Fostering creative thinking skills through computer programming: Explicit or integrated teaching? | Education and Information Technologies Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Fostering creative thinking skills through computer programming: Explicit or integrated teaching?

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Teaching programming skills has attracted a great deal of attention for more than a decade. One potential reason behind this is that the explicit teaching of computer programming can improve higher-order thinking skills, such as creativity. Moreover, whether or not creative programming learning activities, such as the use of creative-thinking-boosting-techniques integrated into programming, can assumedly make an additional contribution compared to explicit programming teaching remains a critical question that has yet to be answered. Therefore, the current study applied an experimental design with a sample of 34 preservice IT teachers to examine whether or not creative programming activities or explicit teaching of programming play a significant role in promoting creative thinking skills. The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Verbal Form was employed to collect the study's data. The findings indicated significant improvements in both explicit teaching and creative programming periods. The results suggest that better creative thinking skills can be improved when the integration of creativity-boosting activities follows the explicit teaching of computer programming into computer programming teaching. The results highlighted the need to integrate creativity-boosting activities into the teaching of computing programming.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Adams, K. (2005). The sources of innovation and creativity. National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). https://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sources-of-Innovation-Creativity.pdf

  • Alice. (n.d.). About Alice. https://www.alice.org/about/

  • Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881

  • Almeida, L. S., Prieto, L. P., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aslan, E. (2001). Turkish version of Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. M.Ü Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14, 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved, and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. (2019). Collaborative creativity and innovation in education. In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), Creativity under duress in education? (pp. 155–177). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Basadur, M. S. (1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 237–268). Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basadur, M. S. (1997). Organizational development interventions for enhancing creativity in the workplace. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creativity in classrooms. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 587–606). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bereczki, E. O., & Karpati, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design [Conference presentation]. Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

  • Chao, P.-Y. (2016). Exploring students’ computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 283–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crews, T., & Butterfield, J. (2002). Using technology to bring abstract concepts into focus: A programming case study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13(2), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSchryver, M. D., & Yadav, A. (2015). Creative and computational thinking in the context of new literacies: Working with teachers to scaffold complex technology-mediated approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 411–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa, A. A. (2018). Computational literacy and “the big picture” concerning computers in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, R., Rybicki, J.M., Sorva, J., & Hellas, A. (2019). Exploring the value of student self-evaluation in introductory programming. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, pp. 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339407

  • Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Barton & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2022). Project-first approach to programming in K–12: Tracking the development of novice programmers in technology-deprived environments. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11180-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florez, F. B., Casallas, R., Hernandez, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a Generation’s Way of Thinking: Teaching Computational Thinking Through Programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, C. (2013). A sociolinguistic study of English taboo language. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2310–2314. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, M. B. (2021). Cooperative learning in computer programming: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Jigsaw teaching strategy with novice programmers. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4839–4856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). Educating which creativity? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govender, I., & Grayson, D. J. (2008). Preservice and in-service teachers’ experiences of learning to program in an object-oriented language. Computers & Education, 51, 874–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E. L. (2019). Creativity: A challenge for contemporary education. Comparative Education, 55(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1541665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grube, P. P., & Schmid, K. (2008). Selecting creativity techniques for innovative requirements engineering. In Third International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering (MERE’08) (pp. 32–36). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MERE.2008.6

  • Haarmann, H. J., O’Rourke, P., & Ragusa, E. (2012). Does divergent thinking training improve language proficiency and performance? – Literature review reveals benefit and suggests testable approaches. University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language. https://nanopdf.com/download/does-divergent-thinking-training-improve-language-proficiency-and_pdf

  • Hager, P., & Kaye, M. (1992). Critical thinking in teacher education: A process-oriented research agenda. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 17(2), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hender, J. M., Rodgers, T. L., Dean, D. L., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2001). Improving Group Creativity: Brainstorming Versus Non-Brainstorming Techniques in a GSS Environment. In E. Dennis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2001.926248

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershkovitz, A., Sitman, R., Israel-Fishelson, R., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2019). Creativity in the acquisition of computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel-Fishelson, R., Hershkovitz, A., Eguiluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2021). The associations between computational thinking and creativity: The role of personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1415–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022a). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011–2020). Computers & Education, 176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353

  • Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022b). Cultivating creativity improves middle school students’ computational thinking skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2088562

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Mindtools for engaging critical thinking in the classroom. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalargiros, E. M., & Manning, M. R. (2015). Divergent thinking and brainstorming in perspective: Implications for organization change and innovation. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 23, 293–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpova, E. E., Marcketti, S. B., & Barker, J. (2011). The efficacy of teaching creativity: Assessment of student creative thinking before and after exercises. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X11400065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., Chung, K., & Yu, H. (2013). Enhancing digital fluency using computer programming. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 171–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, A. J., LaToza, T. D., Hull, S., Ko, E. A., Kwok, W., Quichocho, J., & Pandit, R. (2019). Teaching explicit programming strategies to adolescents. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 469–475). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287371

  • LaToza, T. D., Arab, M., Loksa, D., & Ko, A. J. (2020). Explicit programming strategies. Empirical Software Engineering, 25(3), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laura-Ochoa, L., & Bedregal-Alpaca, N. (2022). Incorporation of computational thinking practices to enhance learning in a programming course. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 13(2), 194–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Scoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y.-T., Yeh, M. K. C., & Tan, S.-R. (2022). Teaching programming by revealing thinking process: Watching experts’ live coding videos with reflection annotations. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(4), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3155884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between Papert and Wing. Science & Education, 30, 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loksa, D., Ko, A. J., Jernigan, W., Oleson, A., Mendez, C. J., & Burnett, M. M. (2016). Programming, problem solving, and self-awareness: Effects of explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), (pp. 1449–1461). ACM.

  • Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPeck, J. E. (1991). What is learned in informal logic courses? Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meerboum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. D., Soh, L. K., Chiriacescu, V., Ingraham, E., Shell, D. F., & Hazley, M. P. (2014). Integrating computational and creative thinking to improve learning and performance in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 475–480). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538940

  • Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 463–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1992). The children’s machine. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pausch, R. (n.d.). Why is it called Alice? https://www.alice.org/about/

  • Peppler, K., & Kafai, A. (2007). Collaboration, computation, and creativity: Media arts practices in urban youth culture. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference, (Vol. 8, Part 2, pp. 586–588). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D. Singer, R. Golikoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. M. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. M. (2018). How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm. Creative Industries Journal, 11(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2018.1523662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M., Lepage, A., & Lille, B. (2017). Computational thinking development through creative programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0080-z

  • Rosenthal, D. A., Morrison, S. M., & Perry, L. (1977). Teaching Creativity: A Comparison of Two Techniques. Australian Journal of Education, 21(3), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494417702100302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-López, J. M., del Olmo-Muñoz, J., González-Calero, J. A., & Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. (2020). Exploring the effect of training in visual block programming for preservice teachers. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4030065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & De Vreede, G. J. (2004). Causal relationships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2004.11045783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savransky, S. D. (2000). Engineering of creativity: Introduction to TRIZ methodology of inventive problem solving. CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scratch. (n.d.). About Scratch. https://scratch.mit.edu/about

  • Shubina, I., & Kulakli, A. (2019). Pervasive learning and technology usage for creativity development in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(1), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. J. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolaki, A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). The Creativity Challenge Game: An educational intervention for creativity enhancement with the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Computers & Education, 123, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., Guo, X., Zheng, W., & Zhong, M. (2014). Case-based teaching using the Laboratory Animal System for learning C/C++ programming. Computers & Education, 77, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 99–121). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1965). Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. Daedalus, Creativity and Learning, 94(3), 663–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Personnel Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: National and international extensions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, Verbal Tests Forms A And B (Figural A & B). Scholastic Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom: What research says to the teacher. NEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (2000). Research Review for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Figural and Verbal Forms A and B. Scholastic Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K. C. (2013). Facilitating creativity in adult learners through brainstorming and play. Higher Education of Social Science, 4(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.hess.1927024020130403.3153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulger, K. (2016). The creative training in the visual arts education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdu, E., Regueras, L. M., Verdu, M. J., Leal, J. P., de Castro, J. P., & Queiros, R. (2012). A distributed system for learning programming on-line. Computers & Education, 58, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., Roy, A., & Falk, M. (2020). Providing students with agency to self-scaffold in a computational science and engineering course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33, 328–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09267-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardhaugh, R. (2000). An introduction to sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing. Social Issues in Computing. http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html

  • Yadav, A., & Cooper, S. (2017). Fostering creativity through computing. Communications of the ACM, 60(2), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz, A., Baltaci, S., & Demir, B. K. (2017). Reflection on the Analytic Geometry Courses: The Geogebra Software and Its Effect on Creative Thinking. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(4), 620–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Mersin University, Mersin, Türkiye

    Serkan Şendağ & İlker Yakin

  2. Department of Computer Technologies, Eskişehir Technical University, Eskişehir, Türkiye

    Nuray Gedik

Authors
  1. Serkan Şendağ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. İlker Yakin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nuray Gedik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serkan Şendağ.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

In this study, all procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

1.1 Sample activity

1.1.1 Stage 1. Initiation and selecting taboo words:

The first stage begins with the instructor saying: "Hello, everyone. Today our topic is environmental pollution. Your task is to create an animation that fosters awareness regarding environmental pollution. You have 60 s to think about everything you know about environmental pollution.” At the end of the duration, the instructor adds: “Okay, you now have another 60 s to write three or four words that first come to your mind about environmental pollution.” Entitled “Taboo Words,” the instructor then lists the words generated by the learners. The instructor then explains the idea of “Taboo Words” by saying, "Okay, these words are strictly forbidden to be used in your animations.”

1.1.2 Stage 2. Selecting random input words with a provocation:

The instructor randomly assigns the learners into teams of three or four. Then, the instructor explains the idea of provocation and randomly matches the teams. The provocation stage aims to select the most interesting/irrelevant words or phrases that will challenge the opponent team more during the creation of their animation. The teams, therefore, become either “attacking” or “defending,” where someone from the attacking team chooses someone from the defending team and challenges them by asking questions until the most irrelevant word or phrases are found within 60 to 90 s. The role of the defender is to respond with the shortest, most succinct answers. The word or phrase picked by the attacker from the question–answer dialogue becomes one of the random input words for the defending team. Additionally, the instructor can offer an “igniter” to kick-start the process. An example of an "igniter" could be: "What is the most interesting thing you have recently?" The attacker then starts by using the igniter, as shown in the following example dialogue:

- What is the most exciting thing that you have had recently?

- I met a lovely girl.

- What happened?

- We spoke.

- Have you fallen in love with her?

- Yes.

- How about her?

- Sure!

- Why do you think so?

- Her soul smelled burnt!

- Stop! The phrase is “burnt soul.”

The term “Burnt soul” then becomes one of the random inputs.

1.1.3 Stage 3. Design and development with brainstorming:

Having determined all the random input, each team creates their animation by integrating the random input into their work. Meanwhile, they also need to avoid the use of taboo words. They are encouraged to brainstorm with their teammates during the design and development process to reach the most original product. The within-team brainstorming process may sometimes require opposition. In such a case, the teams may require judgment criteria such as "The idea is not original/flexible/functional because…" to challenge their product design and development.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Şendağ, S., Yakin, İ. & Gedik, N. Fostering creative thinking skills through computer programming: Explicit or integrated teaching?. Educ Inf Technol 28, 10819–10838 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11629-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11629-4

Keywords