Experimental design of a creative thinking course
Description
This file contains the raw data coming from an experiment codesigned and conducted by students of a creative thinking course. The rows (lines) are the ratings for different subjects (students presenting ideas from the creative thinking literature within a 2-minutes performance). All the subjects were also in the position of raters giving evaluation of creativity to their peers. Therefore, rater 1, e.g., is the same person as subject 1. The rater 67 is the teacher. The range was from 0 to 10 points. Each column represents one rater and the evaluation of the level of creativity of the peers (a blind process). The last column is showing whether a subject was part of the treatment group. 1 = subject was in the treatment group. Students competed in the tournament of creativity. However, only the treatment group, randomly assigned, could have won the financial prize. Thus, in the end, the effect of a competition with a financial reward on creativity was assessed by a posttest-only analysis using either OLS with treatment as a dummy variable or a t-test, showing its functioning and mutual relations to students. We compared the averages of ratings received from all raters, respectivelly, for the group of treated and control group.
Files
Steps to reproduce
This experiment may be reproduced partially, in essence. However, the mix of literature the students presented may be nation and time specific. Moreover, the definition of the creativity and the dimensions that will be evaluated by students were suggested and approved by voting of the class (ability to attract attention, originality, and comprehensibility). In the same vein, students also proposed and then voted for the payment scheme for the treatment group that, according to their opinion, would lead to the highest expected difference between perceived creativity of the control and the treatment group (first won approx. 60 EUR, the second approx. 40 EUR and the third approx. 20 EUR). We strongly suggest running the similar experiment while maximally including students into the decision-making process.