Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Label_Title

Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Collaborative Creativity of Science Education Students as Game Creators in their Research Project

Alyana Grace Q. Tapay*, Angelo Mark P. Walag

University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

Abstract: This study explores how Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) Science students engage in collaborative creativity through the creation of educational games. By combining gamification and experiential learning, the study highlights the potential of game design to enhance critical skills such as communication, teamwork, and creativity among future educators. Using a transcendental phenomenology approach with a mixed-methods design integrating both quantitative and qualitative data, the research assessed the students' collaboration dynamics, problem-solving abilities, and creative processes in game development projects. Quantitative data was collected through a 21-item questionnaire, while qualitative insights were gathered via semi-structured interviews. Results showed that game creation not only deepened students' understanding of scientific concepts but also fostered group creativity through shared goals, brainstorming, and iterative problem-solving. Data was analyzed through triangulation and thematic analysis, revealing that incorporating game design into educational programs can significantly enhance collaborative learning, critical thinking, and job readiness, offering a novel approach to teacher training in science education.

Keywords: Game, Gamification, Game-based Learning, Game Creator, Game Creation

Received September 12, 2024; Revised October 14, 2024; Accepted October 20, 2024

Citation: Alyana Grace Q. Tapay, Angelo Mark P. Walag, Collaborative Creativity of Science Education Students as Game Creators in their Research Project. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 4 (1). 51-60. January 2024. doi:10.12691/jitl-4-1-9

1. Introduction

In today's rapidly evolving educational landscape, creativity has become essential for preparing students to meet the challenges of an innovation-driven job market. Within this context, collaborative creativity—the generation of new ideas through group efforts—has emerged as a critical competency, particularly in gamified learning environments. This study explores the collaborative creativity of Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) Science students as they create games for their undergraduate research projects. By examining this intersection of game creation in science education, interactive or experiential learning, and teamwork the study aims to understand how game creation can enhance both learning experiences and essential skills specifically collaborative creativity for future educators.

1.1. Gamification as an Innovative Pedagogical Strategy

Gamification, the integration of game elements into non-game contexts, has garnered attention as a transformative strategy in educational settings. It aims to increase student engagement, motivation, and knowledge retention by creating an interactive and immersive learning environment. Studies have demonstrated that gamification supports educational objectives by promoting active learning, fostering critical thinking, and encouraging collaboration among students [1,2,3]. As education evolves to meet the demands of the 21st-century workforce, gamification aligns with contemporary pedagogical goals by promoting skills such as communication, creativity, and teamwork [4]. In science education, gamification can offer innovative ways to engage students in complex subjects by allowing them to explore and apply scientific concepts in practical, interactive scenarios. The use of game creation as an educational tool represents a novel approach that not only fosters deep engagement with scientific content but also encourages collaborative creativity. While the potential of gamification to enhance collaborative skills is increasingly recognized, there is a noticeable gap in research focusing on the role of game creation in promoting collaborative creativity among university students, particularly those in teacher education programs like the BSEd Science students.

1.2. Collaborative Creativity in Education

Collaborative creativity involves generating innovative ideas through the combined efforts of a group. It leverages the diverse perspectives, skills, and experiences of team members to solve problems and create novel solutions [5]. This process is crucial in educational settings, where it helps develop essential skills such as critical thinking, communication, and teamwork—preparing students for future challenges [6]. Higher education institutions play a key role in nurturing these skills through activities that encourage group work and collaborative learning. Despite its importance, collaborative creativity is underexplored in the context of gamified learning environments, particularly among students engaged in game creation. Tan et. al (2019) [7] outline the essential skills that students need to succeed in the workplace and contribute positively to their organizations. According to Wagner (2010) [8], students require a variety of skills, including critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, leadership, adaptability, and communication. These skills help students be flexible, innovative, and effective in different professional settings. Trilling et al. (2009) [9] extend this list, emphasizing the importance of learning how to learn, as well as skills like creativity, self-direction, productivity, and accountability. These abilities are seen as crucial for students to navigate the challenges of the 21st century. Additionally, a 2018 report on Envisionexperience.com [10] highlights Hanover Research's analysis of educational frameworks, stressing that skills like teamwork, creativity, and critical thinking are the most important for preparing students for the future.

1.3. Game Creation as a Medium for Fostering Collaborative Creativity

Game creation as an activity combines technical, artistic, and cognitive elements, making it an ideal platform for fostering collaborative creativity. In this case, if applied in the classroom, students tend to grasp lecture content more profoundly when engaged in game design, as this process compels them to integrate game mechanics grounded in the knowledge acquired from lectures, reading materials, and other resources. It provides an avenue for them to apply creative and imaginative thinking [11]. In addition, study shows that game-based learning enhances critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration, all of which are integral to understanding complex academic concepts [12]. The creative process of designing games encourages students to think critically about how to structure knowledge and rules in engaging ways, thereby deepening their comprehension. Moreover, a study by Vos, et al. (2011) [13] found that students who designed educational games demonstrated better retention and engagement with the material compared to those who used traditional study methods. This aligns with findings by Abt (2020) [14], which emphasize that designing games allows students to synthesize information, promoting active learning and creativity.

Thus, in the context of science education, creating educational games allows students to engage deeply with scientific content while developing creative ways to communicate complex ideas. This process requires collaboration, negotiation, and synthesis of diverse perspectives, all of which are critical components of the creative process. Additionally, these combined insights underscore how the game creation process may not only reinforce content understanding but also fosters creativity, making it a powerful educational tool for BSEd Science students.

1.4. Theoretical Framework: Cognitive Flexibility and Group Flow Theory

This study draws upon two key theoretical frameworks: Cognitive Flexibility and Group Flow Theory. Cognitive Flexibility refers to the ability to adapt one's thinking and behavior in response to changing circumstances and challenges, which is critical in collaborative settings where diverse ideas and perspectives come into play [15]. Research suggests that environments that encourage diverse perspectives foster cognitive flexibility, leading to more innovative outcomes [16,17,18]. Group Flow Theory, meanwhile, examines the phenomenon of collective optimal experiences, where team members achieve heightened performance through seamless collaboration [19]. Factors such as shared goals, effective communication, and mutual respect contribute to a state of group flow, which is essential for fostering collaborative creativity in team settings [20,21]. By integrating these frameworks, the study aims to explore how BSEd Science students, as game creators, navigate the complexities of collaborative creativity. It seeks to understand how cognitive flexibility and group flow contribute to the ideation process, from the generation of initial ideas to the development of a final game product.

1.5. Research Questions

The study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the levels of creative collaboration among BSEd Science students engaged in game creation?

2. What experiences significantly contribute to the development of creative collaboration skills?

3. How do these experiences explain the level of creative collaboration among students?

By exploring these questions, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how collaborative creativity can be fostered in university students, particularly those involved in gamified learning environments. The findings will offer valuable insights into how educators can better support the development of these essential skills, contributing to both academic success and job readiness.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Design

The study utilizes a transcendental phenomenology research design with a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data to assess the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) Science students’ perceptions of their collaborative creativity experience and the game creation process. Quantitative data was initially collected using a 21-item questionnaire to evaluate the levels of collaborative creativity among participants, with responses analyzed to identify the highest and lowest mean values. Following this, qualitative data was gathered through one-on-one semi-structured interviews with selected students representing both high and low levels of collaborative creativity. The collected data was then triangulated and organized into a matrix table to illustrate the dimensions and implications on the levels of collaborative creativity among students. The qualitative data was further processed through a six-phase thematic analysis to generate a comprehensive understanding of the students' lived experiences. This integration of both quantitative and qualitative data ensures a robust and multi-dimensional exploration of collaborative creativity in the context of game creation. Figure 1 displays the flow of the study.

Figure 1. Flowchart of the general conduct of the study

2.2. Quantitative Phase

The participants of this study were purposively chosen and comprise undergraduate students enrolled in the BSEd Science program at USTP from the batches of 2022, 2023, and 2024. These students have engaged in game creation as part of their undergraduate research projects, utilizing games either as supplementary teaching tools or assessment methods for science concepts. The study employs the Assessment Scale of Creative Collaboration (ASCC) questionnaire by Mavri et al. (2019) [22] to quantitatively assess the levels and dimensions of collaborative creativity among participants. The ASCC consists of 21 items covering various aspects such as divergent and critical thinking, problem-solving, knowledge sharing, and team dynamics.

Table 1 provides an overview of the respondents from batches 2022 to 2024, highlighting their areas of research project focus. A total of 59 BSEd Science students participated in this study. These students completed the ASCC survey questionnaire, which consisted of several parts: (1) a section capturing the respondent’s profile, followed by (2) a 21-item questionnaire divided into three dimensions, each representing a distinct section of the survey. The dimensions were as follows: Dimension 1 assessed social collaborative learning, conceptual variables of interest, and emotional factors such as belonging, mutuality, and trust; Dimension 2 evaluated collective divergent thinking, externalization, levels of tension, and the perceived co-presence within distant teams; and Dimension 3 measured both individual and collective time-management skills as components of learning regulation linked to academic achievement.

Table 1. Number of Respodents from batches 2022-2024

Table 2 shows the scoring procedure to assess the levels of collaborative creativity of the respondents, categorizing it into four distinct levels based on a scoring ranges from 1 to 4. Descriptive statistics such as mean is used to analyze the data collated from this phase of study.

Table 2. Scoring Procedure for ASCC questionnaire

2.3. Qualitative Phase

To delve deeper into the participants' lived experiences, semi-structured interviews are conducted. The interviews aim to uncover detailed narratives and reflections on the collaborative processes, challenges faced, strategies employed, and the overall impact of game creation on their learning and their collaborative creativity.

Undergraduate students were purposively selected for interview bases on their performance in the assessment. Specifically, students who obtained the highest and lowest mean scores were chosen to represent the two extremes of the performance spectrum. However, after thoroughly investigation of the collated quantitative data, it was found that the majority of the students achieved Very High results in Collaborative Creativity (n=50). Even the lowest-performing students obtained High results in Collaborative Creativity (n=9). Because of this, the researchers handpick five (5) undergraduate students from the pool of respondents (Respondents 2, 3, 49, 55) who reported a high mean score and low mean score (Respondent 31). This deliberate sampling approach aimed to gather in-depth insight from both high and low scores from ASCC questionnaire, providing a comprehensive understanding of student’s lived experiences and the factors influencing student success and challenges.

Interview questions are designed to be open-ended and exploratory, covering topics such as: (a) The dynamics of team collaboration during game development; (b) The role of individual and collective creativity in the project; (c) Strategies used to overcome obstacles and enhance creativity; and (d) Perceived outcomes and lessons learned from the experience.

After the interview, the interview transcript was sent to the five (5) respondents to confirm the accuracy of their responses. The qualitative data were then processed and analyzed following the procedure detailed by Xu and Zammit (2020) [23]. A six-phase thematic analysis was employed to (1) Familiarized oneself with the data, (2) Generate initial codes, (3) Identify themes, (4) Review themes, (5) Define and name themes, and (6) Produce report. The coding and generation of themes were predetermined based on the adopted ASCC qualitative questionnaire

3. Results and Discussions

The results are organized around three key dimensions: social collaborative learning, collective divergent thinking, and time management. Each dimension reflects different aspects of collaborative creativity, supported by quantitative data (mean scores) and qualitative insights from student responses.

3.1. Dimension 1: Social Collaborative Learning

This dimension assesses the level of trust, mutual interest, and communication within groups, with item scores ranging from 3.582 to 3.945, reflecting a "Very High Collaborative Creativity." This aligns with Barron’s (2003) [24] emphasis on the importance of these factors for successful group dynamics in problem-solving.

Trust and Mutual Interest: Students demonstrated strong trust and shared interest in the group’s goals, scoring 3.745 and 3.618, respectively. As noted in Johnson et al., (1999) [25] work on cooperative learning, students’ comfort in their groups was largely due to pre-existing relationships and common interests, which helped form cohesive teams. The opportunity to choose their group members was cited as crucial, supporting Roschelle et al., (1995) [26] findings on how shared goals and trust can enhance group collaboration.

Verbatim responses such as:

“comfortability really matters when it comes to group work … we made sure that our groupmates will not feel left behind throughout, so we are open to every detail of our study.” (R3)

“… we want our groupmates to feel respected within our circle” (R49)

Reflect a supportive atmosphere that fostered collaboration, paralleling the collaborative creativity emphasized by Sawyer (2017) [27]. Decision-making was collective, and students valued the group's input, further illustrating a high level of commitment, as indicated by the score of 3.945 for "Everyone in my group wanted to make a successful product." This dedication, coupled with financial investments and problem-solving, mirrors findings from Sonnenwald (2007) [28] regarding how groups invest in their projects to achieve success. This reults are supported by the following responses:

“Our group wanted our study to have a purpose so we did a lot of consultations…” (R55)

“we don’t want to settle for less, we really look for options so our cards are sturdy enough, it means we have to double our funds.” (R2)

Desire for Success: Students were highly motivated to develop a successful product, reflected in a mean score of 3.945. They allocated resources, sought external guidance, and frequently consulted with advisors, highlighting their dedication to the project. Despite obstacles, such as budget constraints and technical limitations, students remained committed, demonstrating the kind of perseverance noted by Johnson et al., (1999) [25].

Communication and Idea Sharing: Extensive brainstorming and the freedom to share even controversial ideas (mean = 3.673) created a collaborative atmosphere. This mirrors Barron’s (2003) [24] research, which underscores the role of open communication in group success. The absence of favoritism and the active solicitation of input from all members (mean = 3.709) ensured that all ideas were considered, fostering creativity, as described by Sawyer (2017) [27]. Adaptations, such as shifting focus from Newton's laws to the rock cycle, further illustrate how groups navigated diverse perspectives, much like the collaborative problem-solving explored by Roschelle et al., (1995) [26]. The score of 3.582 for "We understood each other’s viewpoints at the start of the project" underscores the importance of mutual respect and communication in ensuring a collaborative, inclusive environment as stated by one of the respondents:

“...from the very start, all of the shared ideas were put into consideration, bad or good ideas are counted since we want our groupmates to feel respected within our circle.” (R49)

3.2. Dimension 2: Collective Divergent Thinking

This dimension evaluates the group's capacity to engage in divergent thinking, exploring various possibilities while managing tensions and staying engaged in team activities. Scores for this dimension ranged from 3.345 to 3.618, indicating a "Very High Collaborative Creativity" level.

Exploring Different Possibilities: Groups often faced uncertainty in how to approach their tasks, prompting them to consider multiple pathways (mean = 3.345). As stated by the respondents:

“...my group are fast to catch up in terms of decision making when things went wrong, if we need something to clarify be it on out paper or the game itself, we just search it online, explore ideas through brainstorming, or just

consult with our adviser. It was a lot of group initiation. (R3)”

… we had a hard time especially on choosing our topics. We explored many concepts and attempted to do prototype but we also took many considerations in terms of the availability of the materials and finances… (R49)

It is not really easy especially when we’re dealing with an application since the script in the program is just trial-or-error and sometimes it causes bugs on the application. (R31)

Table 3. Integrated Results Matrix

This exploratory mindset aligns with findings from Sawyer (2017) [27] and Harvey (2014) [29], which emphasize that successful collaborative creativity involves navigating uncertainty through flexibility and openness to diverse ideas. Similar to Paulus et al. (2003) [16] insights on the benefits of brainstorming in groups, the teams in this study employed strategies such as seeking expert guidance and conducting multiple iterations of their designs. This iterative approach helped them manage time constraints (mean = 3.400) and adapt to task changes without losing focus, demonstrating resilience and adaptability, as described by Acar et al., (2019) [30].

Handling Disagreements: Disagreements were frequent within the groups (mean = 3.618), yet they were handled constructively.

…sometimes there would be certain disputes but, our group members will just settle the disagreements. It took us a lot of understanding and patience with the group, it is a need since at the end of the day, it is only us who will help each other. (R31)

Research by Lozano et al., (2022) [31] and Nemeth et al., (2005) [32] supports the idea that productive conflict in team settings can lead to greater creativity. The students' ability to maintain patience and understanding created a conducive environment for exchanging differing viewpoints, which ultimately helped advance their project. This aligns with Kurtzberg et al., (2005) [33] findings that diversity in perspectives can foster creative problem-solving when managed effectively.

Novel Idea Generation: The groups exhibited strong creative performance, generating a wide array of diverse and original ideas (mean = 3.527). This reflects Torrance's (1966) [34] and Lewis (2014) [35] research on the role of divergent thinking in fostering novel solutions. Even ideas that were not immediately actionable were considered valuable, building a foundation for innovative outcomes. Lord (2015) [36] also emphasize the importance of feedback loops and open-mindedness in group settings for achieving a high level of creative output, which is evident in the groups' willingness to entertain all suggestions before selecting the best course of action.

3.3. Dimension 3: Time Management

This dimension evaluates how well groups managed their time, both as individuals and collectively, in relation to their learning and project-related tasks. The mean scores in this area ranged from 3.145 to 3.327, indicating a mix of "High" to "Very High Collaborative Creativity." Two of the respondents share the same sentiments as to why there is a slight disparity on time management:

“… two of my groupmates had a back subjects and I and the other groupmates had our Internship, so we need to settle our schedule so that we can meet in between week. We had to meet online but if we really have to meet face-to-face we had to schedule it ahead so we will all be there.” (R31)

“... other group members are busy not just in academics and practice teaching but also in their outside school responsibilities, so time is really an issue in our group.” (R55)

Time Management for Learning: The groups reported successful time organization, achieving a mean score of 3.255. Weekly meetings, conducted either face-to-face or online, were instrumental in tracking progress, resolving issues, and ensuring timely completion of tasks.

These findings are consistent with Almulla (2020) [37], who highlight that regular group meetings significantly improve productivity and help maintain focus in collaborative tasks. The groups in this study, despite facing challenges such as conflicting schedules and academic demands, managed their time effectively, which also mirrors the research of Prichard et al., (2006) [38]. Their study emphasizes how managing various commitments, such as internships and coursework, can complicate time allocation but can still result in successful outcomes when students employ structured time management strategies. One of the respondents emphasized their strategy on their conflict of schedule stating:

“... if a group member is absent during the meeting, we’ll just give him/her minutes of our meeting and give specifics on what is his/her tasks” (R55)

Beyond the Set Task: Although students expressed a desire to go beyond the basic requirements of the tasks (mean = 3.145), they faced constraints related to time and material availability. This tension is also reflected in the research of Chen et al., (2019) [39], who found that while students often wish to engage in more complex or creative aspects of their projects, limitations such as time and resources force them to compromise and focus on the core tasks. This study also highlights the moderate capacity (mean = 3.255) of the group to manage their time, suggesting that while some struggled, they made significant efforts to balance competing responsibilities like internships and practice teaching. This result is supported with some verbatim responses such as:

“Although we can say that we went beyond to our goal… there are lots of could have and should have during our study however we put limit to it because there are a lot of things that needs to be consider … like time, budget, and the availability of the materials.” (R49)

“… if we had more time or chance to change the intervention before the game, I think our study is much better” (R3)

Emotional Expression and Imagination: The task offered opportunities for emotional expression (mean = 3.491) and extensive use of imagination (mean = 3.527), with students recognizing the importance of creativity in designing game elements, such as layouts and mechanics, and overcoming challenges. This is supported by Mursid et al., (2022) [40], who found that emotional expression and imaginative thinking are crucial elements of creativity in project-based learning. The students' ability to express themselves and use their imagination was greatly enhanced by effective time management, enabling them to focus more on the creative and emotional aspects of the project.

4. Conclusion

This study explored the collaborative creativity of Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) Science students engaged in game creation projects by addressing three key research questions. First, the research revealed that the students exhibited "Very High" levels of creative collaboration, as measured by trust, communication, and mutual interest within their groups. This high level of collaboration was evident in their ability to share ideas freely, handle disagreements constructively, and remain committed to producing successful outcomes. Second, the experiences that significantly contributed to the development of these skills included the freedom to choose group members, the need to solve real-world problems through game design, and the requirement to adapt to shifting project goals and timelines. These experiences encouraged divergent thinking, teamwork, and innovation, which are crucial for fostering collaborative creativity. Lastly, these experiences explain the observed high level of creative collaboration by demonstrating how open communication, mutual respect, and shared responsibility facilitated a supportive and dynamic group environment. The process of game creation required students to blend creativity with problem-solving, which deepened their learning while enhancing their collaborative abilities.

With these findings, by integrating game development into undergraduate research projects or in the curriculum itself, students not only engage more deeply with complex scientific concepts but also cultivate essential skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and teamwork. These experiences facilitated the development of adaptive thinking and the ability to approach problems from multiple angles, essential skills for future educators. The research highlights the importance of providing students with autonomy in group formation, encouraging diverse viewpoints, and offering structured guidance to support the creative process. Despite challenges such as time constraints and varying expertise levels, the students demonstrated adaptability, collaborative problem-solving, and the ability to think divergently. These findings suggest that game creation, as part of a gamified learning approach, offers a powerful pedagogical strategy for preparing future educators not only in science education but in any curriculum to navigate the evolving demands of the 21st-century workforce. By promoting creativity and collaboration, this approach can be instrumental in enhancing educational outcomes and ensuring job readiness in a rapidly changing professional landscape.

5. Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights into the role of game creation in fostering collaborative creativity among Bachelor of Secondary Education Science students, it is not without limitations. First, the research is context-specific, focusing solely on students from the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other educational settings or disciplines. Second, the study relies heavily on self-reported data through surveys and interviews, which can introduce biases such as social desirability or inaccurate recall of experiences. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study means it captures only a snapshot of the students' collaborative creativity at a particular time, without considering the long-term effects of game creation on their skill development. Finally, the study does not fully explore the potential impact of external factors, such as prior experience with gaming or technology, on students' performance and collaboration during the game creation process. Future research could address these limitations by including a more diverse sample, employing longitudinal designs, and incorporating objective measures of creativity and collaboration to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of game creation on student learning and skill development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines for providing support necessary to conduct this study. Our deepest appreciation goes to the BSEd Science students under the Department of Science Education of College of Science and Technology Education who participated in this research; their dedication and creativity were invaluable to the project's success. We extend our sincere thanks to Ms. Leah Tabosares for her invaluable assistance in conducting the participant interviews, which greatly contributed to the depth of this study. We are also grateful to our colleagues and mentors for their guidance and encouragement throughout this journey.

References

[1]   | education and learning: A review of empirical literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd international GamiFIN conference, GamiFIN 2018. CEUR-WS.
[2]   | Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C., Oliveira, W., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Shi, L., ... & Cristea, A. I. (2019). Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing Gamification taxonomy. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1-14.
[3]   | Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational research review, 30, 100326.

[4]  
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., Godoy-Caballero, A. L., & Bueno Muñoz, C. (2021). Gamification and active learning in higher education: is it possible to match digital society, academia and students' interests?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1-27.

[5]  
Romero, M. (2016). Digital game design as a complex learning activity for developing the 4Cs skills: Communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking. In Games and Learning Alliance: 4th International Conference, GALA 2015, Rome, Italy, December 9-11, 2015, Revised Selected Papers 4 (pp. 90-99). Springer International Publishing.

[6]   | Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2019). Collaborative creativity and innovation in education. Creativity under duress in education? Resistive theories, practices, and actions, 155-177.
[7]   | Tan, L. M., Laswad, F., & Chua, F. (2022). Bridging the employability skills gap: going beyond classroom walls. Pacific Accounting Review, 34(2), 225-248.
[8]   | Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need-and what we can do about it. ReadHowYouWant. com.
[9]   | Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
[10]   | Envisionexperience.com. (2018). Six critical skills students need to prepare for the future. Envision Experience. Retrieved from https://www.envisionexperience.com
[11]   | Casey, A., & Hastie, P. A. (2011). Students and teacher responses to a unit of student-designed games. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(3), 295-312.
[12]   | Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational psychologist, 50(4), 258-283.
[13]   | Vos, N., Van Der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & education, 56(1), 127-137.
[14]   | Abt, G., Boreham, C., Davison, G., Jackson, R., Nevill, A., Wallace, E., & Williams, M. (2020). Power, precision, and sample size estimation in sport and exercise science research. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(17), 1933-1935.
[15]   | Canas, J., Quesada, J., Antoli, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks. Ergonomics, 46(5), 482-501.
[16]   | Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.
[17]   | Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 58, 515-541.
[18]   | Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., ... & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(5), 1087-1092.
[19]   | Csikszentmihalyi, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (2014). Shifting the focus from individual to organizational creativity. The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi, 67-71.
[20]   | Sawyer, K. (2015). Group Flow and Group Genius. NAMTA Journal, 40(3), 29-52.
[21]   | Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological science, 20(1), 1-5.
[22]   | Mavri, A., Ioannou, A., & Loizides, F. (2019, August). On the Reliability and factorial validity of the assessment scale for creative collaboration. In IFIP conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 783-792). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[23]   | Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research. International journal of qualitative methods, 19, 1609406920918810.
[24]   | Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(3), 307-359
[25]   | Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[26]   | Roschelle, J. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning/Springer-Verlag.
[27]   | Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic books.
[28]   | Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol., 41(1), 643-681.
[29]   | Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of management review, 39(3), 324-343.
[30]   | Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2019). Divergent thinking: New methods, recent research, and extended theory. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 153.
[31]   | Lozano, R., Barreiro‐Gen, M., Pietikäinen, J., Gago‐Cortes, C., Favi, C., Jimenez Munguia, M. T., ... & Gladysz, B. (2022). Adopting sustainability competence‐based education in academic disciplines: Insights from 13 higher education institutions. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 620-635.
[32]   | Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Creative collaborations from afar: The benefits of independent authors. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 1-8.
[33]   | Kurtzberg, T. R., & Mueller, J. S. (2005). The influence of daily conflict on perceptions of creativity: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(4).
[34]   | Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Educational and psychological measurement.
[35]   | Lewis, M. O., & Elaver, R. (2014). Managing and fostering creativity: An integrated approach. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 235-247.
[36]   | Lord, M. (2015). Group learning capacity: the roles of open-mindedness and shared vision. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 150.
[37]   | Almulla, M. A. (2020). The effectiveness of the project-based learning (PBL) approach as a way to engage students in learning. Sage Open, 10(3), 2158244020938702.
[38]   | Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and instruction, 16(3), 256-265.
[39]   | Chen, C. H., & Yang, Y. C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71-81
[40]   | Mursid, R., Saragih, A. H., & Hartono, R. (2022). The effect of the blended project-based learning model and creative thinking ability on engineering students' learning outcomes. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 10(1), 218-235.