Abstract
Computational thinking (CT) and design thinking (DT) are critical tools for students to improve their problem-solving abilities. CT is most commonly used in science and technology fields such as computer science and mathematics, whereas DT is more commonly used in the design field. This study evaluates the impact of art programming education on college art students using both methods of thinking to identify the relationship between CT and DT. In total, 27 junior students from an art programming course for a digital media class were chosen as the study’s participants. According to the study’s findings, the art programming course was shown to improve students' programming attitude (PA) in terms of both DT and CT. Although the correlation analysis found no significant difference between DT and CT, the data showed that both were related to student grades. The findings of this study confirm the efficacy of programming in improving students' abilities in DT and CT. It also confirms the importance of the two distinct types of thinking, DT and CT, in the problem-solving process, which serves as the foundation for creative design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Adams, C., & Nash, J. (2016). Exploring design thinking practices in evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 12(26), 12–17.
Amiri, F. (2011). Programming as design: The role of programming in interactive media curriculum in art and design. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 30(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2011.01680.x
Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K. O. (2020). Design thinking applications in teaching programming to gifted students. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 3(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.671621
Brennan, K, & Resnick, M (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Brenner, W., & Uebernickel, F. (2016). Design thinking for innovation: Research and practice. Springer Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096
Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12268
Dam, R., & Teo, S. (2018). What is design thinking and why is it so popular? Interaction Design Foundation (2018):1–6.
Greenberg, I., Kumar, D., & Xu, D. (2012). Creative coding and visual portfolios for CS1 [Conference presentation]. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12). New York, NY, United States, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157214
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking [Conference presentation]. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '07) (pp. 195–196). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227378. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227378
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Herger, L. M., & Bodarky, M. (2015). Engaging students with open source technologies and Arduino [Conference presentation]. IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2015.7119938
Hershkovitz, A., Sitman, R., Israel-Fishelson, R., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2019). Creativity in the acquisition of computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610451
Hoebeke, S., Strand, I., & Haakonsen, P. (2021). Programming as a new creative material in art and design education. Techne serien-Forskning i slöjdpedagogik och slöjdvetenskap, 28(2), 233–240.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present, and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
Kelly, N., & Gero, J. S. (2021). Design thinking and computational thinking: A dual process model for addressing design problems. Design Science, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2021.7
Knochel, A. D., & Patton, R. M. (2015). If art education then critical digital making: Computational thinking and creative code. Studies in Art Education, 57(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2015.11666280
Korkmaz, Ö., & Bai, X. (2019). Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school students and their thinking scale skills level. Participatory Educational Research, 6(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.2.6.1
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
Lor, R. R. (2017). Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature [Conference presentation]. Asian Conference on Education and Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand.
NíShé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., & Costello, E. (2021). Integrating design thinking into instructional design: The #OpenTeach case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6667
Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Seo, Y. H., & Kim, J. H. (2016). Analyzing the effects of coding education through pair programming for the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(46), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i46/107837
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Stefaniak, J. (2020). The utility of design thinking to promote systemic instructional design practices in the workplace. TechTrends, 64(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00453-8
Sung, J. (2022). Assessing young Korean children’s computational thinking: A validation study of two measurements. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12969–12997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11137-x
Tsai, M. J., & Wang, C. Y. (2021). Assessing young students’ design thinking disposition and its relationship with computer programming self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967326
Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., & Hsu, C. Y. (2021). The computational thinking scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120972356
Tsai, F., Hsiao, H., Yu, K., & Lin, K. (2022). Development and effectiveness evaluation of a STEM-based game-design project for preservice primary teacher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2403–2424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09702-5
Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., Pinkwart, N., Butz, M., Trautwein, U., & Ninaus, M. (2017). Training computational thinking: Game-based unplugged and plugged-in activities in primary school [Conference presentation]. Proceedings of the 11th European conference on games based learning ECGBL 2017, Graz, Austria (pp. 687–695).
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
Wiebe, E. N., Williams, L., Yang, K., & Miller, C. (2003). Computer science attitude survey. Computer Science, 14(25), 0–86.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yadav, A., & Cooper, S. (2017). Fostering creativity through computing. Communications of the ACM, 60(2), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029595
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all participants who attended the research.
Funding
This study was funded by Shenyang Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project (SY202236Y).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Q., Liu, Zx., Wang, P. et al. The influence of art programming courses on design thinking and computational thinking in college art and design students. Educ Inf Technol 28, 10885–10902 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11618-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11618-7