At this point in the discussion, I would like to suggest that there may be convergence between these two topics. The tone of the discussion suggested that IT in some way denies creativity--that it is synonymous with "regimen," "structure," "absolutes" while creativity is "unrestrained," "unrestructured," "idiosyncratic." (Determinism vs. Constructivism in the extreme sense?)
First, the area of creativity is much studied. One aspect of that research has been to make a case that creativity is a highly structured, highly-patterned activity. I suppose there ought to be patterns if there is to be thought to anything. One reference in that vein is Robert Weisberg's
Second, at least one researcher has studied the use of IT methodology in the teaching of art--Patricia Rogers of Bimidji State University in Minnesota.
Perhaps the structuring of IT can allow for idiosyncratic thought.
An important dimension regarding how tests are perceived is that of stakes. A high stakes test is perceived to have more important consequences than a low stakes test. By lowering stakes, then it is possible to be tested repeatedly and hopefully without undue fear of the consequences. Perhaps learning would be facilitated then. Isn't this analogous to games? That is, that games are by their nature activities that have low stakes, and therefore non-debilitating consequences?