1. Introduction
The nurturing of students’ civic competencies and creativity has been promoted globally and has been recognised as a key to prosperity in the 21st century [1]. There is no exception in Taiwan, where moral praxis, citizenship, creativity, and innovation have been prioritised as the main axes in Taiwan’s new curriculum guidelines [2]. To function well in the rapidly changing society and create a harmonious environment, it is beneficial for students to foster their civic competencies and creativity [3]. The so-called “civic competencies” refers to the awareness, abilities, and attitudes a person should possess to adapt to civic life, face the future world, and strive for the common good in society [4]. For senior high school students, they should possess civic awareness and social responsibility and critically reflect and discuss public topics; to face various social issues and new situations in the world, students must keep self-reflecting and critique and adopt a creative attitude so that they can bring innovation to society [5]. Furthermore, creativity can be regarded as a catalyst for civic engagement, as it can help students express themselves and come up with solutions to face complicated social issues in an innovative way [6]. Accordingly, citizenship and creativity are two pillars of core competency that should be embedded in every subject in the recent curriculum guideline for basic education [5,7,8].
The development of civic competencies is influenced by family, schools, and neighbourhood institutions; however, the main concern is how to foster students’ civic competencies effectively [9]. In schools, a shared-living community is an embryonic space for students to develop democratic habits, including civic knowledge and behaviours, which will be applied to civic life outside schools [10]. The cultivation of civic competencies and the development of citizenship highly depend on teaching methods and learning environments in which teachers play crucial roles in promoting discussion and debates among students [11]. The emphasis of civic education is placed on cultivating students as active and critical citizens by applying civic knowledge in life situations [12]. However, traditional knowledge-focused, narrative, and teacher-centred teaching have always been regarded as the most widely used approach in civic education [13]. It is believed that the traditional approach may be tedious and challenging to trigger students’ intrinsic motivation to acquire civic consciousness and foster civic attitudes and values [2,4]. Furthermore, the traditional teacher-centred approach is difficult to cultivate students’ creativity in civic life.
To tackle the dilemma, researchers have proposed several innovative teaching methods. Among these, game-based learning and gamification have gained momentum these years, as they are considered feasible methods to develop students’ 21st-century skills (e.g., creative thinking and collaboration), stimulate learning motivation, and promote a sense of enjoyment in learning [14,15,16]. Civic games simulate real life, transforming players’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes into practices between peers. The interaction and collaboration in games train and reflect players’ civic competencies, which are later applied in real-world settings [17]). Among various kinds of games, a board game is a potential approach that receives more and more attention, in which academic knowledge can be systematically embedded so that students can acquire learning content from joyful activities. Board games refer to playing by moving game pieces in particular ways on special boards, such as traditional chess games and the classic “Monopoly” game [18]. Although board games are regarded as a useful method in the civic education of children, youth, and adults, their educational values and effects are seldom researched in the field [19]. Moreover, to provide a deep learning experience, cultivate students’ higher-order thinking, especially creative thinking, and extend the affordance of educational board games, we proposed that students should not only play previously made board games but also create their own board games embedded with civic knowledge. By participating in the constructivist learning project, students can have an in-depth impression of learning content, reflect on their own assumptions about social issues, and train their creative thinking [17,20]. Accordingly, with an aim to cultivate students’ civic competencies and creative thinking in civic education, this study integrated game-based learning (board games) into civic education and then investigated its impact, in which students self-developed new board games in groups and played the games developed by other groups. The study has great potential to make significant contributions to the field in terms of theoretical knowledge and practical implications.
1.1. Civic Competencies
-
Civic education is one of the core subjects in the 21st century, in which students not only master knowledge about the function of society and government but also foster their competencies to effectively participate in civic life, exercise the rights and obligations of citizenship, and understand how civic decisions impact local and global society [1]. Civic competence is a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that enable a person to perform real-world tasks such as active civic engagement, including skills of communication, problem-solving, critical and creative reflection, decision-making, responsibility, respect for other values, including awareness of diversity and the attitudes and values of solidarity, human rights, equality, and democracy [21]. Civic competencies are not just about knowledge and skills but also include attitudes and values to adapt to the rapidly changing and multicultural world and face future challenges. The development of various digital tools and media broadens the ways to participate in social events and transforms practices of civic participation. Shah et al. [22] indicated that media use and interpersonal communication are cores of civic competencies, as the media have become a primary way to disseminate public affairs. Nowadays, digital tools allow youths to produce, disseminate, and express civic knowledge through social media [23]. Critical utilisation and consumption of media content and information regarding social events and discussion of public affairs and politics at home and school are showcases for civic competencies. The European Commission [21] indicated that civic competence is a key to lifelong learning. To become a responsible citizen and fully participate in social life, students must possess knowledge of society and culture, an understanding of the role of media in democratic societies, the ability to access and critique various forms of media, attitudes to respect for human rights, responsibility to promote the common good in society and environments, and willingness to participate democratic decision making [21]. Civic competencies can be regarded as a foundation for students to function well and actively participate in society.
-
There is no exception in Taiwan, where “social participation”, “communication and interaction”, and “spontaneity” are three core dimensions to becoming a lifelong learner and global citizen in the new Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education [5]. One of the four primary curriculum goals is to inculcate students’ civic responsibility and awareness, which should be achieved by equipping every student with several core competencies, including “planning, execution, innovation, and adaptation”, “cultural and global understanding”, “moral praxis and citizenship”, and “aesthetic, information and media literacies”. All these dimensions echoed the components of civic competencies. Technology has significantly transformed public spheres and youth civic expression and action in various innovative ways in new contexts, including online, offline, and hybrid settings [23]. Although creative thinking is seldom mentioned in prior civic education research, the importance of creativity cannot be neglected, as it helps students solve complicated social problems, participate in society, express their voices through media in creative ways, and show initiative to bring innovation [5].
-
Self-rated questionnaires are the primary method to evaluate students’ civic competence and the outcomes of civic education [12,24,25]. However, these questionnaires primarily focus on democracy literacy, the ability, and attitudes to respect different cultures and participate in civic activities, while neglecting other essential dimensions, such as critical consumption of media information and respect for creative expression from different cultures. Additionally, these questionnaires do not provide scenarios to contextualise questions. The civic competencies should be applied in real-life situations based on various contexts instead of asking a series of questions without considering the cultural backgrounds of the respondents. The connection between students’ knowledge, ability, attitude, and real-life merits much attention during evaluation processes and assessments. To thoroughly investigate various dimensions of civic competency and contextualise the current study, we employed the citizen competency test developed by Chen and Hung [26], which provides various scenarios and corresponding questions to investigate students’ attitudes and behaviours in different situations, and has been conducted among Taiwanese secondary school students, and proved an adequate reliability and validity.
1.2. Game-Based Learning as Scaffolding in Learning
The use of games in educational settings to facilitate students’ learning development has been widely popular in various fields in recent years. Game-based learning is a pedagogical method of using games to engage and motivate students in learning. A substantial body of studies has shown quite positive results for improving students’ achievement in STEM education through mobile game-based learning (see [15] for a systematic review), argumentation skills (such as the comprehension of different perspectives, and the resolution of discrepant opinions) [27], language acquisition [28], students’ learning effectiveness through the use of an augmented-reality board game [29], and in healthcare [30], and nursing education [31]. Although the types of games might vary from one and another, the essence of “playing” has been the crucial force in all types of games used in different studies.
From the Piagetian theory of symbolic play to the Vygotskian sociocultural theory of play, the importance of play in cognitive development has long been acknowledged. For Piaget [32], with play, especially symbolic play, children can obtain and improve their ability to retain and manipulate the mental images of objects independent from the actual context. As this process of play begins, the child’s schema would then be reorganized through assimilation and accommodation. However, despite being influenced by Piaget, Vygotsky’s [33] work primarily focused on the sociocultural influence on children’s cognitive development, and a rather salient gap was found in his antecedent’s theory. Based on the observation of children’s play with others, Vygotsky [33] noticed that when engaging with older or more capable peers, play becomes a leading factor that creates a zone of proximal development (ZPD) for children, enabling them to perform beyond their ability [16]. Play provides a ‘scaffold’ for children to maximize and stretch their cognitive development with companionship (or tutoring) by adults and their peers [29]. Rooted in the concept of ZPD, the term scaffolding is used to describe a more knowledgeable peer or teacher who offers assistance to a less knowledgeable peer. Scaffolding through play could provide a playful space to help learners to reduce learning anxiety [34] and enhance their learning motivation and flow state [29]. In this research, to foster students’ civic competencies and creativity in civic education, we reconceptualised game-based learning that not only focuses on “playing” but also on “designing”. By playing and designing games, students acquire new knowledge and have opportunities to apply it under scaffolding provided by teachers and peers.
1.3. Using Board Games in Civic Education
Although game-based learning has been widely used in various subjects, especially STEM [15,35], there is a dearth of knowledge of how to systematically apply game-based learning in civic education to foster students’ civic competencies. Traditionally, civic education primarily aims to promote knowledge for becoming a citizen; however, in addition to knowledge transmission, civic education should focus on supporting students’ self-efficacy and active participation [36]. Traditional and teacher-centred teaching methods can only fill factual knowledge into students’ brains but hardly foster civic competencies and awareness and build their identities in society [11]. Therefore, besides the gain of knowledge and skills, students’ civic attitudes must be fostered in civic education, paying attention to the combination of learning and life through practice to develop a student as a whole person and an active and critical citizen. Playing well-designed games is a viable approach to help students develop civic competencies, including knowledge, skills, and dispositions, that can then be applied in real-world situations outside the game [37].
Among various games, a board game is one of the promising game styles that can effectively promote students’ academic knowledge, learning motivation, and interpersonal interactions and merits further exploring its effects in various subjects [38]. The existing studies indicated that compared to traditional sit-and-listen learning activities, students prefer communicative and collaborative learning activities [39,40]. Board games offer students many opportunities for communication, interaction, and collaboration, stimulating students’ problem-solving processes, making them actively participate in learning activities, and contributing to creative thinking [41,42]. Khan and Pearce [43] found that students’ flow experience, a premier strength of game-based learning, significantly enhanced when playing board games. Boards games motivated students to learn, immersed them in the activity, and made them enjoy the task. Multi-player board games can be divided into three categories: cooperative, collaborative, and competitive games; among them; collaborative games offer rich opportunities for training collaboration skills in a team, while cooperative and competitive games may allow interaction or negotiation but not necessarily require collaboration as a team [13]. Before conducting educational board games, educators should think of educational goals and select appropriate games to achieve the required goals.
1.4. From Consumers to Creators: From Playing Board Games to Design Board Games
Some competency-oriented approaches, such as project-based, arts-based, and inquiry-based, offer opportunities for students to innovate and collaborate in interdisciplinary projects, allowing students to develop their competencies and creative thinking through practice [21]. To offer many opportunities for students to exercise civic knowledge, we proposed that students not only play a previously made game but also self-develop their games. The systematic combination of playing games and creating games helps students master and use civic knowledge and foster their creative thinking in the field. Teachers can use resources inside and outside the school to conduct teaching activities such as observation, inquiry, and creation. Through these practices, students can exercise their civic knowledge in an authentic setting and train their skills in communication, problem-solving, critical thinking, and innovative response [5,21].
Mostly, students are consumers of board games in related studies. However, besides playing an existing educational board game, students can “self-developed” board games. Educators can offer plenty of time for students to create their own games in groups. Students are not just consumers who passively receive knowledge from educational games; instead, they should become creators who actively utilise civic knowledge and creative thinking to investigate social issues, critically navigate information needed, and create a game relating to essential knowledge of civic education. By participating in constructivist activities, students’ abilities to create, communicate, evaluate, and problem-solving can be trained and displayed in the learning process [20]. To help students apply civic concepts in the real world and provide civic participation experiences, LeCompte et al. [12] designed an inquiry-based civic education in which students had to investigate social problems and proposed solutions to address the problems. The results indicated that students’ civic competencies improved, and their problem-solving, creative reflection, and decision-making abilities were trained. To carry out a project, students must be aware of social issues, use knowledge to investigate problems, propose a creative and helpful solution, and produce an artefact. All the process requires students’ civic competencies and creative thinking. Dishon and Kafai [17] proposed that educators should reconsider the role of video games in civic education, in which game-playing should connect game contexts with real-life civic experiences to render skill and behaviour transfer. In addition, students should have opportunities to participate in game-making activities, which help students reflect on political assumptions, analyse assumptions underlying games, and become aware of values embedded in digital media. Accordingly, to effectively develop and apply civic competencies and creative thinking in the current game-based civic education, the students were required to collaboratively “self-developed” their own board games, which must integrate the essential knowledge of civic education and related issues. Considering students’ technology savvy, creating a digital civic game is a difficult task; thus, the students in the current study were required to develop a physical board game instead of a digital one. The game-developed project created an open atmosphere for students to collaboratively explore social issues and utilise creative thinking and knowledge of civic education to develop innovative ideas. After that, a “playful ground” was created, which offered sufficient space and time to allow the students to (1) play their own games, and (2) play the games developed by other groups in classes [44]. During the extracurricular time, the students were asked to invite their family members and friends to play games together.
1.5. The Framework Establishment: Tri-Phase Game-Based Learning
Considering that designing an educational board game may be a difficult task for students, as it is a new learning task and requires higher-order thinking skills. Providing teacher scaffolding is necessary before starting the game-creating project. Only when students have sufficient prerequisite knowledge and skills and task-specific learning strategies can they guide themselves to conduct an inquiry, exploration, and creation [45]. To empower students, Drain [46] proposed using dual-phase project-based learning, in which teacher-scaffolding lessons are conducted first, and projects/inquiry-based activities are employed sequentially. Before students independently carry out projects or create artefacts, they must explore the context and develop relevant knowledge and skills. In this warmup stage, students may gradually develop rudimentary ideas about their future projects [47]. Once students gain prerequisite skills and background knowledge, they can apply the new knowledge in designing products. Therefore, in the current study, before students made their own board games, three activities were conducted: Six Thinking Hats, Mind Mapping, and Design Thinking Training, in which the educator guided students to discover and think about citizen-related issues, consider real-life issues from various angles, and draft helpful solutions in an innovative way (please referring Section 2).
Taken all together, in this study, we proposed a theoretical framework (see Figure 1) to conceptualize how game-based learning, including playing and designing games, can be implemented to support students’ civic competencies and creative thinking. The triple-phase game-based learning was proposed, including training, designing, and playing phases. In this framework, the learner, player, and designer spaces are opened up by games, which refer to any educational game (in the current study, we use board games). Each space contributes three main advantages of game-based learning: scaffolding, applying, and strengthening. These three spaces would work as a whole to further create a productive environment for developing civic competencies and creative thinking.
In the training phase, students receive teacher scaffolding to acquaint themselves with knowledge of civic education and creative thinking strategies. These prerequisite skills benefit board game designing and playing activities. In the designing phase, students collaboratively explore civic and social issues, view the issues from various angles, and creatively design board games relating to them. In this stage, civic knowledge, skills, attitudes, and creativity were applied throughout the game-designing project. In the playing phase, students played board games designed by other groups. By playing civic games, students review the known civic knowledge and issues or learn new ones in a playful and joyful setting, consolidating their knowledge retention. In this research, game-based learning was developed and delivered according to the framework to cultivate students’ civic competencies and creative thinking.
In this research, we aimed to ask the following research questions:
How to develop the Self-designed Board Games (SdBG) course that can enhance high school students’ citizenship competencies and creativity?
What is the impact of the newly developed SdBG on the students’ creativity?
What is the impact of the newly developed SdBG on the students’ citizenship competencies?
What is the difference in the students’ citizenship competencies and creativity between the experimental and control groups?
2. Method
A quasi-experiment design that involved two classes of grade 11 (age 16–18) students was used in this study. One class was treated as an experimental group (board-game-based learning), while another was a control group (traditional narrative teaching). The civic competency test and the Chinese version of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Chinese TTCT) [48] were used to examine the impact of the experimental teaching. Several statistical analysis methods were utilized throughout the study, including descriptive statistics, paired sample t-test, and independent sample t-test.
2.1. Participants
This study was conducted in a suburban senior high school in northern Taiwan. There were two classes of 11-grade students, with 40 in the experimental class and 40 in the control class. In both classes, there were 22 boys and 18 girls aged 16 to 18 participating in the study. Most of the students’ families are from blue-collar jobs or farming-related industries. In addition to the geographical origin of this county, the class size is diverse in nature, including Minnan, Hakka, aboriginal, and new immigrant children, with Hakka accounting for most of the class size, accounting for about one-half of the class. In addition, the proportion of single-parent families accounts for about a quarter of the class size.
2.2. Course and Students’ Works
2.2.1. Course Design and Delivery
According to the tri-phase game-based learning framework (Figure 1), the teaching plan for the experimental class was developed, consisting of three thematic activities (Table 1). The tri-phase course was conducted from April to June 2017. Each week, there was a total of 100 min civic lessons. In the first phase, teacher scaffolding was provided, introducing social and global issues, creative thinking strategies, and design principles of board games to build students’ fundamental knowledge and skills in later phases, game-designing and playing. To help students have an in-depth understanding of civic issues and stimulate their creative thinking, the course consisted of several learning activities: (a) Six Thinking Hats was used to discover real-world problems and guide them to think of citizen-related issues in different ways, including positive sides, potential risks, feelings, the information needed, and possible solutions. (b) Through Brainstorming, students were encouraged to come up with various creative ideas to solve the problems. (c) Mind mapping was utilized to help the students to think divergently about real-life issues and their related concepts. Mind mapping could help students come up with relevant concepts and issues and include them in their board games. (d) The design thinking approach was used to help the students think from others’ perspectives when designing board games. Before independently designing and making board games, students developed initial ideas about their board games in the seventh and eighth weeks. After determining the themes of the games, each group made a group worksheet presenting themes of board games, relevant issues, and needed game materials. An open atmosphere was offered to allow students to think freely. The teacher served as scaffolding to endeavour and assist each group in clarifying potential bottlenecks and confused civic concepts and providing specific suggestions.
In the second phase, students worked in groups to explore social and global issues and creatively design board games relating to the issues during their summer vacation. The board-game design activity needed time, so it was challenging to implement it in the set course schedule. Thus, the summer vacation was an ideal time for students to freely arrange their design schedule, including issue exploration, data collection, rule development, and material production. Additionally, during the two-month vacation, students had enough free time to think of various global problems that interested them. In the last phase, after completing the board games, students were asked to invite their friends/family members to play their newly developed table games. As well as playing their own games, students played board games developed by other groups and learned different civic concepts and issues from playing games. Guided by the teacher, each group introduced and exchanged games and gave suggestions to each other. As shown in Figure 2, a group of students designed a board game relevant to world trade, in which various commodities from different countries, regulations of the global trading system, and relevant problems of issues were introduced. After that, students reflected on how to improve their board games according to others’ playing experience and then voted for the most entertaining board game. Lastly, the teacher summarised what they learned in the experimental teaching in a debriefing session.
2.2.2. Examples of Students’ Self-Designed Board Games
Here we provide two students’ self-designed board games as examples of the outcome of this course.
The first game (see Figure 2) is called Shamballa. In this game, students are divided into two racial groups and compete for resources based on the rules of another well-known board game, Monopoly. This game explores the concepts of Third-Generation Human Rights, also known as solidarity human rights, taught in civil studies. In this game, students can learn the knowledge about the content of the Third-Generation Human Rights. Moreover, while role-playing in this game, the awareness of diversity and the attitudes and values of solidarity, human rights, equality, and democracy can also be raised [21]. This game can then foster students’ ethical dimension of civic competencies.
Another example is called the Battle of Global Trade (Figure 3). In this game, students are required to use their knowledge of international trade that they learn in the civic studies classes to negotiate for a better deal with other countries. Each student represents a country in which one should be aware of its own economic background and the country’s own strengths and weaknesses. This game is highly interactive and enables students to learn the concepts of global trade. When playing, students can further learn different citizen core competencies in this game, such as ethics competency and democratic competency.
2.3. Research Instruments
2.3.1. The Modern Citizen Core Competency Test (MCCCT)
One of the instruments used by the current study was the “Modern Citizen Core Competency Test (MCCCT),” which was developed by Chen [26]. The test has great measurement properties, which were examined through a multi-directional PCM model with 1561 valid samples of secondary school students. The test includes five face scales, namely, “ethics competency”, “democratic competency”, “scientific competency”, “media competency” and “aesthetic competency”. The questions were designed as judgmental cognitive questions and emotional attitude questions, with a balanced proportion of competency cognitive questions and emotional questions. The reliability and validity of the questions were analyzed with ConQuest Version 2.0. The reliability coefficients of each competency category were 0.825 for ethics competency, 0.858 for democratic competency, 0.882 for scientific competency, 0.867 for media competency, and 0.804 for aesthetic competency. The higher the student’s ability, the higher the level is likely to be, which indicates good reliability.
2.3.2. The Chinese Version of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking
The Chinese TTCT was developed by Wu and his colleagues [48] and contains two parts, the Verbal test, and the Figural test. The Chinese TTCT can be regarded as one of the most used creative thinking tests in Taiwan. The test norm was created for elementary school students from the fourth grade to graduate school, so it fits the target of this study-high school students.
The former was designed to allow students to think about unusual uses of bamboo chopsticks and to describe them clearly and specifically, and the more valid uses written, the better. This part of the test measured three indicators: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The inter-rater reliability was measured by the Kendall Harmony Coefficient, and the inter-rater reliability was 0.96 for fluency, 0.97 for flexibility, and 0.93 for originality.
The latter is the creation of ideas through the Chinese character for “human” (人), which must be part of the drawing and as many as possible within ten minutes. This part of the test measured four indicators: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The inter-rater reliability was measured by the Kendall Harmony Coefficient, and the inter-rater reliability was 0.98 for fluency, 0.97 for flexibility, 0.94 for originality, and 0.79 for elaboration. The reliability and validity of these scores were good.
3. Result
The paired sample t-test and covariance analysis (ANCOVA) were used to test the collected quantitative data. The paired sample t-test was carried out to examine improvements in the students’ creative thinking, learning motivation, and science academic achievement in the experimental and control groups. One-way ANCOVA was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in students’ creative thinking, learning motivation, and academic achievement between the two groups.
3.1. Results of the Modern Citizen Core Competency Test
Among the students who participated in the teaching experiment, there were 40 students in the experimental group and 40 students in the control group. All students were present during the pretest and post-test of the MCCCT, and there were no missing values in the results, so there were no invalid samples.
3.1.1. Differences between the Experiment Group and the Control Group in Pretest
Since this study was a quasi-experimental study with a non-random sample assignment, statistical test controls were used to ensure that the two groups of students had the same starting point before the experimental treatment. To examine whether the starting point behaviour of the two groups was homogeneous, the homogeneity of the variance of the independent sample t-test was used to examine the pretest scores of the two groups, as shown in Table 1. The results show that t = −1.269, the effect size = 0.28, therefore greater than the effect size of 0.2, and the results show that a small effect size was achieved. The p = 0.208 (>0.05), hence the significance level was not achieved, which means that there was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group in their civic core competencies before the teaching experiment with homogeneity. Therefore, it is clear that there was no significant difference between the results of the modern civic core competencies test of the experimental group and the control group, and the starting point of the teaching experiment is the same.
3.1.2. Differences between the Experiment Group and the Control Group in the Posttest
In order to find out whether the citizenship core competencies of the students in the experimental and control groups differed after using different teaching strategies, an independent sample t-test was conducted to test the post-test of the MCCCT scores. The results in Table 2 show that the MCCCT post-test scores t = −6.407, effect size = 1.43, p = 0.000 ***, and therefore are less than the significant level of 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference in citizenship core competencies between the experimental group and the control group after the teaching experiment, and the experimental group’s MCCCT scores did help after receiving the creativity teaching experiment. The experimental group’s performance on the MCCCT did help.
From the pretest and post-test data of the two groups, it was found that the mean score of the post-test of the experimental class 2 was 15.4 points higher than that of the control class 2 after the teaching experiment by independent sample t. This means that there was a significant improvement in students’ MCCCT scores after the creativity teaching method, and there was a significant difference between the two teaching methods, which can be interpreted as the difference between the two teaching methods is significant and can be interpreted as a result of the change in the content of the civics curriculum and the increase in the level of core competencies that the creative teaching method allows students to learn.
In order to further find out whether the citizenship core competencies of the experimental group and the control group had improved before and after the experiment by using creative teaching in civics class, the pretest and post-test data of the MCCCT cognitive test scores and the emotional scores were examined by using sample t-test.
3.1.3. The Scores of the MCCCT (Cognitive)
From Table 3, the results of the pretest and post-test of the cognitive test scores of the MCCCT for the paired-sample t-test were analyzed. The results show that all five core competencies have seen a statistical significance (for science, t = −5.816, p = 0.000 ***; media, t = −6.985, p = 0.000 ***; aesthetic, t = −5.719, p = 0.000 ***; ethics, t = −3.846, p = 0.000 ***; democratic, t = −5.208, p = 0.000 ***). In addition, experimental class scores of Ethics (M = 4.42, SD = 0.87), Democracy (M = 4.70, SD = 0.99), Science (M = 4.42, SD = 1.00), Media (M = 4.17, SD = 0.78), Aesthetics (M = 4.75, SD = 1.00), and Total (M = 22.47, SD = 2.00) on the MCCCT were significantly higher than those in Ethics (M = 3.87, SD = 1.11), Democracy (M = 3.75, SD = 1.40), Science (M = 3.30, SD = 1.39), Media (M = 2.90, SD = 1.12), Aesthetic (M = 3.62, SD = 1.62), and the total score (M = 17.37, SD = 5.18) of the pre-test. From the above, it can be seen that ethics, democratic, scientific, media, aesthetic competency, and total score of the MCCCT in the experimental class have all improved significantly.
The results showed that the scores of the control class were not significant (media, t = 1.778, p = 0.083; aesthetic, t = 1.356, p = 0.183; ethic, t = 0.422, p = 0.675; democracy, t = 1.706, p = 0.096; scientific, t = −0.3774, p = 0.711). In addition, the results of the MCCCT in the control class for ethics (M = 3.42, SD = 0.87), democratic (M = 4.12, SD = 1.34), scientific (M = 3.22, SD = 1.16), media (M = 2.85, SD = 1.29), aesthetic (M = 3.07, SD = 1.52), and the total score (M = 16.70, SD = 3.70) were not significant. The post-test scores of 16.70 (SD = 3.96) were significantly higher than those in ethics (M = 3.47, SD = 1.19), democracy (M = 4.25, SD = 1.29), scientific (M = 3.20, SD = 1.22), media (M = 2.92, SD = 1.30), and aesthetics (M = 3.22, SD = 1.22), media (M = 2.92, SD = 1.30), aesthetic (M = 3.22, SD = 1.68) of the pretest.
3.1.4. The Test Scores of the MCCCT (Attitude)
From Table 4, the results of the pretest and post-test of the MCCCT attitude test scores for the paired-sample t-test were examined and analyzed. The results show that all four core competencies have seen a statistical significance (for science, t = −2.816, p = 0.008 **; media, t = −3.030, p = 0.004 **; aesthetic, t = −2.516, p = 0.016 *; ethic, t = −3.846, p = 0.000 ***; democratic, t = −2.630, p = 0.012 *). In addition, the experimental class post-test scores of Ethics (M = 21.37, SD = 2.43), Democracy (M = 21.52, SD = 2.35), Science (M = 22.90, SD = 1.85), Media (M = 22.02, SD = 2.05), Aesthetics (M = 21.12, SD = 2.75), and total (M = 108.95, SD = 8.17) were significantly higher than those in Ethics (M = 21.27, SD = 2.49), Democracy (M = 20.85, SD = 2.78), Science (M = 22.25, SD = 2.38), Media (M = 21.12, SD = 2.78), Aesthetic (M = 20.67, SD = 2.39), and the total score (M = 106.17, SD = 10.97) of the pretest. From the above, it can be seen that the democratic, scientific, media, aesthetic, and total scores of the MCCCT in the experimental class have all improved significantly.
The results showed that the control class’s three components of scores were insignificant (democracy, t = 0.443, p = 0.660; scientific, t = 1.955, p = 0.058; media, t = −1.637, p = 0.110). However, the other two scores were statistically significant (ethic, t = 2.882. p = 0.006 **; aesthetic, t = 2.243, p = 0.031 *). In addition, the post-test scores of ethics (M = 19.77, SD = 1.83), democratic (M = 19.60, SD = 2.79), science (M = 20.67, SD = 2.53), media (M = 19.67, SD = 3.18), aesthetic (M = 19.60, SD = 2.92) and the total score (M = 99.32, SD = 11.02) were significantly higher than those of the pre-test. From the above, it can be seen that except for ethic, aesthetic, and total score, which have positive t-values and p-values less than 0.05, which are significant regressions; the rest of the components did not reach significant levels, and there was no difference between the pretest and post-test scores.
It can be observed that except for ethic competency, aesthetic competency, and the overall score, the rest of the students in the control class did not reach a significant and there was no difference between the pre and post-test scores. The reason for this might be that the students in the control class did not receive creativity instruction as did the students in the experimental class, but rather a traditional lecture instruction, which mostly consisted of cognitive knowledge in civics classes and less about attitude side. After all, the attitude cannot be learned through a single lecture but needs to be realized and developed throughout the course. Therefore, it is understandable that the students in the control class did not improve their democratic, scientific, media, and overall performance in the attitude test.
3.2. Results for the Chinese TTCT
A paired sampled t-test was performed to investigate whether there was statistical significance between the pre-and post-score of the Test for Creativity thinking in the experiment group and the control group. Two types of tests were included: the Verbal and the Figural tests.
3.2.1. Verbal Test of the Chinese TTCT
The results of the pretest and posttest of the Verbal test were examined and analyzed with the paired-sample t-test (Table 5). The results showed that fluency (t = −11.680, p = 0.000 ***), flexibility (t = −8.946, p = 0.000 ***), originality (t = −11.341, p = 0.000 ***) and the total score (t = −12.179, significance p = 0.000 ***) all showed significance. In addition, the posttest scores of fluency (M = 64.49, SD = 8.14), flexibility (M = 62.63, SD = 8.63), originality (M = 64.49, SD = 8.69), and the total score (M = 191.61, SD = 23.32) in the Experiment Group were significantly greater than the pretest scores of fluency (M = 48.22, SD = 7.22), flexibility (M = 49.07, SD = 9.64), originality (M = 47.04, SD = 6.79), and the total score (M = 144.33, SD = 23.45).
However, the results for the control group were not significant (fluency (t = 1.771, p = 0.084), flexibility (t = 1.752, p = 0.088), originality (t = 1.346, p = 0.186), and the total score (t = 1.697, p = 0.098)). In addition, the posttest scores of fluency (M = 44.00, SD = 1.86), flexibility (M = 44.14, SD = 3.11), originality (M = 44.58, SD = 2.75), and the total score (M = 132.71, SD = 6.63) for the Control Group were not significantly greater than the score of fluency (M = 44.56, SD = 2.76), flexibility (M = 45.33, SD = 4.65), originality (M = 45.04, SD = 3.63), and the total score (M = 134.94, SD = 10.24) of the pretest which indicates that there was no difference between the pretest and posttest.
We can observe that the fluency, adaptability, originality, and total score of the verbal in the control group did not reach a significant level. The reason for this is that the students in the control class were used to the traditional teaching as knowledge receivers when they were faced with such unique test questions, so they only relied on the subject knowledge they had learned in the past to solve the problems, and they were limited to a generalized mode of thinking.
3.2.2. Figural Test of the Chinese TTCT
From the results of the pretest and posttest of the Figural test of the Chinese TTCT (Table 6), it was found that all four dimensions scores have improved significantly: fluency t = −9.574, p = 0.000 ***; flexibility t = −6.337, p = 0.000 ***; originality t = −11.421, p = 0.013 *, thus less than the significant level of 0.05, was found to be significant; and the originality t = −11.421, p = 0.013; elaboration, t = −11.876, p = 0.000 ***; the total score t = −13.058, p = 0.000 ***. In addition, the posttest scores of fluency (M = 63.69, SD = 8.67), flexibility (M = 62.00, SD = 8.58), originality (M = 63.31, SD = 10.12), elaboration (M = 65.21, SD = 9.88), and the total score (M = 254.21, SD = 30.16) were significantly higher than the pretest scores of fluency (M = 49.83, SD = 7.12), flexibility (M = 50.85, SD = 8.50), originality (M = 49.22, SD = 6.60), elaboration (M = 46.54, SD = 3.32), and the total score (M = 196.45, SD = 22.95). It can be seen that the figural fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and total score of the experimental group have all improved significantly.
The results of the control group were statistically significant: fluency (t = 4.723, p = 0.000 ***), flexibility (t = 4.013, p = 0.000 ***), originality (t = 4.178, p = 0.000 ***), elaboration (t = 3.161, p = 0.003 **) and the total score (t = 4.924, p = 0.000 ***). In addition, the posttest scores of fluency (M = 42.55, SD = 2.67), flexibility (M = 42.59, SD = 4.57), originality (M = 43.30, SD = 2.66), elaboration (M = 44.16, SD = 1.17), and total scores (M = 172.60, SD = 8.71) in Control Group were significantly lower than the pretest scores of fluency (M = 45.27, SD = 3.78), flexibility (M = 45.84, SD = 5.25), originality (M = 45.43, SD = 4.18), elaboration (M = 45.27, SD = 2.43), and the total score (M = 181.81, SD = 12.72). It indicates that all four dimensions of the figural creativity test in the control group reached significant regression.
Therefore, it can be seen from the above analysis results that the experimental class using creativity teaching has significantly improved and improved in all indicators of creativity in the figural test, indicating that the students in the experimental group have significantly improved their creative thinking ability in the Figural test after the integration of creative teaching into the civics curriculum, and have achieved significant differences in fluency, fluency, originality, and sophistication. That is to say, through the integration of creative teaching into the design of board games and the creation of an open and inclusive learning environment, students will be able to think about the design and creation of civic board games through a variety of creative teaching methods, and will begin to know and get used to developing their imagination and expressing their creative ideas. The students were able to create many unique and creative shapes in just 10 min, which is a breakthrough from their previous performance in creative expression.
4. Discussion
This study developed a new creative teaching and learning approach—”Self-designed Board Games” (SdBG), in which the students work in groups to design and play their self-designed board games in high school citizenship studies. The study investigated the impact of SdBG on the students’ citizenship competencies and creativity.
From the 12-week teaching quasi-experiment, the quantitative data show that the experimental class was significantly higher than the control class in terms of civic competencies (including ethics, democracy, scientific, media, and aesthetic competency) and creative thinking (including four dimensions: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration). The results indicated that this creative experimental teaching with a game-based learning approach was effective and successful in cultivating students’ civic competency and creativity.
In more detail, the statistical outcome showed that the students’ experimental class experienced a significant improvement in civic competencies, including cognitive and attitude dimensions. The results indicated that the tri-phase game-based learning is an effective approach to cultivating students’ understanding relating to civic education and intention to apply the cognitive skills in their lives. Although educators and researchers proposed that educational games are a helpful method in civic education [17,19], the practical way of integrating games into learning requires further research and scientific tests. Thus, the current study can make a theoretical and practical contribution by establishing the framework and carrying out a board game-based course according to it.
The three phases of experimental teaching, including training, designing, and playing phases, are closely related to civic knowledge and competencies and various social issues. For example, in the current study, students learned knowledge and issues related to the global market and economy. Students learned how people from different countries, races, and cultures trade and how the development and proliferation of technologies, new media, and the Internet influence trading activities. Then, students developed board games based on their exploration and integrated relevant knowledge and issues into the board games. In addition to the issues of the global market economy, other issues/topics, including race, human rights, and technological issues/topics, were taught, discussed, and used in the design of board games. This research design and experimental teaching can be applied, as students can explore these topics and develop their own board games in future relevant courses.
In the training space, basic civic knowledge and related issues were introduced, which served as scaffolding for students to engage in the game-designing activity. Students can apply what they learn when developing game subjects, exploring social issues, and creating board games. The inquiry processes enable students to apply knowledge in different real-world contexts and make them aware of various civic issues around them [12]. In the game designing activity, students’ various components of civic competencies were fostered through practices, including knowledge and practices of moral behaviours (ethic dimension), willingness to become a democratic citizen and understand international issues (democratic dimension), scientifical investigation of complicated global problems (scientific dimension), critical utilisation and consumption of ideologies and values behind media content (media dimension), and an open attitude toward various cultural and creative expressions (aesthetic dimension). By playing board games developed by other groups, their civic cognitive skills and attitudes were strengthened. Furthermore, students could learn about other civic-related issues and view these issues from various perspectives from peers.
In addition, it can be observed that the scores of Ethics, Democracy, Science, Media, and Aesthetic competency in the control class did not reach a significant level, and there was no difference between the pre-and post-test scores. The reason for this is that the students in the control class were taught the traditional lecture method and mostly learned the cognitive knowledge of civic subjects within the curriculum progress but did not discuss other cognitive concepts with their peers. Students just sat and listened without applying what they learned in the inquiry and design activity. Therefore, it is understandable that the students in the control class did not improve their civic competencies.
As for the result of creative thinking, it is clear that the experimental class using improved significantly in verbal and figural tests in every indicator (fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration), indicating that the tri-phase board game-based learning is helpful in developing students’ creative thinking. In the training phase, students practised and learned various creative thinking strategies, such as brainstorming, mind mapping, and design thinking. Once students were equipped with fundamental cognitive skills, they started conducting issue exploration and designing board games in groups. Game designing is a practical method to enhance creative thinking, as students must exchange ideas with peers in a group, view issues from various angles, and develop interesting ideas to make games appealing. Later, by playing games developed by other groups, they could learn other people’s creative ideas, enriching their thoughts. Furthermore, group work entailed peer-to-peer social interaction, brainstorming, and communication, which stimulated students’ creative thinking.
In contrast, we can observe that the post-test scores of the Figural test in the control group were significantly lower than the pretest scores in fluency, adaptability, originality, refinement, and total score. The students in the control class were not influenced by creative teaching activities as those in the experimental class did, so they did not have opportunities or had less time to explore, discuss, and brainstorm with their peers. Therefore, when it comes to the creation of the Chinese character “人” in the test, it is easy to be confined to the usual habits and unable to get rid of the conceptual meaning of the character, and most of the answers stemmed from common thinking.
The board game-based learning in this study made the learning more student-centred and playful, which is a great approach to dealing with the boring scenarios usually found in traditional teaching. However, one coin has two sides; despite the advantages of creative teaching, some drawbacks were found. Some students expressed that they had to spend lots of extracurricular time working on designing and testing the projects and table games, which compressed their time to study other subjects. The teachers also needed to spend lots of time designing the curriculum and making efforts to collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders, such as experts and creative practitioners.
It should be noted that the school in this study is located in a suburban area, and therefore, future research is needed to investigate whether this game-based learning approach can be generalized to urban areas where the academic pressure, cultures, and socioeconomic status may be different. Moreover, due to the limitations of the location of the research field, sample selection, and research resources, this study did not analyze subjects of different disciplines, different countries, and different cultures. This is the limitation of this study. The research on relevant issues and variables needs to be further explored in future research.
In terms of providing new directions for future research, in-depth delayed-test and tracking analyses can be conducted on students to explore the long-term effect of the game-based approach. In addition, to help teachers be accustomed to various innovative teaching methods, future research can consider and pay attention to the gap between the government-promoted teacher training on teaching strategies and the implementation needs and effectiveness in the teaching practice.
5. Conclusions
In this study, we proposed the tri-phase game-based learning framework, in which students become learners, designers, and players in training, designing, and playing spaces, and then developed a 12-week board game-based course to explore its effect on students’ civic competencies and creativity. These spaces provided scaffolding, allowed students to apply learning materials, and strengthened students’ knowledge retention. The rigorous development of board game-based learning based on the tri-phase framework can effectively enhance students’ civic competencies, including ethics, democracy, scientific, media, and aesthetic dimensions, and creative thinking, including fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically combined game playing and designing and proposed a theoretical framework that can be practically applied in game-based learning environments. More specifically, this study enabled the students to self-develop and play board games but not play the games available in the market and further investigated the many facets of civic competencies and creativity at the same time. It is believed that tri-phase game-based learning can be integrated with various civic issues to offer students many opportunities to explore and broaden their horizons. The framework serves as guidance on how to integrate subject knowledge, civic competencies, and creative thinking into courses in which students play as learners, creators, and players in the game-based learning process. In addition to the guidance from the research framework, rigorous course design and complementation, and collaboration between researchers and educators are essential that can contribute to the validity and generalisability of the result from the current study. The efforts made have secured a great foundation for the current study to make theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions to the field and study.
Conceptualization, H.-C.K., T.-L.W., C.-C.C. and C.-Y.C.; Methodology, H.-C.K., T.-L.W. and C.-C.C.; Formal Analysis, T.-L.W.; Investigation, T.-L.W.; Resources, H.-C.K. and T.-L.W.; Data Curation, H.-C.K. and T.-L.W.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, H.-C.K., T.-L.W., C.-C.C. and C.-Y.C.; Writing—Review and Editing, H.-C.K., C.-C.C. and C.-Y.C.; Visualization, H.-C.K., T.-L.W., C.-C.C. and C.-Y.C.; Supervision, H.-C.K.; Project Administration, H.-C.K. and C.-C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical approval was obtained from the National Cheng Kung University Governance Framework for Human Research Ethics (Ref. 108-386 2021/01).
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to participants’ privacy and ethical issue.
The authors would like to thank all students who participated in the research and the school administration. With their kind help, the project was conducted smoothly and successfully.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. The tri-phase game-based learning framework illustrates how game-based learning provides learner, designer, and player spaces for students to learn, apply and strengthen civic competencies and creative thinking.
The course design of 12-week board game-based civic education.
| Phase | Week | Learning Content | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 2017 | 1 | Pre-test: Civic competencies and creative thinking tests | |
| Training phase |
2 | Students learned about concepts and issues relating to the global market and economy. Students watched short videos and discussed in groups about the problems and proposed problem-solving strategies. | Brainstorming and six thinking hats |
| 3 | |||
| 4 | Students learned about how technology and the Internet transformed economic activities and know novel issues stemming from a digital economy. | Mind mapping and brainstorming | |
| 5 | Students learned about how to design board games and the essential principles of enjoyable board games. | Design thinking, mind mapping, brainstorming | |
| 6 | Students learned about how to add aesthetic value to board games and discussed initial subjects and game instructions for their board games. | Brainstorming | |
| Designing phase |
7 | One of the students’ assignments in extracurricular time is to design board games. Students worked in groups to design characters, cards, and boards for their games. | |
| 8 | |||
| Playing phase |
9 | Students played board games developed by other groups and then discuss in groups to think of how to improve their board games from others’ feedback. | Brainstorming |
| 10 | |||
| 11 | Students selected the most interesting and entertaining board game. Then, the teacher summed up what they learned in these weeks in a debriefing session. | ||
| June 2017 | 12 | Post-test: Civic competencies and creative thinking tests |
Results of independent sample t-test for Modern Citizen Core Competency test.
| Test | Group | (n) | (M) | (SD) | (df) | (t) | p Value | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Control | 40 | 117.75 | 13.74 | 75 | −1.269 | 0.208 | 0.28 |
| Experiment | 40 | 121.35 | 11.34 | |||||
| Post-test | Control | 40 | 116.02 | 12.49 | 78 | −6.407 | 0.000 *** | 1.43 |
| Experiment | 40 | 131.42 | 8.65 |
*** p < 0.001.
Results of paired sample t-test for MCCCT (cognitive).
| Pretest | Post-Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | M | SD | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| Experiment | ||||||||
| Ethics | 40 | 3.87 | 1.11 | 4.42 | 0.87 | −3.846 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Democracy | 40 | 3.75 | 1.40 | 4.70 | 0.99 | −5.208 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Scientific | 40 | 3.30 | 1.39 | 4.42 | 1.00 | −5.816 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Media | 40 | 2.90 | 1.12 | 4.17 | 0.78 | −6.985 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Aesthetic | 40 | 3.62 | 1.65 | 4.75 | 1.00 | −5.719 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Total | 40 | 17.37 | 5.18 | 22.47 | 2.94 | −8.803 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Control | ||||||||
| Ethics | 40 | 3.47 | 1.19 | 3.42 | 0.87 | 0.422 | 39 | 0.675 |
| Democracy | 40 | 4.25 | 1.29 | 4.12 | 1.34 | 1.706 | 39 | 0.096 |
| Scientific | 40 | 3.20 | 1.22 | 3.22 | 1.16 | −0.374 | 39 | 0.711 |
| Media | 40 | 2.92 | 1.30 | 2.85 | 1.29 | 1.778 | 39 | 0.083 |
| Aesthetic | 40 | 3.22 | 1.68 | 3.07 | 1.52 | 1.356 | 39 | 0.183 |
| Total | 40 | 16.82 | 4.21 | 16.70 | 3.96 | 0.352 | 39 | 0.727 |
*** p < 0.001.
Results for paired sample t-test for Modern Citizen Core Competency attitude test.
| Pretest | Post-Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | M | SD | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| Experiment | ||||||||
| Ethic | 40 | 21.27 | 2.49 | 21.37 | 2.43 | −1.000 | 39 | 0.323 |
| Democracy | 40 | 20.85 | 2.78 | 21.52 | 2.35 | −2.630 | 39 | 0.012 * |
| Scientific | 40 | 22.25 | 2.38 | 22.90 | 1.85 | −2.816 | 39 | 0.008 ** |
| Media | 40 | 21.12 | 2.78 | 22.02 | 2.05 | −3.030 | 39 | 0.004 ** |
| Aesthetic | 40 | 20.67 | 2.93 | 21.12 | 2.75 | −2.516 | 39 | 0.016 * |
| Total | 40 | 106.17 | 10.97 | 108.95 | 8.17 | −4.026 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Control | ||||||||
| Ethic | 40 | 20.37 | 2.52 | 19.77 | 1.83 | 2.882 | 39 | 0.006 ** |
| Democracy | 40 | 19.62 | 2.87 | 19.60 | 2.79 | 0.443 | 39 | 0.660 |
| Scientific | 40 | 20.92 | 2.72 | 20.67 | 2.53 | 1.955 | 39 | 0.058 |
| Media | 40 | 19.97 | 2.88 | 19.67 | 3.18 | 1.637 | 39 | 0.110 |
| Aesthetic | 40 | 19.80 | 3.00 | 19.60 | 2.92 | 2.243 | 39 | 0.031 * |
| Total | 40 | 100.70 | 12.08 | 99.32 | 11.02 | 4.078 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Results for paired sample t-test for the Verbal test of the Chinese TTCT.
| Pretest | Post-Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | M | SD | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| Experiment | ||||||||
| Fluency | 36 | 48.22 | 7.65 | 64.49 | 8.14 | −11.680 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Flexibility | 36 | 49.07 | 9.64 | 62.63 | 8.63 | −8.946 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Originality | 36 | 47.04 | 6.79 | 64.49 | 8.69 | −11.341 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Total | 36 | 144.33 | 23.45 | 191.61 | 23.32 | −12.179 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Control | ||||||||
| Fluency | 40 | 44.56 | 2.76 | 44.00 | 1.86 | 1.771 | 39 | 0.084 |
| Flexibility | 40 | 45.33 | 4.65 | 44.14 | 3.11 | 1.752 | 39 | 0.088 |
| Originality | 40 | 45.04 | 3.63 | 44.58 | 2.75 | 1.346 | 39 | 0.186 |
| Total | 40 | 134.94 | 10.24 | 132.71 | 6.63 | 1.697 | 39 | 0.098 |
*** p < 0.001.
Results for paired sample t-test for the Figural test of the Chinese TTCT.
| Pretest | Post-Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | M | SD | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| Experiment | ||||||||
| Fluency | 36 | 49.83 | 7.12 | 63.69 | 8.67 | −9.574 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Flexibility | 36 | 50.85 | 8.50 | 62.00 | 8.58 | −6.337 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Originality | 36 | 49.22 | 6.60 | 63.31 | 10.12 | −11.421 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Elaboration | 36 | 46.54 | 3.32 | 65.21 | 9.88 | −11.876 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Total | 36 | 196.45 | 22.95 | 254.21 | 30.16 | −13.058 | 35 | 0.000 *** |
| Control | ||||||||
| Fluency | 40 | 45.27 | 3.78 | 42.55 | 2.67 | 4.723 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Flexibility | 40 | 45.84 | 5.25 | 42.59 | 4.57 | 4.013 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Originality | 40 | 45.43 | 4.18 | 43.30 | 2.66 | 4.178 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
| Elaboration | 40 | 45.27 | 2.43 | 44.16 | 1.17 | 3.161 | 39 | 0.003 ** |
| Total | 40 | 181.81 | 12.72 | 172.60 | 8.71 | 4.924 | 39 | 0.000 *** |
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
References
1. Partnership for 21st Century Skills A Framework for Twenty-First Century Learning. 2009; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519462.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2022).
2. Ministry of Education. Twelve-Year National Basic Education Curriculum Outline Core Competencies Development Manual. National Institute of Education Curriculum and Teaching Research Center Core Competencies Work Circle; Ministry of Education: Taipei, Taiwan, 2015; (In Chinese)
3. Wu, C.-S. Beliefs and strategies about creative teaching. Taiwan Educ.; 2002; 614, pp. 2-8. (In Chinese)
4. Tsai, C.-T. National Core Competencies: DNA of the Twelve-Year National Curriculum Reform; Higher Education: Taipei, Taiwan, 2014; (In Chinese)
5. Ministry of Education. Curriculum Guidelines of 12 Year Basic Education: General Guidelines. 2014; Available online: https://www.naer.edu.tw/eng/PageSyllabus?fid=148 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
6. Amabile, T.M. The motivation to be creative. Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics; Isaksen, S. Bearly Limited: Buffalo, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 223-254.
7. Cropley, A.J. Creativity in Education and Learning; Stylus: Sterling, VA, USA, 2001.
8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. The Handbook of Creativity; Sternberg, R.J. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 313-335.
9. Hart, D.; Atkins, R. Civic competence in urban youth. Appl. Dev. Sci.; 2002; 6, pp. 227-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_10]
10. Dishon, G. Citizenship education through the pragmatist lens of habit. J. Philos. Educ.; 2018; 52, pp. 483-497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12307]
11. Fuentes-Moreno, C.; Sabariego-Puig, M.; Ambros-Pallarés, A. Developing social and civic competence in secondary education through the implementation and evaluation of teaching units and educational environments. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.; 2020; 7, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0530-4]
12. LeCompte, K.; Blevins, B.; Riggers-Piehl, T. Developing civic competence through action civics: A longitudinal look at the data. J. Soc. Stud. Res.; 2019; 44, pp. 127-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2019.03.002]
13. Tsai, M.-N.; Liao, Y.-F.; Chang, Y.-L.; Chen, H.-C. A brainstorming flipped classroom approach for improving students’ learning performance, motivation, teacher-student interaction and creativity in a civics education class. Think. Ski. Creat.; 2020; 38, 100747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100747]
14. Hsiao, C.-C. The Relationship between Schools’ Climate of Creativity, Teachers’ Intrinsic Motivation, and Teachers’ Creative Teaching Performance: A Discussion of Multilevel Moderated Mediation. Contemp. Educ. Res. Q.; 2011; 19, pp. 85-125. (In Chinese)
15. Gao, F.; Li, L.; Sun, Y. A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.; 2020; 68, pp. 1791-1827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09787-0]
16. Plass, J.L.; Homer, B.D.; Kinzer, C.K. Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Educ. Psychol.; 2015; 50, pp. 258-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533]
17. Dishon, G.; Kafai, Y.B. Connected civic gaming: Rethinking the role of video games in civic education. Interact. Learn. Environ.; 2022; 30, pp. 999-1010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1704791]
18. Nakao, M. Special series on “effects of board games on health education and promotion” board games as a promising tool for health promotion: A review of recent literature. BioPsychoSocial Med.; 2019; 13, 5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13030-019-0146-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30820242]
19. Jaskulska, M.; Starba, J. Gamification as a tool for civic education—A case study. 21st Century Pedagog.; 2020; 4, pp. 29-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ped21-2020-0005]
20. Alt, D.; Raichel, N. Equity and Formative Assessment in Higher Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71644-8]
21. European Commission Key Competences for Lifelong Learning; European Union. 2019; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/297a33c8-a1f3-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 13 December 2022).
22. Shah, D.V.; McLeod, J.M.; Lee, N. Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship. Political Commun.; 2009; 26, pp. 102-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600802710384]
23. Mirra, N.; Garcia, A. Civic participation reimagined: Youth interrogation and innovation in the multimodal public sphere. Rev. Res. Educ.; 2017; 41, pp. 136-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690121]
24. Campillo-Ferrer, J.-M.; Miralles-Martínez, P.; Sánchez-Ibáñez, R. Gamification in higher education: Impact on student motivation and the acquisition of social and civic key competencies. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 4822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12124822]
25. Grütter, J.; Buchmann, M. Civic competencies during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with sympathy in childhood. J. Youth Adolesc.; 2020; 50, pp. 674-692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01240-y]
26. Chen, Y.-C.; Hung, S.-P. Development of a Modern Citizen Core Competencies Test for Middle School Students. J. Educ. Pract. Res.; 2019; 32, pp. 39-79. (In Chinese)
27. Noroozi, O.; Dehghanzadeh, H.; Talaee, E. A systematic review on the impacts of game-based learning on argumentation skills. Entertain. Comput.; 2020; 35, 100369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100369]
28. Zou, D.; Huang, Y.; Xie, H. Digital game-based vocabulary learning: Where are we and where are we going?. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn.; 2021; 34, pp. 751-777. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1640745]
29. Lin, Y.C.; Hou, H.T. The evaluation of a scaffolding-based augmented reality educational board game with competition-oriented and collaboration-oriented mechanisms: Differences analysis of learning effectiveness, motivation, flow, and anxiety. Interact. Learn. Environ.; 2022; pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2091606]
30. Gentry, S.V.; Gauthier, A.; Ehrstrom BL, E.; Wortley, D.; Lilienthal, A.; Car, L.T.; Car, J. Serious gaming and gamification education in health professions: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res.; 2019; 21, e12994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12994]
31. Tan, A.J.Q.; Lee, C.C.S.; Lin, P.Y.; Cooper, S.; Lau, L.S.T.; Chua, W.L.; Liaw, S.Y. Designing and evaluating the effectiveness of a serious game for safe administration of blood transfusion: A randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ. Today; 2017; 55, pp. 38-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.04.027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28521248]
32. Piaget, J. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood; W. W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1962.
33. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
34. Annetta, L.; Mangrum, J.; Holmes, S.; Collazo, K.; Cheng, M.T. Bridging realty to virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through video game play in an elementary school classroom. Int. J. Sci. Educ.; 2009; 31, pp. 1091-1113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690801968656]
35. Pellas, N.; Fotaris, P.; Kazanidis, I.; Wells, D. Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school education: A systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Real.; 2019; 23, pp. 329-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0347-2]
36. Solhaug, T. Knowledge and self-efficacy as predictors of political participation and civic attitudes: With relevance for educational practice. Policy Futures Educ.; 2006; 4, pp. 265-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2006.4.3.265]
37. Raphael, C.; Bachen, C.; Lynn, K.-M.; Mckee, K.; Baldwin-Philippi, J. Games for civic learning: A conceptual framework and agenda for research and design. Games Cult.; 2010; 5, pp. 199-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412009354728]
38. Noda, S.; Shirotsuki, K.; Nakao, M. The effectiveness of intervention with board games: A systematic review. BioPsychoSocial Med.; 2019; 13, 22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13030-019-0164-1]
39. Alawamleh, M.; Al-Twait, L.M.; Al-Saht, G. RThe effect of online learning on communication between instructors and students during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud.; 2020; 11, pp. 380-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-06-2020-0131]
40. Borokhovski, E.; Bernard, R.M.; Tamim, R.M.; Schmid, R.F.; Sokolovskaya, A. Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Comput. Educ.; 2016; 96, pp. 15-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.004]
41. Chung, T. Table-top role playing game and creativity. Think. Ski. Creat.; 2013; 8, pp. 56-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.06.002]
42. Hou, H.T.; Keng, S.H. A dual-scaffolding framework integrating peer-scaffolding and cognitive-scaffolding for an augmented reality-based educational board game: An analysis of learners’ collective flow state and collaborative learning behavioral patterns. J. Educ. Comput. Res.; 2021; 59, pp. 547-573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0735633120969409]
43. Khan, A.; Pearce, G. A study into the effects of a board game on flow in undergraduate business students. Int. J. Manag. Educ.; 2015; 13, pp. 193-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.002]
44. Wegerif, R. Mind Expanding: Teaching for Thinking and Creativity in Primary Education: Teaching for Thinking and Creativity in Primary Education; McGraw-Hill Education: Berkshire, UK, 2010.
45. Kirschner, P.A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R.E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol.; 2006; 41, pp. 75-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1]
46. Drain, M. Justification of the Dual-Phase Project-Based Pedagogical Approach in a Primary School Technology Unit. Des. Technol. Educ. Int. J.; 2010; 15, pp. 7-14.
47. Good, K.; Järvinen, E. An Examination of the Starting Point Approach to Design and Technology. J. Technol. Stud.; 2007; 33, pp. 99-107.
48. Wu, J.-J.; Chen, F.-Y.; Kuo, J.-S.; Lin, W.-W.; Liu, S.-H.; Chen, Y.-H. The New Version Test of Creative Thinking; Ministry of Education Training Committee: Taipei, Taiwan, 1998; (In Chinese)
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Chu-Yang, Chang 4
1 Center of Teacher Education and Graduate Institute of Education, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
2 Er Xin High School, Keelung 202, Taiwan
3 Center for Teacher Education and Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan
4 Manchester Institute of Education, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK