[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3628516.3659369acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesidcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Tools to Support High School Students' Creativity in Scientific Research: Creativity Support Tools for Research

Published: 17 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

As a creative endeavor, scientific research requires inspiration, innovation, exploration, and divergent thinking. Yet, in K-12 settings, it is often viewed as rigid and formulaic. MindHive is a web-based platform designed to facilitate student-teacher-scientist partnerships in research on human behavior. Features support research phases (e.g., question finding, study design, peer review, iteration), and their creative dimensions, including exploration, expressiveness, collaboration, and enjoyment. Interviews with teachers and students who used MindHive show how learners describe their experiences as creative agents. This work illustrates how educational technologies can broaden STEM participation by being authentic to methodical and creative aspects of STEM research.

References

[1]
Anna Amato, Camillia Matuk, Dylan Schouten, Steven Sutherland, Gillian Smith, and Casper Harteveld. 2020. What do students learn about experimental research by designing interactive fiction games? In Proceedings of the International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS), 2020, Nashville, Tennessee. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 553–556. . https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2020.553
[2]
Cecilia R. Aragon, Sarah S. Poon, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Diana Aragon. 2009. A tale of two online communities: fostering collaboration and creativity in scientists and children. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (C&C ’09), October 26, 2009, Berkeley, California, USA. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–18. . https://doi.org/10.1145/1640233.1640239
[3]
Ballard, H. L., Harris, E. M., Dixon, C. G. H. 2018. Science identity and agency in community and citizen science: Evidence & potential. NASEM.
[4]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 2 (January 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[5]
Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (2014). Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2617588
[6]
James P. Concan non, Patrick L. Brown, Norman G. Lederman, and Judith S. Lederman. 2020. Investigating the development of secondary students’ views about scientific inquiry. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 6 (April 2020), 906–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1742399
[7]
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2009. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and. Harper Collins. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=aci_Ea4c6woC
[8]
Suzanne Dikker, Yury Shevchenko, K. Burgas, K. Chaloner, Marc Sole, Lucy Yetman-Michaelson, I. Davidesco, Rebecca Martin, and Camillia Matuk. 2022. MindHive: An Online Citizen Science Tool and Curriculum for Human Brain and Behavior Research. Connect. Sci. Learn. 4, 2 (2022), 2475–8779.
[9]
Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Allan Wigfield. 2020. From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61, (2020), 101859.
[10]
Benedikt Fecher and Sascha Friesike. 2014. Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In Opening Science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 17–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
[11]
Yannis Hadzigeorgiou, Persa Fokialis, Mary Kabouropoulou, and Others. Thinking about creativity in science education. Creat. Educ.
[12]
Marte Hoff Hagen, Daniela Soares Cruzes, Letizia Jaccheri, and Jerry Alan Fails. 2023. Evaluating digital creativity support for children: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Child Comput. Interact. 38, 100603 (December 2023), 100603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100603
[13]
Anne Harris and Leon R. de Bruin. 2018. Secondary school creativity, teacher practice and STEAM education: An international study. Journal of Educational Change 19, 2 (May 2018), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9311-2
[14]
Maria Kolovou, Ji Shen, and Blaine E. Smith. 2021. Looping into hyperspace: Mechanisms of distributed imagination during a collaborative multimodal science fiction writing project. Think. Skills Creat. 40, 100819 (June 2021), 100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100819
[15]
Bruno Latour and Professor of Marketing and Head of Science and Technology Studies Said Business School Steve Woolgar. 2013. Laboratory Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
[16]
Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. 2013. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vJ-JueUwptEC
[17]
Jay L. Lemke. 1990. Talking science. Praeger, Westport, CT.
[18]
Christine Liao. 2016. From Interdisciplinary to Transdisciplinary: An Arts-Integrated Approach to STEAM Education. Art Education 69, 6 (November 2016), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
[19]
Camillia Matuk, Kayla DesPortes, and Christopher Hoadley. 2021. Conceptualizing Context in CSCL: Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Ulrike Cress, Carolyn Rosé, Alyssa Friend Wise and Jun Oshima (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_5
[20]
Camillia Matuk, Ralph Vacca, Anna Amato, Megan Silander, Kayla DesPortes, Peter J. Woods, and Marian Tes. 2023. Promoting students’ informal inferential reasoning through arts-integrated data literacy education. Information and Learning Sciences (2023). https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2023-0088
[21]
Livia J. Müller, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2016. Hedonic Enjoyment and Personal Expressiveness in Positive User Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16), May 07, 2016, San Jose, California, USA. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3166–3172. . https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892494
[22]
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers. 2005. How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=5vybAgAAQBAJ
[23]
Mildred L. Patten and Melisa C. Galvan. 2019. Proposing Empirical Research: A Guide to the Fundamentals. Routledge. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=sHSqDwAAQBAJ
[24]
Janet C. Read, Stuart MacFarlane, and Chris Casey. 2002. Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children's fun. In Interaction design and children, 2002. Shaker Publishing Eindhoven, 1–23. . Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janet-Read/publication/228870976_Endurability_Engagement_and_Expectations_Measuring_Children's_Fun/links/0deec518618d0828ce000000/Endurability-Engagement-and-Expectations-Measuring-Children-aposs-Fun.pdf
[25]
Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (November 2009), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
[26]
Kenneth H. Rubın, Greta G. Fein, and Brian Vandenberg. 1983. Play. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, E. M. Hetherıngton &. Mussen (ed.). Wiley, 693–774.
[27]
Carol Sansone and Jessi L. Smith. 2000. Interest and self-regulation: The relation between having to and wanting to. In Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance, C. Sansone &. J. Harackiewicz (ed.). Academic Press, New York, 341–372.
[28]
Prabir Sarkar and Amaresh Chakrabarti. 2011. Assessing design creativity. Des. Stud. 32, 4 (July 2011), 348–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
[29]
Ben Shneiderman. 2001. Supporting Creativity with Advanced Information- Abundant User Interfaces. In Frontiers of Human-Centered Computing, Online Communities and Virtual Environments, Rae A. Earnshaw, Richard A. Guedj, Andries van Dam and John A. Vince (eds.). Springer London, London, 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0259-5_34
[30]
Ben Shneiderman. 2007. Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun. ACM 50, 12 (December 2007), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1323688.1323689
[31]
Ben Shneiderman, Gerhard Fischer, Mary Czerwinski, Mitch Resnick, Brad Myers, Linda Candy, Ernest Edmonds, Mike Eisenberg, Elisa Giaccardi, Tom Hewett, Pamela Jennings, Bill Kules, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Jay Nunamaker, Randy Pausch, Ted Selker, Elisabeth Sylvan, and Michael Terry. 2006. Creativity support tools: Report from a U.s. national science foundation sponsored workshop. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 20, 2 (May 2006), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc2002_1
[32]
Jay J. Van Bavel, Katherine Baicker, Paulo S. Boggio, Valerio Capraro, Aleksandra Cichocka, Mina Cikara, Molly J. Crockett, Alia J. Crum, Karen M. Douglas, James N. Druckman, John Drury, Oeindrila Dube, Naomi Ellemers, Eli J. Finkel, James H. Fowler, Michele Gelfand, Shihui Han, S. Alexander Haslam, Jolanda Jetten, Shinobu Kitayama, Dean Mobbs, Lucy E. Napper, Dominic J. Packer, Gordon Pennycook, Ellen Peters, Richard E. Petty, David G. Rand, Stephen D. Reicher, Simone Schnall, Azim Shariff, Linda J. Skitka, Sandra Susan Smith, Cass R. Sunstein, Nassim Tabri, Joshua A. Tucker, Sander van der Linden, Paul van Lange, Kim A. Weeden, Michael J. A. Wohl, Jamil Zaki, Sean R. Zion, and Robb Willer. 2020. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 5 (April 2020), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
[33]
Cansu Yildiz and Tulin Guler Yildiz. 2021. Exploring the relationship between creative thinking and scientific process skills of preschool children. Thinking Skills and Creativity 39, (March 2021), 100795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100795

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
IDC '24: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference
June 2024
1049 pages
ISBN:9798400704420
DOI:10.1145/3628516
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 June 2024

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

IDC '24
Sponsor:
IDC '24: Interaction Design and Children
June 17 - 20, 2024
Delft, Netherlands

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 172 of 578 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 80
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)80
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media