NSF Awards: 1431874
2018 (see original presentation & discussion)
Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12, Undergraduate
Computational Creativity Exercises (CCEs) have been shown to significantly improve student learning and achievement in introductory and advanced CS courses. CCEs address core aspects of computational thinking while exposing students to creative thinking skills, and can be adapted for use in your own courses. Activities such as writing a story in separate chapters and then merging the chapters to form a coherent whole, creating quilt-like patterns with written descriptions, or designing testing strategies for an alien health machine require students to apply computational thinking to unorthodox contexts and situations promoting creative application of CS knowledge and skills. CCEs are group-based, promote active learning, and are designed to foster collaborative problem solving necessary in today’s diverse workplace. Our project has developed a suite of CCEs with different variants for K-12 and post-secondary education, for STEM and non-STEM alike. Our project has also developed and validated knowledge tests and survey questionnaires to help assess and measure student learning, performance, and attitude. We have also offered CCEs solely as a course, both in-person and online, accumulating experiences in administering the exercises online, designing grading rubrics, and analyzing data collected. Our comprehensive studies have shown that the CCEs have a positive linear dosage effects such that the more exercises student do, the better their performances are in our tests.
Elizabeth Ingraham
Emeritus Faculty
Thank you for watching our video! We’re very excited about our Computational Creativity exercises and how they can help students be better problem solvers. Do you have questions about our research or how you might use these exercises in your courses? If so, please ask us here. We’d love to get your feedback.
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Hi, some of our Computational Creativity exercises can be found at
1: NCWIT's EngageCSEdu: https://www.engage-csedu.org/search/materials. (use "Computational Creativity" as search keyword)
2. Google's Exploring Computational Thinking: https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/explo.... (e.g., Ciphering a Sentence, Describing an Everyday Object, Exploring Your Environment, Machine Testing, Writing a Story, Solving a Guessing Game with Data)
3. Ensemble Computing Portal: http://www.computingportal.org/search/content/i... "ic2think" as search keyword)
Thanks!
Shelly Rodriguez
What a great intersection of computational thinking and art. I am excited to see these two worlds come together in powerful ways. A wonderful collaboration. Thank you for sharing.
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Thank you so much, Shelly! Our "Storytelling" Computational Creativity exercise recently received an "Engagement Excellence" award from the NCWIT's EngageCSEdu site. It combines creative writing and problem solving:
https://www.engage-csedu.org/find-resources/com...
Alan Peterfreund
Great job on the video. I saw a list of references. Were these publications associated with findings? Do you have them posted somewhere?
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Thanks, Alan. The papers can be found here:
Our original papers:
FIE'2013: http://cse.unl.edu/agents/ic2think/downloads/FI...
FIE'2014: http://cse.unl.edu/agents/ic2think/downloads/SI...
SIGCSE'2014: http://cse.unl.edu/agents/ic2think/downloads/SI...
ICER'2015: http://cse.unl.edu/agents/ic2think/downloads2/I...
SIGCSE'2017: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3020000/3017718...
Our position paper in CACM: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/8/189850-le...
Our latest paper in IEEE Trans. on Education: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7940091/
Alan Peterfreund
Angie Kalthoff
Technology Integrationist
As an educator, I often get the question "Am I doing this right? Is this the right answer?" What resources do you have for educators as they integrate CT into their classrooms and face these questions?
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Hi Angie, Thank you for your interests. We have made use of well validated knowledge tests (as pre- and post-tests) and also survey-based questionnaires. They can be found here:
We have also developed and validated CS knowledge test used in our studies: http://cse.unl.edu/agents/ic2think/KnowledgeTes...
We have also used the a Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in our studies: http://cse.unl.edu/agents/ic2think/SelfEfficacy...
Furthermore, please feel free to contact us at lksoh@cse.unl.edu if you have additional questions.
Thanks,
Leen-Kiat
Angie Kalthoff
Karthik Ramani
Donald W. Feddersen Professor of Mechanical Engineering
I like the idea of combining the two types of thinking - computational and creative together for problem solving. And then comes the collaboration. Nice work.
How do you differentiate creative thinking from creative collaboration? And for collaboration and creative thinking - what are the ways you encourage it. While computational thinking was reduced to some key principles in computation that are known, the creative portion has so many strategies. How can we bring that to bear among a team?
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Thanks, Karthik, for the question. Initially, our exercises only had two sets of objectives: computational thinking and creative thinking. And then we eventually added a third set of objectives: collaborative. Here's an example:
The objectives of this exercise:
Computational:
o Decomposition: Breaking down a comprehensive description of an object into detaileddescriptions of (1) its function(s), (2) the need(s) it fulfills and (3) its physical attributes.
o Abstraction: Describing a generic example of an everyday object by focusing on its essential or typical functions and physical attributes without regard to trivial variations (such as color other variations).
o Evaluation: Logically, methodically and completely describing an everyday object insufficient detail and in clear, non-technical language such even if the name of the object is omitted that any reader could recognize the object and understand how it works.o Learning about the description and design process for modular programming bdescribing an everyday object in detail including why the object is needed and how the object functions
o Learning about abstraction and function characterization by identifying properties of an everyday object
o Learning about specifying input, output, and function of a module or object clearly
o Learning about hiding details of the inner workings of an object without sacrificing the functionality of the object
Creative:
o Surrounding: Looking at an everyday object in new ways, using all of your senses to understand how it’s made and how it functions.
o Capturing: Using written language to describe all the different details and characteristics of this everyday object so you can work with it in new ways.
o Challenging: Describing the operations of an everyday object with words and also as a computer program.
o Broadening: Imagining that this everyday object doesn’t exist and acting like its inventorand trying to fulfill a need by creating something new and useful.
Collaborative:
o Being open to all points of view and resolving group conflicts in a constructive way.
o Giving and receiving thoughtful and constructive feedback in order to develop your group project.
o Meeting group deadlines, including completing your individual work in a timely manner.o Contributing substantively to the group process, using your skills, knowledge and experience.
o Working together as a team to achieve a common goal; being able to both compete against and cooperate with other teams.
Does that help answer your question?
Thanks,
Leen-Kiat
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Thanks, Karthik, for the question. Initially, our exercises only had two sets of objectives: computational thinking and creative thinking. And then we eventually added a third set of objectives: collaborative. Here's an example:
The objectives of this exercise:
Computational:
o Decomposition: Breaking down a comprehensive description of an object into detaileddescriptions of (1) its function(s), (2) the need(s) it fulfills and (3) its physical attributes.
o Abstraction: Describing a generic example of an everyday object by focusing on its essential or typical functions and physical attributes without regard to trivial variations (such as color other variations).
o Evaluation: Logically, methodically and completely describing an everyday object insufficient detail and in clear, non-technical language such even if the name of the object is omitted that any reader could recognize the object and understand how it works.o Learning about the description and design process for modular programming bdescribing an everyday object in detail including why the object is needed and how the object functions
o Learning about abstraction and function characterization by identifying properties of an everyday object
o Learning about specifying input, output, and function of a module or object clearly
o Learning about hiding details of the inner workings of an object without sacrificing the functionality of the object
Creative:
o Surrounding: Looking at an everyday object in new ways, using all of your senses to understand how it’s made and how it functions.
o Capturing: Using written language to describe all the different details and characteristics of this everyday object so you can work with it in new ways.
o Challenging: Describing the operations of an everyday object with words and also as a computer program.
o Broadening: Imagining that this everyday object doesn’t exist and acting like its inventorand trying to fulfill a need by creating something new and useful.
Collaborative:
o Being open to all points of view and resolving group conflicts in a constructive way.
o Giving and receiving thoughtful and constructive feedback in order to develop your group project.
o Meeting group deadlines, including completing your individual work in a timely manner.o Contributing substantively to the group process, using your skills, knowledge and experience.
o Working together as a team to achieve a common goal; being able to both compete against and cooperate with other teams.
Does that help answer your question?
Thanks,
Leen-Kiat
Karthik Ramani
Donald W. Feddersen Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Nice detailed explanation on your interpretation of the whole and parts.
Leen-Kiat Soh
Professor
Thanks, Karthik!
Further posting is closed as the event has ended.