Testing the Level of Creativity and Spatial Imagination in the SketchUp Program Using a Modified Urban Test of Creative Thinking

Abstract

The authors focus on innovating the research tool Urban’s Test of Creativity to enhance the evaluation and efficiency of the educational process. This paper presents the possibility of measuring creativity and spatial imagination in the SketchUp virtual environment. Teachers and HR professionals in modern companies require an overview of the key competencies of students and graduates, essential for the transformation towards Industry 5.0. The authors utilize the proven concept of Urban’s Test, modify it into a digital format, and integrate new elements that assess spatial visualization and functional creativity. Teachers and HR professionals gain an efficient tool that is easy to evaluate, time-efficient, and requires minimal infrastructure. The modified research tool is suitable for conducting action research and allows for comparing respondents’ results using quantitative methods. This pilot study aimed to validate the modified test and its properties. A total of one hundred respondents, divided into five groups based on age and education (approximately 10 to 25 years old), were tested. The results confirmed that the concept of Urban’s Test of Creativity can be successfully adapted for commonly available 3D modeling environments. Moreover, it was confirmed that within the target group, the level of spatial visualization improves gradually with age.

1. Introduction

In our paper, we present a modified version of Urban’s figural test of creative thinking. This test is a screening tool that visualizes the creative potential of an individual. It is used as a means to identify the level of creativity, that is, highly developed creative abilities on the one hand or below average abilities on the other [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].

The concept of creativity is defined in different ways, but basically, we can say that it is the ability to create new original solutions different from the stereotyped ones, to find new connections, and to use unconventionally specified elements [9]. Therefore, the main features of creativity are originality (to create new original ideas), flexibility (to create different solutions), fluency (to create many ideas), and elaboration (attention to detail) [3]. Creative thinking fosters innovation and the ability to solve problems in unconventional ways, which is crucial for competitiveness in the labor market.

Recently, schools have been emphasizing the flexibility, originality, and uniqueness of each student because these are attributes that people should have when they leave the education system. Therefore, creative competencies are among the basic competencies that pupils acquire from primary school onwards. In this respect, we often hear experts say that teachers should encourage pupils to think independently and creatively, to experiment, and to use new alternative approaches, thus overcoming stereotypes, which are significant obstacles in the search for a new path. The main contribution to overcoming stereotypes is non-traditional perception.

Current trends in creativity testing demonstrate a shift towards multidimensional and complex models that aim to capture various aspects of creative thinking. One of the main movements involves a transition from traditional tests of divergent thinking (e.g., Guilford’s tests) to more holistic approaches [10]. These new tools encompass not only divergent thinking but also convergent thinking, knowledge, motivation, and cognitive style, thereby providing a more comprehensive picture of an individual’s creative abilities [11,12].

One example is the Comprehensive Scientific Creativity Assessment (C-SCA), which combines scientific knowledge, motivation, and thinking styles to measure students’ creative potential in subjects such as biology, physics, and chemistry. This approach emphasizes the importance of linking expertise with creativity [11]. Further methodological developments include the use of self-report tools, such as the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS), which measures creativity in various domains, including everyday and artistic activities [12].

In the field of scientific creativity, new tools have emerged to assess divergent thinking in scientific problem-solving, such as the Divergent Problem-Solving Ability Test (DPAS), which tests divergent ideation when solving scientific and experimental tasks [11].

Overcoming stereotypes, attention to elaboration, originality, fluency, as well as emotions, and relational values all play a significant role in the process of testing creative abilities. Curiosity, for instance, can influence the outcome, particularly in 3D modeling [13], where the respondent is curious about how the object will appear after being given its parameters.

Overcoming stereotypes is a significant challenge when searching for new solutions. Superficial perceptions are strongly influenced by them. Perceptual stereotypes help individuals navigate complex perceptions, but they can also hinder the discovery of new combinations and relationships. Perception is also influenced by emotions. Emotional stimuli, whether positive or negative, affect how we evaluate perceptions [14]. These stimuli evoke both pleasant and unpleasant emotions, which, when prolonged, can either foster favorable outcomes or cause stress [9,15]. However, consciously associating perceptions with emotional experiences often stimulates the desire to explore and solve problems [16,17].

Curiosity also plays a crucial role in developing creative activity. It becomes a vital factor in problem-solving processes. Teachers can encourage this curiosity by asking appropriate questions. This not only deepens analytical skills but also helps correct incorrect procedures. Analytical skills can be practiced by identifying objects, professions, or people based on certain features while using as few questions as possible [18].

Utilizing modern technologies in creativity testing is a growing trend. One of the innovative approaches in this field is the use of 3D modeling and virtual reality (IVR). For instance, a study examining the effects of virtual reality-based 3D modeling found that this approach significantly improved creative thinking and problem-solving skills in elementary school students. Students who used virtual reality in their modeling achieved better results in areas such as imagination, curiosity, and challenge-solving skills compared with those using traditional 3D modeling tools. Additionally, this tool reduced cognitive load during learning, leading to better understanding and higher engagement in lessons. IVR provides an immersive environment that supports intuitive interactions and enhances students’ emotional and social development, greatly influencing their creativity [13].

Another tool for measuring creativity, based on image analysis, utilizes image processing and neural networks. This tool automatically assesses creativity through visual artifacts created by students in activities such as scientific argumentation or creative projects, allowing for precise analysis of creative abilities without the need for manual expert evaluation [14,15].

These tools, which combine 3D modeling and advanced technologies, provide new opportunities for measuring and developing creativity across various educational contexts, considering both visual and cognitive aspects of the creative process. Urban’s Figural Test of Creative Thinking—TSD-Z is a generationally proven test that delivers clear and quick results. It is optimal for rapid research but does not account for additional factors that may arise in the development of creative thinking. Young people are closer to digital technologies and organically use various computer programs, including those for 3D modeling, not only to create different objects [18,19,20,21,22,23]. This was also one of the main reasons why we decided to modify the paper format of the test, transform it into a digital version, and validate it with the target group. The target group deliberately includes various age groups and levels of education. The test results are compared with research findings from similar target groups using the paper version of Urban’s Test of Creative Thinking. Identical or similar results will confirm the adaptability of Urban’s test concept.

2. Materials and Methods

All respondents from non-technical schools and disciplines were randomly selected to ensure similar initial knowledge in each group. Each respondent indicated that they had no experience with 3D modeling. In order to create a key 3D model, each group first had to be familiarized with the SketchUp tools and environment. This familiarization was achieved through a course that lasted 3 times 45 min. The instructor first introduced the basic 3D modeling tools in SketchUp to the course participants by means of a briefing. This was followed by the participants working independently on creating simple models. The first such model was a six-sided dice. During the creation of the first 3D model, the instructor paid close attention to the work of the course participants and, if necessary, gave them individual or group instruction. The work on the other simple models was carried out in a similar way. The last part of the course consisted of creating the house—the key 3D model. The lecturer first introduced the basic elements of the house by means of a short instruction. After that, the work on the creation of the 3D model was carried out. The time limit for this model was 35 min.

The basic method for evaluating the results of student and pupil work is our modified test of creative thinking, which is based on Urban’s figural test of creative thinking [24]. The testing tool used was a 3D modeling program—SketchUp (free web-based version, Trimble Inc., Westminster, CO, USA). Respondents were randomly selected from among primary school students and secondary and university students, in total of 100 respondents.

2.1. Urban’s Figural Test of Creative Thinking and Its Modifications

Urban’s Figural Test of Creative Thinking—TSD-Z is a screening tool that visualizes an individual’s creative abilities. It is used to identify creative abilities. Its advantage is its ease of administration and method of evaluation. Basically, it is an a-day sheet that contains 6 figural fragments (semicircle, dot, wavy line, right angle, dashed line, lying “u” outside the frame) that the respondent must complete. It focuses on qualitative, substantive, and elaborative aspects of creativity. A total of 14 criteria are used for the evaluation. It can be said that the test is objective, valid, and reliable [25]. Thus, the test meets the requirements of modern creativity research, which is not only focused on divergent thinking.

The modification of this test consisted mainly of modifying the test for the needs of evaluating works in a 3D virtual environment since the original test was designed only for evaluating an image on paper, i.e., in a 2D format (Figure 1). Based on this need, it was first necessary to modify the assignment.

These abstract shapes could not be translated into a virtual assignment, as they are 2D representations and would be difficult to place in space in terms of their indeterminate scale and position, both relative to each other and to the zero point (origin of the X, Y, and Z axes). Even if we solved this problem, they would probably produce works without value, which would be difficult to find, given the 3D space and the use of the original elements [24].

Therefore, the assignment was made more specific. Respondents were asked to create their own dream house using 3D modeling in SketchUp. The house could be created in different shapes and using different details. To illustrate this, the students were shown an image of a very simple house, which consisted of the basic shape of the house, roof, doors, windows, and chimney (Figure 2). This demonstration was only projected; the pupils had no virtual background, and the actual representation was up to their imagination [24].

Due to the modification of the assignment and media from paper to virtual environment, it was necessary to redesign the evaluation scale.

From the original evaluation scale, we eliminated categories measuring unconventional material manipulation, e.g., rotation Unconventionality A (Uka) is meaningless in the context of a 3D virtual environment. In addition, the Time Factor (Zf) was not assessed because students and pupils had a fixed time limit in which they could carry out modifications to the house.

We modified the other assessment categories to reflect the assessment of the 3D model in the virtual environment and added new categories. Among the newly added ka-categories, we included Doodling (DO), which assesses the rendering of the house using pre-rendered elements and other accessories. Refinement (PR) addresses whether elements are created with attention to detail, relate to each other, and their internal proportions are consistent. The last added evaluation category is Functionality (FU), which evaluates whether all objects and elements are created with their functionality in mind, the house has enough windows, a door leads to the terrace from the house, the pool is equipped with steps, the garden is enclosed by a fence or wall [24].

A total of 14 categories were established to evaluate the works. For each category, it is indicated whether it is a new category or based on an original one. The examples of work shown are from experimental research [24].

2.2. The Use of Demonstrated Elements (PP)

Name before modification: use of submitted elements (Wf). 0–5 points.

One point is awarded for each use of a basic submitted element (door, window, chimney, A-shaped (gable) roof, block ‘base’). One point per element used, maximum 5 points per category (Figure 3).

2.3. Drawing (DO)

New category. Rating: 0–5 points.

Complete the house by using the presented elements (creating more windows and doors) and other accessories (adding textures, colors, parts—door handles and window grids). One point for more than one use of a basic element, a maximum of one point for each type of repeat element. A maximum of one point for detail for each type of element. A maximum of two points for the use of textures and one point for the use of color (Figure 4).

2.4. New Elements (NP)

Name before modification: new elements (No). Rating.

New elements within the range of the house improvements (must be a direct part of the house), e.g., ho-dins on the gable, terrace, garage, unusual doors, and round the windows. One point for each element, with a maximum of five points (Figure 5).

2.5. New Objects (NO)

Name before modification: figure dependent boundary crossing (Bfa). Rating: 0–5 points.

One point is awarded for drawing new objects outside the house. These are new original objects that are not in the space of the house (not part of it); they can be a pool, a fence, a tree, a swing, a path, a garden, or a wall.

2.6. Graphic Connection (GS)

Name before modification: graphic connection (Vz). Rating: 0–5 points.

One point is awarded for each graphic connection/connection between two objects. For example, a swimming pool is placed in a garden area—1 point, if the pool is freely in the area—0 points. The number of points must not exceed the number of new objects (Figure 6).

2.7. Thematic Connection (TS)

Name before modification: thematic connection (Vth). Rating: 0–5 points.

The thematic connection of objects is evaluated here on a scale of 0 to 5 points. If all the objects are thematically directly connected to the house—5 points; if something other than the house has been drawn, then the score is 0 points. If there are objects with direct and indirect links to the house (means of transport, roads, sun, clouds…) and there are about half of them, 3 points (Figure 7).

2.8. Axis Space Overrun (PO)

Name before modification: figure-independent boundary crossing (Bfu). Rating: 0–5 points.

Each crossing of the axis space where the original object—house—was drawn is evaluated. If the original axis boundary (X+ and Y+) is crossed in X+, Y−/X−, Y−/X−, Y+, one point is awarded for each quadrant (e.g., the garden in the following figure is located in one quadrant other than the original quadrant, so the respondent is scored one point). Exceeding the height limit, i.e., the axes from Z+ to Z− (in any quadrant), 2 points are awarded (e.g., creating a cellar under the house, creating a pool in the garden that goes below its level) (Figure 8).

2.9. Preservation of Aspect Ratio (ZP)

Name before modification: perspective (Pe). Rating: 0–5 points.

Rating by scale—all objects and elements are modeled in roughly the same proportion. The size of doors and windows correspond to each other and the size of the house, the same applies to other objects (e.g., trees) (Figure 9).

2.10. Functionality (FU)

New category. Rating: 0–5 points.

Rating using a scale—all objects and elements are created with their functionality in mind; the house has enough windows, the terrace is accessed by a door from the house, the pool is surrounded by steps, and the garden is surrounded by a fence or wall.

2.11. Sophistication (PR)

New category. Rating: 0–5 points.

Rating by scale, elements are created with attention to detail; they relate to each other, and their internal proportions correspond. There are no obvious errors in the model (e.g., excess lines or lines in the other axes). Window frames are appropriately sized on the counter-angled sides, door handles are appropriate to their size, and textures, when used, are appropriate in size—one covering piece will not be halfway across the roof (Figure 10).

2.12. Humor—Affective/Emotional/Expressive Power Model (HU)

Name before modification: Humor. Resp. affective/emotional/expressive power of drawing (Hu) Rating. Any model that evokes a response of humor, amusement, or laughter in the judge may be scored up to 5 points. The same applies to themes or content with expressive power. In this case, the overall impression of the model can also be assessed, i.e., how the judge ‘likes’ it, color matching, etc (Figure 11).

2.13. Unconventionality B (NB)

Name before modification: unconventionality B (Ukb). Rating: 0 or 3 points.

Award 3 points for surrealistic or abstract elements or objects or use of an abstract, surrealistic, or symbolic theme (Figure 12).

2.14. Unconventionality B (NC)

Name before modification: unconventionality C (Ukc). Rating: 0 or 3 points.

When using a character or symbol (e.g., letters, numbers, universally valid symbols—cross, exclamation mark) that are part of the model, 3 points are awarded (Figure 13).

2.15. Unconventionality D (ND)

Name before modification: unconventionality D (Ukd). Rating: 0 or 3 points.

A total of three points will be awarded for unconventional use, i.e., not stereotypical, of the five elements submitted. Examples of unconventional use of elements include skylights or round windows, a different shape of the house than the block shape, a different roof shape, or extending the roof to the foundation (Figure 14).

3. Experimental Use of the Modified Test and Results

The research sample included only those students who were not previously familiar with 3D modeling. It includes groups of 20 students in each of first year, second year, high school, bachelor, and master students [24].

3.1. Evaluation of Individual 3D Models

In an experimental use of the modified test, we collected data from respondents in five groups and evaluated a total of 100 virtual 3D models created in SketchUp. The Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 show the complete evaluation in each ka-category. The individual categories are broken down in Section 2. Each respondent was given a custom ID, which was also used to identify the model anonymously. A custom ID was created for each group to help distinguish the level of education. In the last row of the ta-bullets, the average of each category is provided for ease of comparison [24].

Table 1. Results of first-grade pupils.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
101	4	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	3
102	4	5	1	2	2	5	3	2	2	2	3	0	0	3
103	5	5	2	2	2	5	1	3	3	2	3	0	3	0
104	5	5	3	3	3	5	1	2	4	3	3	0	0	0
105	5	5	3	1	0	5	1	4	3	3	3	0	3	0
106	5	4	3	4	4	5	5	2	2	3	3	0	0	0
107	5	3	0	4	4	5	5	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
108	4	5	1	4	4	5	3	1	3	3	3	0	0	3
109	3	5	3	2	2	5	2	1	2	2	3	0	0	0
110	3	4	4	0	0	5	0	3	1	2	3	0	3	0
111	4	3	0	3	3	5	5	3	3	3	4	0	0	0
112	5	5	1	3	3	5	2	3	4	3	3	0	0	3
113	5	5	3	2	2	5	1	4	3	4	3	0	0	0
114	4	5	2	2	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	0
115	5	4	1	0	0	5	0	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
116	5	4	0	0	0	5	1	4	3	3	3	0	0	3
117	5	4	0	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	3	0	0	3
118	4	4	1	0	0	5	1	4	3	3	3	0	0	3
119	5	3	0	5	5	5	3	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
120	5	4	0	4	4	5	5	5	4	3	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.50	4.30	1.45	2.30	2.15	5.00	2.30	2.95	2.70	2.70	3.05	0.00	0.45	1.05

Table 1. Results of first-grade pupils.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
101	4	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	3
102	4	5	1	2	2	5	3	2	2	2	3	0	0	3
103	5	5	2	2	2	5	1	3	3	2	3	0	3	0
104	5	5	3	3	3	5	1	2	4	3	3	0	0	0
105	5	5	3	1	0	5	1	4	3	3	3	0	3	0
106	5	4	3	4	4	5	5	2	2	3	3	0	0	0
107	5	3	0	4	4	5	5	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
108	4	5	1	4	4	5	3	1	3	3	3	0	0	3
109	3	5	3	2	2	5	2	1	2	2	3	0	0	0
110	3	4	4	0	0	5	0	3	1	2	3	0	3	0
111	4	3	0	3	3	5	5	3	3	3	4	0	0	0
112	5	5	1	3	3	5	2	3	4	3	3	0	0	3
113	5	5	3	2	2	5	1	4	3	4	3	0	0	0
114	4	5	2	2	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	0
115	5	4	1	0	0	5	0	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
116	5	4	0	0	0	5	1	4	3	3	3	0	0	3
117	5	4	0	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	3	0	0	3
118	4	4	1	0	0	5	1	4	3	3	3	0	0	3
119	5	3	0	5	5	5	3	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
120	5	4	0	4	4	5	5	5	4	3	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.50	4.30	1.45	2.30	2.15	5.00	2.30	2.95	2.70	2.70	3.05	0.00	0.45	1.05

In the table, you can see the results of the evaluation of the 3D models of the 4th and 5th grade students.

Table 2. Results of second-grade pupils.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
S01	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	0
S02	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	3
S03	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	2	0	0	3
S04	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	3	3	0	0	0
S05	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	0
S06	5	3	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	2	0	0	0
S07	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	2	2	3	2	0	0	0
S08	4	5	2	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S09	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	3	0	0	0
S10	5	3	3	1	1	5	2	4	3	3	2	0	0	0
S11	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S12	4	4	4	1	1	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S13	5	5	1	0	0	5	0	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
S14	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	4	2	3	2	0	3	0
S15	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S16	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	3	2	0	0	0
S17	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S18	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	0
S19	5	4	2	1	1	5	1	4	5	5	3	0	3	0
S20	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	5	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.90	3.50	1.35	0.15	0.15	5.00	1.55	3.30	2.55	3.30	2.40	0.00	0.30	0.30

Table 2. Results of second-grade pupils.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
S01	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	0
S02	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	3
S03	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	2	0	0	3
S04	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	3	3	0	0	0
S05	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	0
S06	5	3	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	2	0	0	0
S07	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	2	2	3	2	0	0	0
S08	4	5	2	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S09	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	3	0	0	0
S10	5	3	3	1	1	5	2	4	3	3	2	0	0	0
S11	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S12	4	4	4	1	1	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S13	5	5	1	0	0	5	0	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
S14	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	4	2	3	2	0	3	0
S15	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S16	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	3	2	0	0	0
S17	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S18	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	0
S19	5	4	2	1	1	5	1	4	5	5	3	0	3	0
S20	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	5	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.90	3.50	1.35	0.15	0.15	5.00	1.55	3.30	2.55	3.30	2.40	0.00	0.30	0.30

In the table, you can find the results of the evaluation of the 3D models of pupils from 6th to 8th grade.

Table 3. Results of high school students.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
S01	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	0
S02	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	3
S03	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	2	0	0	3
S04	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	3	3	0	0	0
S05	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	0
S06	5	3	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	2	0	0	0
S07	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	2	2	3	2	0	0	0
S08	4	5	2	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S09	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	3	0	0	0
S10	5	3	3	1	1	5	2	4	3	3	2	0	0	0
S11	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S12	4	4	4	1	1	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S13	5	5	1	0	0	5	0	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
S14	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	4	2	3	2	0	3	0
S15	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S16	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	3	2	0	0	0
S17	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S18	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	0
S19	5	4	2	1	1	5	1	4	5	5	3	0	3	0
S20	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	5	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.90	3.50	1.35	0.15	0.15	5.00	1.55	3.30	2.55	3.30	2.40	0.00	0.30	0.30

Table 3. Results of high school students.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
S01	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	0
S02	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	4	4	4	2	0	0	3
S03	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	2	0	0	3
S04	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	3	3	0	0	0
S05	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	3	0	0	0
S06	5	3	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	2	0	0	0
S07	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	2	2	3	2	0	0	0
S08	4	5	2	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S09	5	5	1	0	0	5	2	3	3	4	3	0	0	0
S10	5	3	3	1	1	5	2	4	3	3	2	0	0	0
S11	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S12	4	4	4	1	1	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S13	5	5	1	0	0	5	0	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
S14	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	4	2	3	2	0	3	0
S15	5	4	1	0	0	5	1	3	2	2	3	0	0	0
S16	5	2	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	3	2	0	0	0
S17	5	3	1	0	0	5	2	4	2	4	2	0	0	0
S18	5	2	1	0	0	5	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	0
S19	5	4	2	1	1	5	1	4	5	5	3	0	3	0
S20	5	4	1	0	0	5	2	3	2	5	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.90	3.50	1.35	0.15	0.15	5.00	1.55	3.30	2.55	3.30	2.40	0.00	0.30	0.30

The table shows the results for high school students aged 18–20.

Table 4. Results of Bachelor’s students.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
B01	3	5	1	1	2	5	3	4	3	1	3	0	0	3
B02	5	5	0	2	2	5	3	4	4	3	3	0	0	0
B03	5	3	1	3	3	5	5	2	1	1	1	0	0	3
B04	5	5	1	3	3	5	2	1	2	3	3	0	0	0
B05	3	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	4	3	3	0	0	3
B06	3	3	3	3	3	5	2	3	4	4	3	0	0	0
B07	4	5	0	1	1	5	3	5	4	4	3	0	0	0
B08	4	4	1	3	3	5	2	5	2	3	3	0	0	3
B09	4	5	1	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	0	0	3
B10	5	4	1	2	2	5	5	5	2	3	3	0	0	3
B11	3	5	1	3	3	5	4	4	4	3	3	0	0	0
B12	4	5	3	2	2	5	2	4	5	3	3	0	0	3
B13	5	5	2	2	2	5	2	4	3	4	3	0	0	0
B14	5	4	1	0	0	5	0	5	4	3	3	0	0	3
B15	4	3	2	1	0	5	3	1	1	1	4	0	0	0
B16	5	5	0	3	3	5	1	4	2	2	3	0	0	3
B17	5	3	1	2	2	5	2	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
B18	5	5	3	3	3	5	0	5	3	4	3	0	0	3
B19	4	4	0	1	1	5	0	3	3	4	3	0	0	3
B20	4	5	0	1	1	5	0	4	4	4	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.25	4.35	1.15	2.00	2.00	4.95	2.20	3.65	3.05	2.95	3.00	0.00	0.00	1.65

Table 4. Results of Bachelor’s students.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
B01	3	5	1	1	2	5	3	4	3	1	3	0	0	3
B02	5	5	0	2	2	5	3	4	4	3	3	0	0	0
B03	5	3	1	3	3	5	5	2	1	1	1	0	0	3
B04	5	5	1	3	3	5	2	1	2	3	3	0	0	0
B05	3	4	1	0	0	5	1	2	4	3	3	0	0	3
B06	3	3	3	3	3	5	2	3	4	4	3	0	0	0
B07	4	5	0	1	1	5	3	5	4	4	3	0	0	0
B08	4	4	1	3	3	5	2	5	2	3	3	0	0	3
B09	4	5	1	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	0	0	3
B10	5	4	1	2	2	5	5	5	2	3	3	0	0	3
B11	3	5	1	3	3	5	4	4	4	3	3	0	0	0
B12	4	5	3	2	2	5	2	4	5	3	3	0	0	3
B13	5	5	2	2	2	5	2	4	3	4	3	0	0	0
B14	5	4	1	0	0	5	0	5	4	3	3	0	0	3
B15	4	3	2	1	0	5	3	1	1	1	4	0	0	0
B16	5	5	0	3	3	5	1	4	2	2	3	0	0	3
B17	5	3	1	2	2	5	2	4	2	3	3	0	0	0
B18	5	5	3	3	3	5	0	5	3	4	3	0	0	3
B19	4	4	0	1	1	5	0	3	3	4	3	0	0	3
B20	4	5	0	1	1	5	0	4	4	4	3	0	0	0
AVG	4.25	4.35	1.15	2.00	2.00	4.95	2.20	3.65	3.05	2.95	3.00	0.00	0.00	1.65

The table shows the results of the evaluation of the 3D models of the non-technical bachelor students.

Table 5. Results of Master’s students.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
M01	4	4	0	0	0	5	0	4	2	1	2	0	0	0
M02	4	5	0	3	3	5	2	2	3	2	2	0	0	3
M03	4	5	4	2	2	4	1	5	5	4	3	0	0	0
M04	5	5	4	1	0	5	0	5	5	3	2	0	0	3
M05	4	5	1	4	4	5	5	4	4	3	2	3	0	3
M06	5	5	3	2	0	5	0	2	5	3	2	0	0	3
M07	4	4	0	3	3	5	3	4	4	3	2	0	0	0
M08	5	5	2	5	5	5	3	3	5	4	2	0	0	0
M09	5	5	2	2	2	5	2	3	3	3	2	0	0	3
M10	5	5	1	0	0	5	0	5	5	2	2	0	0	0
M11	3	2	3	0	0	5	0	1	2	2	1	0	0	0
M12	4	5	0	2	2	5	3	5	4	4	2	0	0	3
M13	5	5	1	2	2	5	0	5	2	3	3	0	0	0
M14	4	4	1	3	4	5	3	4	3	2	2	0	0	0
M15	5	3	2	3	2	5	5	4	3	2	2	0	0	0
M16	5	5	0	0	0	5	1	5	5	3	2	0	0	0
M17	3	2	2	1	1	5	1	4	4	2	2	0	0	3
M18	5	4	1	1	0	5	0	4	4	3	2	0	0	3
M19	5	5	1	2	3	5	3	5	4	4	3	0	0	3
M20	4	5	1	2	2	5	5	5	4	5	3	0	0	3
AVG	4.40	4.40	1.45	1.90	1.75	4.95	1.85	3.95	3.80	2.90	2.15	0.05	0.00	1.50

Table 5. Results of Master’s students.

ID	PP	DO	NP	NO	GS	TS	PO	ZP	FU	PR	HU	NB	NC	ND
M01	4	4	0	0	0	5	0	4	2	1	2	0	0	0
M02	4	5	0	3	3	5	2	2	3	2	2	0	0	3
M03	4	5	4	2	2	4	1	5	5	4	3	0	0	0
M04	5	5	4	1	0	5	0	5	5	3	2	0	0	3
M05	4	5	1	4	4	5	5	4	4	3	2	3	0	3
M06	5	5	3	2	0	5	0	2	5	3	2	0	0	3
M07	4	4	0	3	3	5	3	4	4	3	2	0	0	0
M08	5	5	2	5	5	5	3	3	5	4	2	0	0	0
M09	5	5	2	2	2	5	2	3	3	3	2	0	0	3
M10	5	5	1	0	0	5	0	5	5	2	2	0	0	0
M11	3	2	3	0	0	5	0	1	2	2	1	0	0	0
M12	4	5	0	2	2	5	3	5	4	4	2	0	0	3
M13	5	5	1	2	2	5	0	5	2	3	3	0	0	0
M14	4	4	1	3	4	5	3	4	3	2	2	0	0	0
M15	5	3	2	3	2	5	5	4	3	2	2	0	0	0
M16	5	5	0	0	0	5	1	5	5	3	2	0	0	0
M17	3	2	2	1	1	5	1	4	4	2	2	0	0	3
M18	5	4	1	1	0	5	0	4	4	3	2	0	0	3
M19	5	5	1	2	3	5	3	5	4	4	3	0	0	3
M20	4	5	1	2	2	5	5	5	4	5	3	0	0	3
AVG	4.40	4.40	1.45	1.90	1.75	4.95	1.85	3.95	3.80	2.90	2.15	0.05	0.00	1.50

The table shows the results of the evaluation of 3D models of non-technical master students.

3.2. Results in Creativity and Spatial Imagination

To present the results on the scale of creativity and spatial imagination, we have selected only some categories. The selected categories correspond best to the given abilities and can be clearly assigned to either creativity or spatial imagination. The other categories are also important but cannot be clearly identified as components of creativity or spatial imagination, or their inclusion would require more detailed analysis and investigation [24].

3.3. Pupils’/Students’ Scores in the Area of Creativity in the Total Scores of the Whole Group

In the evaluation of the creativity scale, we included the categories Drawing (DO), New Elements (NP), New Objects (NO), and Humor (HU) (Figure 15). Second graders achieved the best creativity scores overall and in three of the four categories measured. In the Humor (HU) category, they came second, along with the undergraduate students. In the Humor (HU) category, the best results were achieved by first-grade students, and their overall results can be rated as the second best in the area of creativity. The third best results in the area of creativity were obtained by bachelor followed by master students, and the worst results were obtained by high school students. Noticeably lower results in the New Objects (NO) category were achieved by high school students. This could be due to many aspects, such as the personality of the teacher or the focus on performance in other areas. However, even if the results from this category were omitted, it would not affect the overall results [24].

3.4. Results of Pupils/Students in the Area of Spatial Imagination in the Total Values Achieved by the Whole Group

The evaluation of the spatial imagination scale was carried out using the categories of Preservation of Proportion (PP), Functionality (FU), and Refinement (PR) (Figure 16). It is clear from these results that the oldest students achieved the best results in the area of spatial imagination. According to these measured values, we could conclude that the level of spatial imagination increases with age. However, the question remains whether the increasing values are due to a more proficient control of the SketchUp program itself. The result is also consistent with the sub-result from the Preservation of Proportion (PP) scale. In the Functionality (FU) and Refinement (PR) scales we can observe small fluctuations in relation to the age of the respondents [24]. The results in the Spatial Imagination domain also suggest that spatial imagination ability develops with increasing age of the respondents, which is consistent with the results of the standardized Structure of Intelligence Test [26], which clearly shows that older children performed better in the Spatial Imagination (Figural Intelligence) domain. In the categories of creativity, the best results were achieved by second-grade pupils, which is also consistent with the results of the semi-automatic Urban test [25]. The same conclusions were reached by research devoted to the Shape Folding Test [27].

4. Discussion

Today’s society is preparing for life in Industry 5.0. Society will see a high degree of digitalization, with individual industries increasingly using 3D modeling and 3D printing [28]. Therefore, even students from a young age should be prepared for this eventuality [29]. 3D modeling in SketchUp provides a wide range of possibilities for creating individual spatial models, modifying, rotating, reshaping, and adding to them. Modeling in 3D is already used in various fields such as architecture, construction, horticulture, medicine, agriculture, and art, which means that not only primary school students are learning to work with 3D modeling programs [30,31], but even more often, students of secondary and higher education [32,33].

Moreover, as we mentioned above, 3D modeling programs can also be used for testing or comparing the level of creative abilities of individual respondents and developing creativity and spatial imagination. Our modified test for detecting the level of creative abilities can also be used by employers in the recruitment process of new employees for whom a high level of creative thinking is required. To test the three dimensions of creative expression: fluency, flexibility, and originality, the SketchUp program was already used by Liveri et. al [1] in their research. For the development of creative mathematicians, Fisher [34] used this program for sketching a floor plan view of a playground; flexibility and originality were evaluated here. In this case, the SketchUp program was evaluated as a useful tool to facilitate experimentation with shapes and, in most cases, to facilitate meeting the design criteria for the project assignment [35].

Working with 3D modeling programs is currently a hot topic, so we would like to analyze in more depth any significant fluctuations in the measured categories in the case of similar results as in the New Objects (NO) category) and to determine to what extent the environment and the teacher can influence the results of the testing, hence the work with SketchUp [36].