Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Creativity in CS1: A Literature Review

Published: 01 November 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Computer science is a fast-growing field in today’s digitized age, and working in this industry often requires creativity and innovative thought. An issue within computer science education, however, is that large introductory programming courses often involve little opportunity for creative thinking within coursework. The undergraduate introductory programming course (CS1) is notorious for its poor student performance and retention rates across multiple institutions. Integrating opportunities for creative thinking may help combat this issue by adding a personal touch to course content, which could allow beginner CS students to better relate to the abstract world of programming. Research on the role of creativity in computer science education (CSE) is an interesting area with a lot of room for exploration due to the complexity of the phenomenon of creativity as well as the CSE research field being fairly new compared to some other education fields where this topic has been more closely explored.
To contribute to this area of research, this article provides a literature review exploring the concept of creativity as relevant to computer science education and CS1 in particular. Based on the review of the literature, we conclude creativity is an essential component to computer science, and the type of creativity that computer science requires is in fact, a teachable skill through the use of various tools and strategies. These strategies include the integration of open-ended assignments, large collaborative projects, learning by teaching, multimedia projects, small creative computational exercises, game development projects, digitally produced art, robotics, digital story-telling, music manipulation, and project-based learning. Research on each of these strategies and their effects on student experiences within CS1 is discussed in this review. Last, six main components of creativity-enhancing activities are identified based on the studies about incorporating creativity into CS1. These components are as follows: Collaboration, Relevance, Autonomy, Ownership, Hands-On Learning, and Visual Feedback. The purpose of this article is to contribute to computer science educators’ understanding of how creativity is best understood in the context of computer science education and explore practical applications of creativity theory in CS1 classrooms. This is an important collection of information for restructuring aspects of future introductory programming courses in creative, innovative ways that benefit student learning.

References

[1]
Ali Alharbi, David Paul, Frans Henskens, and Michael Hannaford. 2011. An investigation into the learning styles and self-regulated learning strategies for computer science students. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Changing Demands, Changing Directions (ASCILITE’11). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Sydney, Australia, 36–46.
[2]
Teresa M. Amabile. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45, 2 (1983), 357.
[3]
Hoda Amer and Saad Harous. 2017. Smart-learning course transformation for an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’17). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 463–465.
[4]
Hoda Amer and Walid Ibrahim. 2014. Using the iPad as a pedagogical tool to enhance the learning experince for novice programing students. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON’14). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 178–183.
[5]
Mikko Apiola, Matti Lattu, and Tomi A. Pasanen. 2010. Creativity and intrinsic motivation in computer science education: Experimenting with robots. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 199–203.
[6]
Owen Astrachan and Amy Briggs. 2012. The CS principles project. ACM Inroads 3, 2 (2012), 38–42.
[7]
Theresa Beaubouef and John Mason. 2005. Why the high attrition rate for computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37, 2 (Jan. 2005), 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/1083431.1083474
[8]
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2007. Failure rates in introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (Jan. 2007), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1272848.1272879
[9]
Audrey Bennett, Ron Eglash, Michael Lachney, and William Babbitt. 2016. Design agency: Diversifying computer science at the intersections of creativity and culture. In Revolutionizing Education through Web-based Instruction. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, 35–56.
[10]
Susan Bergin and Ronan Reilly. 2005. The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program. In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on Psychology of Programming (PPIG’05). Psychology of Programming Interest Group, UK, 293–304.
[11]
Susan Bergin and Ronan Reilly. 2006. Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi-institutional multivariate study. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 4 (2006), 303–323.
[12]
Maureen Biggers, Anne Brauer, and Tuba Yilmaz. 2008. Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors with cs leavers. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (2008), 402–406.
[13]
Glenn D. Blank, Soma Roy, Shreeram Sahasrabudhe, William M. Pottenger, and G. Drew Kessler. 2003. Adapting multimedia for diverse student learning styles. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 18, 3 (2003), 45–58.
[14]
Shawn Bowers and Kathie Yerion. 2013. Programming personal robots within an introductory computer science course for engineering majors. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 1 (2013), 133–139.
[15]
Karen Brennan and Mitchel Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 1. AERA, Washington, D.C., 25.
[16]
Christine Bruce, Lawrence Buckingham, John Hynd, Camille McMahon, Mike Roggenkamp, and Ian Stoodley. 2004. Ways of experiencing the act of learning to program: A phenomenographic study of introductory programming students at university. J. Inf. Technol. Educ.: Res. 3, 1 (2004), 145–160.
[17]
Leah Buechley, Nwanua Elumeze, Camille Dodson, and Michael Eisenberg. 2005. Quilt snaps: A fabric based computational construction kit. In IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’05). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.
[18]
Donald Chinn, Judy Sheard, Angela Carbone, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2010. Study habits of CS1 students: What do they do outside the classroom? In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 103. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Sydney, Australia, 53–62.
[19]
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1996. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Perennial, New York, NY.
[20]
Andrea A. DiSessa. 2001. Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[21]
Dwight Egbert, George Bebis, Meggin McIntosh, Nancy LaTourrette, and Aniruddha Mitra. 2002. Computer vision research as a teaching tool in CS1. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education, Vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, T4G–T4G. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1158014
[22]
Ron Eglash, Audrey Bennett, Casey O’donnell, Sybillyn Jennings, and Margaret Cintorino. 2006. Culturally situated design tools: Ethnocomputing from field site to classroom. Am. Anthropol. 108, 2 (2006), 347–362.
[23]
Paul Gestwicki and Khuloud Ahmad. 2010. A pilot study on the impact of creative achievement on academic achievement in media-oriented CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 1 (2010), 85–92.
[24]
Frederik Gossen, Dennis Kühn, Tiziana Margaria, and Anna-Lena Lamprecht. 2018. Computational thinking: Learning by doing with the Cinco adventure game tool. In Proceedings of the IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’18), Vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 990–999.
[25]
Ira Greenberg, Deepak Kumar, and Dianna Xu. 2012. Creative coding and visual portfolios for CS1. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157214
[26]
Ira Greenberg, Deepak Kumar, and Dianna Xu. 2013. Computational art and creative coding: Teaching CS1 with processing. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 761–761.
[27]
Mark Guzdial. 2013. Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 19–26.
[28]
Michael Haungs, Christopher Clark, John Clements, and David Janzen. 2012. Improving first-year success and retention through interest-based CS0 courses. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 589–594.
[29]
Cristyne Hébert and Jennifer Jenson. 2020. Making in schools: Student learning through an e-textiles curriculum. Stud. Cult. Pol. Educ. 41, 5 (2020), 740–761.
[30]
Ned Herrmann. 1996. The Whole Brain Business Book. McGraw–Hill, New York, NY.
[31]
Lexis F. Higgins. 1999. Applying principles of creativity management to marketing research efforts in high-technology markets. Industr. Market. Manage. 28, 3 (1999), 305–317.
[32]
Susan Horwitz, Susan H. Rodger, Maureen Biggers, David Binkley, C. Kolin Frantz, Dawn Gundermann, Susanne Hambrusch, Steven Huss-Lederman, Ethan Munson, Barbara Ryder, et al. 2009. Using peer-led team learning to increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (2009), 163–167.
[33]
Gayithri Jayathirtha and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2020. Interactive stitch sampler: A synthesis of a decade of research on using electronic textiles to answer the who, where, how, and what for K–12 computer science education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 4, Article 28 (Oct. 2020), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3418299
[34]
Mehdi Jazayeri. 2015. Combining mastery learning with project-based learning in a first programming course: An experience report. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 315–318.
[35]
Mary Elizabeth Jones, Melanie Kisthardt, and Marie A. Cooper. 2011. Interdisciplinary teaching: Introductory programming via creative writing. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 523–528.
[36]
Yatta Kanu and Mark Glor. 2006. ‘Currere’ to the rescue? Teachers as ‘amateur intellectuals’ in a knowledge society. J. Can. Assoc. Curric. Stud. 4, 2 (2006), 101–122.
[37]
James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg. 2010. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
[38]
John M. Keller. 1987. Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. J. Instruct. Dev. 10, 3 (1987), 2.
[39]
John M. Keller. 2000. How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model approach. In VII Semanario. Santiago, Cuba, 13 pages.
[40]
John M. Keller. 2009. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin.
[41]
J. M. Keller. 2010. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Springer, New York, NY.
[42]
Allen Kent and J. G. Williams. 1996. Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY.
[43]
Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2006. Why students drop out CS1 course? In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151588.1151604
[44]
Maria Knobelsdorf and Ralf Romeike. 2008. Creativity as a pathway to computer science. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 286–290.
[45]
Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf. 2005. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation effort in free/open source software projects. In Perspectives on Free/OS Software, J. Feller et al (Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 3–22.
[46]
Catherine Lang, Judy Mckay, and Sue Lewis. 2007. Seven factors that influence ICT student achievement. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 3 (2007), 221. https://doi.org/10.1145/1269900.1268849
[47]
Gary Lewandowski, Elizabeth Johnson, and Michael Goldweber. 2005. Fostering a creative interest in computer science. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 535–539. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047512
[48]
Colleen M. Lewis, Ken Yasuhara, and Ruth E. Anderson. 2011. Deciding to major in computer science: A grounded theory of students’ self-assessment of ability. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2016911.2016915
[49]
Raymond Lister, Anders Berglund, Ilona Box, Chris Cope, Arnold Pears, Chris Avram, Mat Bower, Angela Carbone, Bill Davey, Michael de Raadt, et al. 2007. Differing ways that computing academics understand teaching. In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, Volume 66. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Sydney, Australia, 97–106.
[50]
Raymond Lister, Otto Seppälä, Beth Simon, Lynda Thomas, Elizabeth S. Adams, Sue Fitzgerald, William Fone, John Hamer, Morten Lindholm, Robert Mccartney, et al.2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36, 4 (Jan. 2004), 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/1041624.1041673
[51]
Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom Mcklin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, Scott Mccoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 4, Article 14 (Sept. 2016), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2886418
[52]
Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (2006), 90–95.
[53]
Monica M. McGill. 2012. Learning to program with personal robots: Influences on student motivation. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 1 (2012), 4.
[54]
Lee Dee Miller, Leen-Kiat Soh, Vlad Chiriacescu, Elizabeth Ingraham, Duane F. Shell, and Melissa Patterson Hazley. 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. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 475–480.
[55]
L. Dee Miller, Leen-Kiat Soh, Vlad Chiriacescu, Elizabeth Ingraham, Duane F. Shell, Stephen Ramsay, and Melissa Patterson Hazley. 2013. Improving learning of computational thinking using creative thinking exercises in CS-1 computer science courses. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’13). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1426–1432.
[56]
Marco T. Morazán. 2010. Functional video games in the CS1 classroom. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming. Springer, New York, NY, 166–183.
[57]
V. Anantha Narayanan, C. K. Shyamala, and C. Shunmuga Velayutham. 2018. Thinker: A physical computing tool kit for computational thinking. In Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’18). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00075
[58]
Allen Newell, J. C. Shaw, and Herbert Alexander Simon. 1959. The Processes of Creative Thinking. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
[59]
Seymour Papert. 1996. An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 1, 1 (1996), 95–123.
[60]
Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating constructionism. In Constructionism, Seymour Papert and Idit Harel (Eds.). Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1–11.
[61]
Markeya S. Peteranetz, Abraham E. Flanigan, Duane F. Shell, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2018. Helping engineering students learn in introductory computer science (CS1) using computational creativity exercises (CCEs). IEEE Trans. Educ. 61, 3 (Aug. 2018), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2804350
[62]
Markeya S. Peteranetz, Shiyuan Wang, Duane F. Shell, Abraham E. Flanigan, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2018. Examining the impact of computational creativity exercises on college computer science students’ learning, achievement, self-efficacy, and creativity. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 155–160.
[63]
Andrew Petersen, Michelle Craig, Jennifer Campbell, and Anya Tafliovich. 2016. Revisiting why students drop CS1. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999552
[64]
Leo Porter and Beth Simon. 2013. Fostering creativity in CS1 by hosting a computer science art show. ACM Inroads 4, 1 (2013), 29–31.
[65]
Mareen Przybylla. 2016. Situating physical computing in secondary CS education. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 287–288.
[66]
Mareen Przybylla and Ralf Romeike. 2017. The nature of physical computing in schools: Findings from three years of practical experience. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 98–107.
[67]
Evgeny Pyshkin. 2017. Liberal arts in a digitally transformed world: Revisiting a case of software development education. In Proceedings of the 13th Central & Eastern European Software Engineering Conference in Russia. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1–7.
[68]
Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. 2017. Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18 (10 2017), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618
[69]
Lauren Rich, Heather Perry, and Mark Guzdial. 2004. A CS1 course designed to address interests of women. SIGCSE Bull. 36, 1 (2004), 190–194.
[70]
David L. Rodgers and Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton. 2005. The effect of instructional media on learner motivation. Int. J. Instruct. Media 32, 4 (2005), 333.
[71]
Ralf Romeike. 2006. Creative students: What can we learn from them for teaching computer science? In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research: Koli Calling 2006. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 149–150.
[72]
Ralf Romeike. 2007. Applying creativity in CS high school education: Criteria, teaching example and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Finnish/Baltic Sea Conference on Computer Science Education, Vol. 88. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 87–96.
[73]
Ralf Romeike. 2007. Three drivers for creativity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on “Informatics, Mathematics and ICT: A Golden Triangle.”College of Computer and Information Science, Boston, MA, 10.
[74]
Ralf Romeike. 2008. The contribution of computer science education in a creative society. In Proceedings of the IFIP World Computer Congress, TC 3. Springer, New York, NY, 237–244.
[75]
Ralf Romeike. 2008. Towards students’ motivation and interest: Teaching tips for applying creativity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 113–114.
[76]
Nathan Rountree, Janet Rountree, Anthony Robins, and Robert Hannah. 2004. Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. https://doi.org/10.1145/1044550.1041669
[77]
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 1 (2000), 68.
[78]
Sarah Ryan, Julia Kaufman, Joel Greenhouse, Ruicong She, and Judy Shi. 2016. The effectiveness of blended online learning courses at the community college level. Commun. Coll. J. Res. Pract. 40, 4 (2016), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1044584arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1044584
[79]
Andrea Salgian, Teresa M. Nakra, Christopher Ault, and Yunfeng Wang. 2013. Teaching creativity in computer science. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 123–128.
[80]
Daniel Saunders and Paul Thagard. 2005. Creativity in computer science. In Creativity across Domains: Faces of the Muse, James C. Kaufman and John Baer (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
[81]
R. Keith Sawyer. 2006. Educating for innovation. Think. Skills Creativ. 1, 1 (2006), 41–48.
[82]
Jessica Young Schmidt. 2020. Reviewing CS1 materials through a collaborative software engineering exercise: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 379–385.
[83]
Greg Scragg, Doug Baldwin, and Hans Koomen. 1994. Computer science needs an insight-based curriculum. In Proceedings of the 25th SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1145/191029.191092
[84]
Kimberly Seltzer and Tom Bentley. 1999. The Creative Age: Knowledge and Skills for the New Economy. Demos, London, UK.
[85]
Elaine Seymour and Nancy M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
[86]
David Williamson Shaffer and Mitchel Resnick. 1999. “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 10, 2 (1999), 195–216.
[87]
Sadia Sharmin, Daniel Zingaro, and Clare Brett. 2020. Weekly Open-ended exercises and student motivation in CS1. In Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, Article 33, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3428029.3428035
[88]
Duane F. Shell, Melissa Patterson Hazley, Leen-Kiat Soh, L. Dee Miller, Vlad Chiriacescu, and Elizabeth Ingraham. 2014. Improving learning of computational thinking using computational creativity exercises in a college CSI computer science course for engineers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’14). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1–7.
[89]
Duane F. Shell, Leen-Kiat Soh, Abraham E. Flanigan, Markeya S. Peteranetz, and Elizabeth Ingraham. 2017. Improving students’ learning and achievement in CS classrooms through computational creativity exercises that integrate computational and creative thinking. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 543–548.
[90]
Beth Simon, Julian Parris, and Jaime Spacco. 2013. How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 41–46.
[91]
Dean Keith Simonton. 2000. Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. Am. Psychol. 55, 1 (2000), 151.
[92]
Sebastien Siva, Tacksoo Im, Tom McKlin, Jason Freeman, and Brian Magerko. 2018. Using music to engage students in an introductory undergraduate programming course for non-majors. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 975–980. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159468
[93]
Hannah Snyder. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104 (2019), 333–339.
[94]
David Spendlove. 2008. Creativity in education: A review. Des. Technol. Educ. 10, 2 (2008), 9–18.
[95]
Ben Stephenson. 2009. Using python and QuickDraw to foster student engagement in CS1. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 675–682.
[96]
Deborah J. Stipek. 1996. Motivation and instruction. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, David C. Berliner and Robert C. Calfee (Eds.). Routledge, Abingdon, England, 85–113.
[97]
Nathaniel Titterton, Colleen M. Lewis, and Michael J. Clancy. 2010. Experiences with lab-centric instruction. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20, 2 (2010), 79–102.
[98]
Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, Marc R. Blais, Nathalie M. Briere, Caroline Senecal, and Evelyne F. Vallieres. 1992. The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 52, 4 (1992), 1003–1017.
[99]
Tammy VanDeGrift. 2007. Encouraging creativity in introductory computer science programming assignments. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 8–13.
[100]
Tammy VanDeGrift. 2015. Supporting creativity and user interaction in CS 1 homework assignments. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677250
[101]
Karen J. Viechnicki, Roy M. Bohlin, and William D. Milheim. 1990. Instructional motivation of adult learners: An analysis of student perceptions in continuing education. J. Contin. High. Educ. 38, 3 (1990), 10–14.
[102]
Christopher Watson and Frederick W. B. Li. 2014. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591749
[103]
Richard Wicentowski and Tia Newhall. 2005. Using image processing projects to teach CS1 topics. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37, 1 (2005), 287–291.
[104]
Geoff Wong, Trish Greenhalgh, Gill Westhorp, Jeanette Buckingham, and Ray Pawson. 2013. RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 11, 20 (2013), 987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
[105]
Zoë Wood and Aaron Keen. 2015. Building worlds: Bridging imperative-first and object-oriented programming in CS1–CS2. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 144–149.
[106]
Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 373–378.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)How does problem-solving pedagogy affect creativity? A meta-analysis of empirical studiesFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2024.128708215Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Exploring Students' Experiences of Computer Science in Upper Secondary Education: A Qualitative StudyProceedings of the 2024 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research10.1145/3689535.3689551(1-7)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Resources for Teaching Operating Systems: A Survey of Instructors and a Literature ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/368885324:4(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 22, Issue 2
June 2022
312 pages
EISSN:1946-6226
DOI:10.1145/3494072
  • Editor:
  • Amy J. Ko
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2021
Accepted: 01 September 2021
Revised: 01 May 2021
Received: 01 July 2020
Published in TOCE Volume 22, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Creativity
  2. literature review

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)446
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)72
Reflects downloads up to 16 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)How does problem-solving pedagogy affect creativity? A meta-analysis of empirical studiesFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2024.128708215Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Exploring Students' Experiences of Computer Science in Upper Secondary Education: A Qualitative StudyProceedings of the 2024 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research10.1145/3689535.3689551(1-7)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Resources for Teaching Operating Systems: A Survey of Instructors and a Literature ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/368885324:4(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Uncovering Meaningful Computing Contexts for Incarcerated College StudentsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653632(701-707)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/363651524:1(1-43)Online publication date: 19-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Pairing Ungrading with Project-Based Learning in CS1 for Inherently Flexible Course DesignProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630903(1265-1271)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Project Based Learning (PjBL) Model in Science Learning: A Bibliometric AnalysisE3S Web of Conferences10.1051/e3sconf/202448204031482(04031)Online publication date: 29-Jan-2024
  • (2023)Analysis of Attrition Studies Within the Computer SciencesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.328007511(53736-53748)Online publication date: 2023
  • (2022)An automated system with a versatile test oracle for assessing student programsComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2257731:1(176-199)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2022

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

Full Text

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media