Creativity Development With Problem-Based Digital Making and Block-Based Programming for Science,Technology,Engineering,Arts,and Mathematics Learning in Middle School Contexts
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2023
Creativity Development With Problem-Based Digital Making and Block-Based Programming for Science,Technology,Engineering,Arts,and Mathematics Learning in Middle School Contexts
Creativity, one of the cornerstones of students’ 21st-century skills, is regarded as an important learning outcome of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education. Meanwhile, problem-based digital making (DM), which combines the child-friendly programming activities of DM with problem-solving elements, is an emerging instructional design to facilitate STEAM learning. This qualitative case study examines the implementation of a problem-based DM instructional program that used the block-based programming tool Scratch to cultivate the participants’ creativity. Fifty-four middle school students (aged 10–14 years) in Hong Kong participated in the program, which totaled 10 contact hours over five consecutive weeks. Through triangulating students’ DM artifacts, video recordings, field notes, and interviews, the researchers characterized the students’ creative expression, examined the role of problem-based DM in encouraging creative work, and investigated the use of Scratch for mediating student creativity. The results showed that problem-based DM activities fostered students’ creative expressions in the dimensions of novelty, utility, aesthetics, and authenticity. While Scratch mediated the way the students presented their solutions, it had limitations that hindered the students’ digital artifact construction. The findings provide theoretical insights for framing creativity and offer practical implications for the implementation of problem-based DM in K–12 contexts.
BautistaA. (2021). STEAM education: Contributing evidence of validity and effectiveness, Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 44(4), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2021.1926678
2.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–17 April 2012.
3.
ÇakıroğluÜ.MumcuS. (2020). Focus-Fight-Finalize (3F): Problem-solving steps extracted from behavioral patterns in block based programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(7), 1279–1310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120930673
4.
ChanM. M.BliksteinP. (2018). Exploring problem-based learning for middle school design and engineering education in digital fabrication laboratories. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1746
5.
CuiZ.NgO. (2021). The interplay between mathematical and computational thinking in primary school students’ mathematical problem-solving within a programming environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 988–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120979930
6.
DiosM. Á. Q.López-IñestaE.OjedaM. D.ManzanaresM. C. S.DorríoJ. B. V. (2021). Implementation of a STEAM project in compulsory secondary education that creates connections with the environment. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 44(4), 871–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2021.1925475
7.
FidaiA.CapraroM. M.CapraroR. M. (2020). “Scratch”-ing computational thinking with Arduino: A meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100726
8.
FieldsD. A.KafaiY. B.Morales-NavarroL.WalkerJ. T. (2021). Debugging by design: A constructionist approach to high school students’ crafting and coding of electronic textiles as failure artefacts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1078–1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13079
9.
HoneyM.PearsonG.SchweingruberH. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
10.
JuradoE.FonsecaD.CoderchJ.CanaletaX. (2020). Social STEAM learning at an early age with robotic platforms: A case study in four schools in Spain. Sensors, 20(13), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20133698
LaaksoN. L.KorhonenT. S.HakkarainenK. P. (2021). Developing students’ digital competences through collaborative game design. Computers and Education, 174, 104308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104308
14.
LouS. J.ChouY. C.ShihR. C.ChungC. C. (2017). A study of creativity in CaC2 steamship-derived STEM project-based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2387–2404. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01231a
15.
NgO.ChanT. (2019). Learning as Making: Using 3D computer-aided design to enhance the learning of shape and space in STEM-integrated ways. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12643
16.
NgO.CuiZ. (2021). Examining primary students’ mathematical problem-solving in a programming context: Toward a computationally enhanced mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(4), 847–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01200-7
17.
NgO.LiuM.CuiZ. (2021). Students’ in-moment challenges and developing maker perspectives during problem-based digital making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 114(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1967817
18.
OzkanG.TopsakalU. U. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09547-z
19.
PapertS. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
20.
PerignatE.Katz-BuonincontroJ. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
21.
PiagetJ. (1973). To understand is to invent. Grossman Publishers.
22.
Rodríguez-MartínezJ. A.González-CaleroJ. A.Sáez-LópezJ. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: An experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448
23.
Sáez-LópezJ. M.Sevillano-GarcíaM. L.Vazquez-CanoE. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: Educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
24.
SaorínJ. L.Melian-DiazD.BonnetA.CarreraC. C.MeierC.De La Torre-CanteroJ. (2017). Makerspace teaching-learning environment to enhance creative competence in engineering students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.004
25.
SmyrnaiouZ.GeorgakopoulouE.SotiriouS. (2020). Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling—the CCQ model for creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00223-6
26.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.) Sage.
27.
TangT.VezzaniV.ErikssonV. (2020). Developing critical thinking, collective creativity skills and problem solving through playful design jams. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100696
28.
ThomasG. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411409884
TopalliD.CagiltayN. E. (2018). Improving programming skills in engineering education through problem-based game projects with Scratch. Computers and Education, 120, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.011
31.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” Criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
32.
Tucker-RaymondE.PuttickG.CassidyM.HarteveldC.TroianoG. M. (2019). “I broke your game!”: Critique among middle schoolers designing computer games about climate change. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0194-z
33.
Van de WalleJ. A.KarpK. S.Bay-WilliamsJ. M. (2016). Elementary and middle school mathematics. Pearson Education UK.
34.
WagnerJ. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x026007013
35.
WatermanK. P.GoldsmithL.PasqualeM. (2020). Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum: An examination of activities that support students’ computational thinking in the service of disciplinary learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09801-y
36.
WengX.ChiuT. K.JongM. S. (2022). Applying relatedness to explain learning outcomes of STEM maker activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 800569-800569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800569
37.
WengX.CuiZ.NgO. L.JongM. S.ChiuT. K. (2022). Characterizing students’ 4C skills development during problem-based digital making. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09961-4
