Abstract

Science and technology getting continue to advance, the true wealth of our civilization will manifest in human creative output. Accordingly, technological developments offer great opportunities for creativity researches and assessment of creativity. While there are studies in the literature on the creation of computer-based creative products on the one hand, studies on whether creativity can be evaluated automatically or not, on the other hand, have started to attract attention. In addition, field experts turned to new research to understand whether creativity assessment could be automated and measured more quickly and qualitatively, and to explore whether this calculation method could be standardized. Researches conducted in the last 10 years have shown that computational approaches towards semantic distance have made significant contributions to the field both in theory and in practice. However, it can be said that there are very few studies that measure creativity based on semantic distance. This chapter presents a brief overview to discuss whether a computer-based measurement tool that can perform automatic calculations can be used in the evaluation of linguistic creativity in light of the evidence obtained from the literature.

Highlights

  • Creativity chapter of the book, the questions tried to be answered: “What quantitative measures of semantic distance applied in research tell us about creativity or domain-specific creativity? Why is Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) getting be popular in recent research? Is LSA scores successfully predicted the average human creativity scores?”

  • It can be stated that these findings show the usefulness and effectiveness of semantic distance measures to measure domain-specific creativity

  • What quantitative measures of semantic distance applied in research tell us about creativity or domain-specific creativity? The application of such methods can potentially provide a more quickly and objective measure of the output of creative thinking [65]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There have been tremendous studies on creativity over the decades, it can be said that there are many treasures that can be found in “the mining of creativity”. The other noticeable theories and models in the field can be listed as Associative Theory: stimulus-response (S-R) perspective [10], Structure of Intellect Model (SOI) [11], Incubation and Intuition [12, 13], Componential Model [14], Geneplore Model [15], Investment Theory of Creativity [16], Systems Model of Creativity [17], Amusement Park Theory [18], H-creativity [19], multiple levels of creativity (Big-C, Pro-c, little-c, and mini-c) called The Four-C Model of Creativity [20], The 5A’s of Creativity: Person/Actor, Process/Action, Product/Artifact, Press/Audience & Affordances [21] and more recent one can be shown as the Minimal Theory of Creativity Ability [22] All these studies can be seen as concrete proof of the hard work that field experts do to understand, evaluate and form the theoretical framework of creativity. According to Baer’s severe criticism, the future of these tests is independent of their existence in the twenty first century or not is clearly suspicious [29]

The tendency of creativity studies in the process
Where does the nose of the ship show? Is creativity domain-general or domain-specific?
The controversy face of the evaluations: creativity
The problem of the twenty first century: how the digital immigrants assess the digital natives?
New approaches to the assessment of domain-specific creativity
Using semantic distance in assessing creativity
Method
Discussion and conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call