07.07.Kostova, E. (2007). The myth of creative writing: Can it be ‘‘taught”? <http://liternet.bg/publish21/e_kostova/mityt_en.htm> Retrieved 1.07.09.Lebrun, M. (2007). Quality towards an expected harmony: Pedagogy and technology speaking together about innovation. AACE Journal, 15(2), 115–130.Limkokwing University of Creative Technology. (2007). Bachelor of science (Hons) in games technology. <http://www.limkokwing.edu.my/v6/academic/ict_games.asp>

Retrieved 28.12.07.Makel, M. C. (2009). Help us creativity researchers, you’re our only hope. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 38–42.Millar, G. W. (1997). The creativity man: E. Paul Torrance. NJ: Ablex Publishing.Niederhauser, D. S., & Lindstrom, D. L. (2006). Addressing the nets for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 34(1), 91–128.

Y.L. Eow et al. / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 146–161 161

Northcott, B., Miliszewska, I., & Dakich, E. (2007). ICT For (I)nspiring (C)reative (T)hinking. In Paper presented at ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning, Singapore (761–769).

Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Games and learning: Digital games have the potential to bring play back to the learning experience. Educause Quarterly Number, 3(2006), 5–7.Ogletree, S. M., & Drake, R. (2007). College students’ video game participation and perceptions: Gender differences and implications. Sex Roles, 56(7–8), 537–542.Petrowski, M. J. (2000). Creativity research: Implications for teaching, learning and thinking. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 304–312.Pivec, M. (2007). Play and learn: Potential of game-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 387–393.Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Prensky, M. (2007). Emerging technologies for learning (Vol. 2). British Education Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). <http://www.becta.org.uk> Retrieved

10.11.07.Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. CA, USA: Sage Publication, Inc..Ramli, M., & Abu, A. (2006). Malaysian transition toward a knowledge-based economy. The Journal of Technology Study, 51–61. <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v2030/

v2030n2003/pdf/mustapha.pdf> Retrieved 5.04.08.Ray, W. S. (1969). The experimental psychology of original thinking. New York: The MacMillan Company.Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity. Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2), 45–62.Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 301–310.Rosas, R., Nussbaumb, M., Cumsillea, P., Marianovb, V., Correaa, M., Floresa, P., et al. (2003). Beyond nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first and

second grade students. Computers and Education, 40, 71–94.Roussou, M. (2004). Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for children. Computer in Entertainment, 2(1), 10.Runco, M. A. (2003). Creativity, cognition, and their educational implications. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 25–56). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton

Press.Rutledge, A. (2008). On creativity. <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/oncreativity/> Retrieved 1.07.09.Sadre, M., & Brock, L. J. (2008). Systems in conflict: Labeling youth creativity as mental illness. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 19(4), 358–378.Samsuddin, A. R., & Latiffah, P. (2003). The emerging lifestyle of Malaysian youth: Implications of a changing media environment. Paper presented at the WCA03 Conference, July

2003.Sassen, S. (2004). Space and power. In N. Gane (Ed.), The future of social theory (pp. 125–152). London: Continuum.Saulter, J. (2007). Introduction to video game design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Schaefer, S., & Warren, J. (2004). Teaching computer game design and construction. Computer-Aided Design, 36(2004), 1501–1510.Selker, T. (2005). Fostering motivation and creativity for computer users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4–5), 410–421.Simonton, D. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.Sindre, G., Line, S., & Valvag, O. V. (2003). Positive experiences with an open project assignment in an introductory programming course. Paper presented at the Proceeding 25th

international conference on software engineering (ICSE ‘03), Portland, Oregon. Washington, DC: IEEE, Computer Society.Stephens, L. J. (2006). Engineering statistics demystified: A self-teaching guide. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Creativity is a decision. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Teaching for intelligence II (pp. 85–106). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 325.Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Tan, A.-G., & Law, L.-C. (2004). Creativity for teachers. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International.Tighe, E., Picariello, M. L., & Amabile, T. M. (2003). Environmental influences on motivation and creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of

creativity (pp. 199–222). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Titus, P. A. (2007). Applied creativity: The creative marketing breakthrough model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(3), 262–273.Torrance, E. P. (1993). Understanding creativity: Where to start? Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 232–234.Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Sarasota, Florida: Center for Creative Learning.Tymieniecka, A.-T. (1988). Logos and life: Creative experience and the critique of reason. Kluwer Academic Publishers.University of Central Lanchashire. (2007). Computer games development and design. <http://www.uclan.ac.uk/courses/ug/subjects/compgamesdesign.htm> Retrieved

28.12.07.University of Luton. (2008). Computer games development BSc Hons. <http://www.beds.ac.uk/courses/bysubject/cominfsys/bsc-comgamdev> Retrieved 3.04.08.University of Worcester. (2009). Computer games & multimedia development BSc(Hons). <http://www.worc.ac.uk/courses/3765.html> Retrieved 1.07.09.Vidal, R. V. V. (2005). Creativity for operational researchers. Investigacao Operacional, 25(2005), 1–24.Vint, L. (2005). Fresh thinking drives creativity innovation. Quick (94), 20–22.Wilson, L. (2003). Breaking into the universe: Computer science is interactive entertainment. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–7.Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of massively-multiuser online graphical environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual

Environments, 15, 309–329.