4.7 Review

Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011-2020)

Journal

COMPUTERS & EDUCATION
Volume 176, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353

Keywords

Computational thinking; Creativity; Creative thinking; Scoping review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research shows that there are geographical biases and limitations in the current studies on computational thinking and creativity. However, scholars suggest that studying them together can help to expand the research field, linking computational thinking and creativity to promote mutual development.
Both computational thinking (CT) and creativity have been recognized as key skills for today's learners. Over the last decade, research of both skills in a single context has emerged. In this paper, we present a scoping review of 62 such empirical from 2011 to 2020. Our goal was to have a thorough understanding of the educational settings in which research on both CT and creativity was conducted, the theoretical foundations it has laid down, and the research tools used. Our findings indicate a geographical bias (dominance of the US and prominence of developed European countries), as well as a focus on secondary education and on STEM-related disciplines; this could be explained by the current situation of CT spread. We also found that when studying CT and creativity jointly, it is most common to define CT in a broader perspective than merely programming of computer science. Additionally, while creativity is largely referred to as productrelated, CT is barely referred to as such. Taken together, our findings point out some gaps in the current research of CT and creativity and suggest how it should be expended on the fertile grounds of creativity, as the latter crosses geographical, age, and subject borders. Doing so may build a bridge between CT and creativity in a way that will benefit both.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available