Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A human-centred deep learning approach facilitating design pedagogues to frame creative questions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Creative questions are a major component of examination in design education for testing creative aptitude. During this process of framing creative questions, examiners remain ever-inquisitive to know whether questions framed by them really capture features of creative questions. Our objective is to explore whether technology can support examiners in situations like these. This paper investigates features of creative questions through mixed-method research techniques. A model is proposed based on DL algorithms that can find out inherent creativity factors in questions and identify whether a question is creative. This process of identifying creative questions triggers decision-making of examiners by which they update their questions based on the outcome of the DL-based system. This model is implemented using bidirectional encoder representations using transformers (BERT), and long short-term memory (LSTM) method for identifying creativity in questions, and their performance is compared. Results highlight that BERT overrules LSTM mechanism, showing 99.99% and 81.006% accuracy, respectively. Inter-rater reliability between the model and examiner’s opinion shows higher agreement (α = 0.96) in categorizing creative questions, and comparison among baselines builds trust in the model. A significant contribution of this research is to capture creative features in a question and categorize whether a question is creative in design education. This model highlights human–machine collaboration and promotes examiners' decision-making process to frame effective questions. It attempts to reduce uncertainty of examiners and assists in quick decisions to include creativity features in their questions by providing feedback on whether a question is creative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baloche L, Platt TJ (1993) Sprouting magic beans: exploring literature through creative questioning and cooperative learning. Language Arts 70(4):264–271

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aziza M (2018) An analysis of a teacher’s questioning related to students’ responses and mathematical creativity in an elementary school in the UK. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 10(4):475–487

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zolfaghari AR, Fathi D, Hashemi M (2011) Role of creative questioning in the process of learning and teaching. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 30:2079–2082

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sahamid H (2016) Developing critical thinking through socratic questioning: an action research study. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies 4(3):62–72. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.4n.3p.62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salmon AK, Barrera MX (2021) Intentional questioning to promote thinking and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity 40:100822

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thoring K, Desmet P, Badke-Schaub P (2018) Creative environments for design education and practice: a typology of creative spaces. Des Stud 56:54–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coorey J (2016) Active learning methods and technology: strategies for design education. Int J Art Design Edu 35(3):337–347

    Google Scholar 

  8. Halim A, Mazlina H (2018) Questioning skill of science teacher from the students perscpective in senior high school IOP publishing. J Physics: Conference Series 1088(1):012109

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yusoff W, Selman S (2018) Teachers’ knowledge of higher order thinking and questioning skills: a case study at a primary school in Terengganu Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v7-i2/4120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nappi JS (2017) The importance of questioning in developing critical thinking skills. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 84(1):30

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cam P (1995) Thinking together: Philosophical inquiry for the classroom. Primary English Teaching Association and Hale & Iremonger

  12. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Ghahremani B, Azarhomayun F, Ahmadi M, Trung NT, Shariati A (2020) A novel hybrid extreme learning machine–grey wolf optimizer (ELM-GWO) model to predict compressive strength of concrete with partial replacements for cement. Engineering with Computers 1–23

  13. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Mehrabi P, Zandi Y, Dehghani D, Bahadori A, Shariati A, Trung NT, Salih MNA, Poi-Ngian S (2019) Application of Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) and Genetic Programming (GP) to design steel-concrete composite floor systems at elevated temperatures. Steel Compos Struct 33(3):319–332

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shariati M, Trung NT, Wakil K, Mehrabi P, Safa M, Khorami M (2019) Estimation of moment and rotation of steel rack connections using extreme learning machine. Steel Compos Struct 31(5):427–435

    Google Scholar 

  15. Trung NT, Shahgoli AF, Zandi Y, Shariati M, Wakil K, Safa M, Khorami M (2019) Moment-rotation prediction of precast beam-to-column connections using extreme learning machine. Struct Eng Mech 70(5):639–647

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rajaei S, Shoaei P, Shariati M, Ameri F, Musaeei HR, Behforouz B, de Brito J (2021) Rubberized alkali-activated slag mortar reinforced with polypropylene fibres for application in lightweight thermal insulating materials. Construction and Building Materials 270:121430

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shariati M, Shariati A, Trung NT, Shoaei P, Ameri F, Bahrami N, Zamanabadi SN (2021) Alkali-activated slag (AAS) paste: Correlation between durability and microstructural characteristics. Construction and Building Materials 267:120886

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Mehrabi P, Ahmadi M, Wakil K, Trung NT, Toghroli A (2020) Prediction of concrete strength in presence of furnace slag and fly ash using Hybrid ANN-GA (Artificial Neural Network-Genetic Algorithm). Smart Struct Syst 25(2):183–195

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Mehrabi P, Bahadori A, Zandi Y, Salih MN, Nguyen H, Dou J, Song X, Poi-Ngian S (2019) Application of a hybrid artificial neural network-particle swarm optimization (ANN-PSO) model in behavior prediction of channel shear connectors embedded in normal and high-strength concrete. Appl Sci 9(24):5534

    Google Scholar 

  20. Safa M, Sari PA, Shariati M, Suhatril M, Trung NT, Wakil K, Khorami M (2020) Development of neuro-fuzzy and neuro-bee predictive models for prediction of the safety factor of eco-protection slopes. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 550:124046

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Haido JH, Yousif ST, Toghroli A, Trung NT, Shariati A (2020) Identification of the most influencing parameters on the properties of corroded concrete beams using an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). Steel Compos Struct 34(1):155

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mansouri I, Shariati M, Safa M, Ibrahim Z, Tahir MM, Petkovic D (2020) Analysis of influential factors for predicting the shear strength of a V-shaped angle shear connector in composite beams using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy technique 30:247

    Google Scholar 

  23. Safa M, Shariati M, Ibrahim Z, Toghroli A, Baharom SB, Nor NM, Petkovic D (2016) Potential of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for evaluating the factors affecting steel-concrete composite beam’s shear strength. Steel Compos Struct 21(3):679–688

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shariati M, Grayeli M, Shariati A, Naghipour M (2020) Performance of composite frame consisting of steel beams and concrete filled tubes under fire loading. Steel Compos Struct 36(5):587–602

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shariati M, Lagzian M, Maleki S, Shariati A, Trung NT (2020) Evaluation of seismic performance factors for tension-only braced frames. Steel Compos Struct 35(4):599–609

    Google Scholar 

  26. Suzuki K, Roseboom W, Schwartzman DJ, Seth AK (2017) A deep-dream virtual reality platform for studying altered perceptual phenomenology. Sci Rep 7(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mordvintsev A, Tyka M, Olah C (2015) Deepdream (google/deepdream) GitHub repository. https://github.com/google/deepdream . Accessed 16 July 2020

  28. Chaudhuri NB, Dhar D, Yammiyavar PG (2020) A computational model for subjective evaluation of novelty in descriptive aptitude. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 1–38

  29. Gundry LK, Ofstein LF, Kickul JR (2014) Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. The International Journal of Management Education 12(3):529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Craft A, Jeffrey B, Leibling M (2001) Creativity in education, A&C Black (ed)

  31. Shaheen R (2010) Creativity and education. Creative. Education 1(03):166. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2010.13026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Olszak CM, Bartus T, Lorek P (2018) A comprehensive framework of information system design to provide organizational creativity support. Information & Management 1:94–108

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yalcinalp S, Avci U (2019) Creativity and emerging digital educational technologies: a systematic review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 18(3):25–45

    Google Scholar 

  34. Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer LJ (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ 94(1):103–120

    Google Scholar 

  35. Boswell C (2006) The art of questioning: Improving critical thinking. Annu Rev Nurs Educ 4:291

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kim J, Shin S, Bae K, Oh S, Park E, del Pobil AP (2020) Can AI be a content generator? effects of content generators and information delivery methods on the psychology of content consumers. Telematics Inform 55:101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jodhi V, Kulkarni S, Jaypruiya P, Kulkarni S, and Padture J (2018) World’s first AI-powered platform for creating questions, quizzes, and notes. Quillionz. https://www.quillionz.com/. Accessed 18 July 2020

  38. Goel AK (1997) Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE expert 12(3):62–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/64.590078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Etemadzadeh A, Seifi S, Far HR (2013) The role of questioning technique in developing thinking skills: the ongoing effect on writing skill. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 70:1024–1031

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ostlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N (2011) Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud 48(3):369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoddy ET (2019) Critical realism in empirical research: employing techniques from grounded theory methodology. Int J Soc Res Methodol 22(1):111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Oliver R, Carmen Z, Magdalena M, Elisabeth B, Margarete B, Michaela K (2018). Coding and Counting: Frequency Analysis for Group Interaction Research. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ray S (2019) A quick review of machine learning algorithms. In 2019 International conference on machine learning, big data, cloud and parallel computing (COMITCon).IEEE 35–39

  44. Alshanqiti A, Bajnaid A, Gilal AR, Aljasir S, Alsughayyir A, Albouq S (2020) Intelligent Parallel Mixed Method Approach for Characterising Viral YouTube Videos in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA) 11(3)

  45. Basias N, Pollalis Y (2018) Quantitative and qualitative research in business & technology: Justifying a suitable research methodology. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 7:91–105

    Google Scholar 

  46. Majid MAA, Othman M, Mohamad SF, Lim SAH, Yusof A (2017) Piloting for interviews in qualitative research: operationalization and lessons learnt. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 7(4):1073–1080

    Google Scholar 

  47. Livieris IE, Pintelas E, Pintelas P (2020) A CNN–LSTM model for gold price time-series forecasting. Neural Comput Appl 32(23):17351–17360

    Google Scholar 

  48. Li M, Li W, Wang F, Jia X, Rui G (2021) Applying BERT to analyze investor sentiment in stock market. Neural Comput Appl 33(10):4663–4676

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wang S, Jiang J (2015) Learning natural language inference with LSTM. arXiv preprint

  50. Yu Y, Si X, Hu C, Zhang J (2019) A review of recurrent neural networks: LSTM cells and network architectures. Neural Comput 31(7):1235–1270

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Shedko AY (2018) Semantic-map-based assistant for creative text generation. Procedia computer science 123:446–450

    Google Scholar 

  52. Anantrasirichai N, Bull D (2020) Artificial Intelligence in the Creative Industries: A Review. arXiv preprint

  53. Rao G, Huang W, Feng Z, Cong Q (2018) LSTM with sentence representations for document-level sentiment classification. Neurocomputing 308:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  54. Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K (2018) Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint

  55. Xu H, Liu B, Shu L, Yu PS (2019) BERT post-training for review reading comprehension and aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint

  56. García-Pablos A, Perez N, Cuadros M (2020) Sensitive data detection and classification in spanish clinical text: Experiments with bert. arXiv preprint

  57. Hossain N, Krumm J, Sajed T, Kautz H (2020) Stimulating creativity with funlines: A case study of humor generation in headlines. arXiv preprint

  58. Said-Metwaly S, Van den Noortgate W, Kyndt E (2017) Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications 4(2):238–275

  59. Kurdi G, Leo J, Parsia B, Sattler U, Al-Emari S (2020) A systematic review of automatic question generation for educational purposes. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 30(1):121–204

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ellis K (1993) Teacher Questioning Behavior and Student Learning: What Research Says to Teachers

  61. Cropley AJ (2000) Defining and measuring creativity: are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Rev 23(2):72–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lundsteen SW (1974) Questioning to develop creative problem solving. Elementary English 51(5):645–650

    Google Scholar 

  63. Chew SW, Lin IH, Chen NS (2019) Using Socratic Questioning Strategy to Enhance Critical Thinking Skill of Elementary School Students. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) 2161:290–294 IEEE

  64. Paul R, Elder L (2019) The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning. Rowman & Littlefield

    Google Scholar 

  65. Swenson J (2016) Teaching By Design Using a Question Template To Transform Student Writing. Business Education Innovation Journal 8:(2)

  66. Park NK, Chun MY, Lee J (2016) Revisiting individual creativity assessment: triangulation in subjective and objective assessment methods. Creat Res J 28(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  67. Davis DC, Gentili KL, Trevisan MS, Calkins DE (2002) Engineering design assessment processes and scoring scales for program improvement and accountability. J Eng Educ 91(2):211–221

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wan M, McAuley J (2016) Modeling ambiguity, subjectivity, and diverging viewpoints in opinion question answering systems. In 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on data mining (ICDM) 489–498.

  69. Stoycheva K (2010) Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology 1(4):178–188

    Google Scholar 

  70. Demir S, Şahin F (2014) Assessment of open-ended questions directed to prospective science teachers in terms of scientific creativity. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 152:692–697

    Google Scholar 

  71. Daly SR, Mosyjowski EA, Seifert CM (2014) Teaching creativity in engineering courses. J Eng Educ 103(3):417–449

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wang H (2013) A commentary on China’s new curriculum and the programs to design subjects for the college entrance examination. Chin Educ Soc 46(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932460103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Annamoradnejad I, Fazl, M, Habibi J (2020) Predicting Subjective Features from Questions on QA Websites using BERT. arXiv preprint

  74. Comito C (2020) NexT: a framework for next-place prediction on location based social networks. Knowledge-Based Systems 204:106205

    Google Scholar 

  75. Comito C, Forestiero A, Pizzuti C (2019) Bursty event detection in Twitter streams. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 13(4):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  76. Comito C, Falcone D, Talia D (2016) Mining human mobility patterns from social geo-tagged data. Pervasive Mob Comput 33:91–107

    Google Scholar 

  77. Madabushi HT, Lee M, Barnden J (2018) Integrating question classification and deep learning for improved answer selection. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics 3283–3294

  78. Comito C (2020) Exploiting Sequential Mobility for Recommending new Locations on Geo-tagged Social Media. In 2020 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE 178–183

  79. Comito C (2019) Travel routes recommendations via online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 1168–1173

  80. Comito C (2019) Mining Human Mobility from Social Media to support Urban Computing Applications. In 2019 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS). IEEE 514–521

  81. Comito C (2017) Exploiting Twitter for next-place prediction. In 2017 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society). IEEE 143–148

  82. Borg A, Boldt M, Rosander O, Ahlstrand J (2021) E-mail classification with machine learning and word embeddings for improved customer support. Neural Comput Appl 33(6):1881–1902

    Google Scholar 

  83. Potamias RA, Siolas G, Stafylopatis AG (2020) A transformer-based approach to irony and sarcasm detection. Neural Comput Appl 32(23):17309–17320

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ranasinghe T, Zampieri M, Hettiarachchi H (2019) BRUMS at HASOC 2019: Deep Learning Models for Multilingual Hate Speech and Offensive Language Identification. In FIRE (Working Notes) 199–207

  85. Shinde PP, Shah S (2018) A review of machine learning and deep learning applications. In 2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA). IEEE 1–6

  86. Zhu XX, Tuia D, Mou L, Xia GS, Zhang L, Xu F, Fraundorfer F (2017) Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 5(4):8–36

    Google Scholar 

  87. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

  88. Sbaraini A, Carter SM, Evans RW, Blinkhorn A (2011) How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices. BMC Med Res Methodol 11(1):128

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wiesche M, Jurisch MC, Yetton PW, Krcmar H (2017) Grounded theory methodology in information systems research. MIS Q 41(3):685–701

    Google Scholar 

  90. Stronge JH (2018) Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD

  91. Google QUEST Q&A Labeling Kaggle. https://www.kaggle.com/c/google-quest-challenge/overview. Accessed 20 September 2020

  92. McAuley J (2018) Amazon question/answer data. http://jmcauley.ucsd.edu/data/amazon/qa/. Accessed 20 September 2020

  93. McAuley J, Yang A (2016) Addressing complex and subjective product-related queries with customer reviews. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883044

  94. CEED (2021) http://www.ceed.iitb.ac.in/2021/. Accessed 20 September 2020

  95. Wang Y, Huang M, Zhu X, Zhao L (2016) Attention-based LSTM for aspect-level sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing 606–615.

  96. Skansi S (2018) Introduction to Deep Learning: from logical calculus to artificial intelligence. Springer

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  97. Yilmaz S, Toklu S (2020) A deep learning analysis on question classification task using Word2vec representations. Neural Computing and Applications 1–20

  98. Clark C, Lee K, Chang MW, Kwiatkowski T, Collins M, Toutanova K (2019) BoolQ: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. arXiv preprint https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1300

  99. Dickson D, Hargie O (2006) Questioning. In O. Hargie Routledge (ed) The handbook of communication skills pp 121–145

  100. Holmes M, Latham A, Crockett K, O’Shea JD (2017) Modelling e-learner comprehension within a conversational intelligent tutoring system. In IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education. Springer, Cham. 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74310-3_27

  101. Baron P (2018) Heterarchical Reflexive Conversational Teaching and Learning as a Vehicle for Ethical Engineering Curriculum Design. Constructivist Foundations 13(3)

  102. Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2011) Assessing design creativity. Design studies 32(4):348–383.

  103. Reja U, Manfreda KL, Hlebec V, Vehovar V (2003) Open-ended vs close-ended questions in web questionnaires. Developments in applied statistics 19(1):159–177

    Google Scholar 

  104. Ghosh S (1993) An exercise in inducing creativity in undergraduate engineering students through challenging examinations and open-ended design problems. IEEE Trans Educ 36(1):113–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/13.204828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Arsyad N, Rahman A, Ahmar AS (2017) Developing a self-learning model based on open-ended questions to increase the students’ creativity in calculus. Glob J Eng Educ 9(2):143–147

    Google Scholar 

  106. Zhang L, Huang Y, Yang X, Yu S, Zhuang F (2019) An automatic short-answer grading model for semi-open-ended questions. Interact Learn Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1648300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Sung SH, Li C, Chen G, Huang X, Xie C, Massicotte J, Shen J (2020) How Does Augmented Observation Facilitate Multimodal Representational Thinking? Applying Deep Learning to Decode Complex Student Construct. Journal of Science Education and Technology 1–17 (2020)

  108. Mehta P, Ingole N (2015) Mechanics of paper setting: Being a paper setter. The Art of Teaching Medical Students 3:276–287

    Google Scholar 

  109. García-Pablos A, Perez N, Cuadros M (2020) Sensitive data detection and classification in spanish clinical text: Experiments with bert. arXiv preprint

  110. Ward TB, Kolomyts Y (2010) Cognition and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (p. 93–112). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.008

  111. Almeida LS, Prieto LP, Ferrando M, Oliveira E, Ferrándiz C (2008) Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The question of its construct validity. Thinking skills and creativity 3(1):53–58

    Google Scholar 

  112. Rao AS, Avadhani PS, Chaudhuri NB (2017) Detecting targeted malicious e-mail using linear regression algorithm with data mining techniques. In Computational intelligence in data mining. Springer Singapore 23–35

  113. Schmidt AF, Finan C (2018) Linear regression and the normality assumption. J Clin Epidemiol 98:146–151

    Google Scholar 

  114. Wang S, Li H, Li J, Zhang Y, Zou B (2018) Automatic analysis of lateral cephalograms based on multiresolution decision tree regression voting. Journal of healthcare engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1797502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Montiel J, Read J, Bifet A, Abdessalem T (2018) Scikit-multiflow: A multi-output streaming framework. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 19(1):2915–2914

    Google Scholar 

  116. Wang W, Lu Y (2018) Analysis of the mean absolute error (MAE) and the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing rounding model. In IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, IOP Publishing 324(1):012049

  117. Zapf A, Castell S, Morawietz L, Karch A (2016) Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data–which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate? BMC Med Res Methodol 16(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  118. Krippendorff K (2011) Computing Krippendorff's alpha-reliability. University of Pennsylvania SchlarlyCommons 1–10

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to experts who have participated in the study and provided significant insights and data. We also acknowledge Balaji B. for extending support during the development of the programs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

    Nandita Bhanja Chaudhuri, Debayan Dhar & Pradeep G. Yammiyavar

Authors
  1. Nandita Bhanja Chaudhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debayan Dhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pradeep G. Yammiyavar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debayan Dhar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 29 kb)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 10 kb)

Appendix A

Appendix A

  1. 1.

    Suppose you have to formulate questions for Design aptitude testing. There are different types of questions one can frame to test creativity such a Mathematical, Logical Artistic, Hidden Mystery, Metaphoric, etc., which one do you use normally? Which one would you be interested in learning more about?

  2. 2.

    In your view, how do you define or explain a creative question?

  3. 3.

    Can you educate us on how a Creative question becomes different from a non-creative routine one?

  4. 4.

    Do other types of Question tests creative aptitude?

  5. 5.

    What are the qualities/ingredients must a question have to be classified as creative?

  6. 6.

    Which type of questions are suitable for framing a creative question? a) Open-ended b) Close-ended.

  7. 7.

    Why do think open-ended/close-ended question is significant for framing creative questions?

  8. 8.

    Which type of questions are suitable for framing a creative question? a) Subjective b) Objective.

  9. 9.

    Why do you think subjectivity/objectivity is significant in framing creative questions?

  10. 10.

    How important is it for you to verify the extent to which intent of a question is understood? Why so? Explain.

  11. 11.

    How important is it for you to verify the extent to which a question is conversational? Why so? Explain.

  12. 12.

    How important is it for you to expect creativity associated with facts? (Example- Design a chair with material specification, fulfilling ergonomic criteria, etc.)

  13. 13.

    As a design educator is it important to include some ‘ application’ aspect in a creative question?

  14. 14.

    How important is it for you to frame questions to get uncommon answers? (Going to school by road, rail, water is common, but ropeway is an uncommon solution).

  15. 15.

    How important is it for you to check your questions whether they look interesting to others? (If you check, then how?).

  16. 16.

    How much do you rate your questions in terms of interesting in a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 being the least interesting and 5 is most interesting?

  17. 17.

    Which type of questions do you generally prefer as creative questions: a) Questions conveying same interpretation across all respondents b) Questions conveying multiple interpretation.

    (Example: Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?

    One may make multiple interpretations for this question. a) Cigarettes that are only inhaled.

    b) Any cigarettes, whether or not you inhaled c) Cigarettes that are completely finished.

    d) Cigarettes that are partially smoked.

    e) Cigarettes that only took a puff or two inhaled f) It may be manufactured cigarettes.

    g) It may be hand-rolled cigarettes h) It may be marijuana cigarettes i) It may be cigars.

    j) It may be clove cigarettes.

  18. 18.

    How important is it for you to check whether a question can really be reported as a creative question in mass examination? If important, how?

  19. 19.

    Does your creative questions seek opinion from students?

  20. 20.

    Does your question look for a comparison of alternatives of solutions?

  21. 21.

    Does your question look for a consequence of a particular action? (What are preferences if you sell this car?).

  22. 22.

    Does your question sometimes look for procedures?

  23. 23.

    How important is it for you to frame question that seeks a well-explained solution?

  24. 24.

    How important is it for you to check the narration while framing questions?

  25. 25.

    How do you identify creative questions among a bunch of questions? Explain the criteria you use to identify them.

  26. 26.

    What are the factors of creative questions, in your opinion?

  27. 27.

    Explain the process of framing creative questions?

  28. 28.

    After framing a question, how do you assess whether the question is creative?

  29. 29.

    How do you assess the degree of creativity in a question in terms of low, medium, high, and very high?

  30. 30.

    What would be your suggestion for framing creative questions?

  31. 31.

    What are your recommendations for identifying creative questions from a bunch of other questions?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaudhuri, N.B., Dhar, D. & Yammiyavar, P.G. A human-centred deep learning approach facilitating design pedagogues to frame creative questions. Neural Comput & Applic 34, 2841–2868 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06511-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06511-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation