Effect of Mind Mapping on Creative Thinking of Children in Scratch Visual Programming Education

Abstract

Scratch, a kind of visual programming software, has been widely used in instruction for primary school children. Scratch constructs a digital world for children to design, develop, and create coursework in which their creative thinking is fostered. Different instructional methods have been designed and implemented to stimulate children’s creative thinking skills through their coursework. This study investigated whether scaffolding construction with mind mapping promoted children’s creative thinking in a Scratch course. Two groups of 84 fifth-grade pupils participated in the study. The experimental group of 44 students adopted the scaffolding construction with mind mapping in the Scratch course, while the control group of 40 students did not use the mind mapping method. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F) and Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale were used three times over the 16-week learning period. The results show that learning in the Scratch course promoted the children’s creative thinking. The difference between the two groups indicates that mind mapping was beneficial to improve the children’s creative thinking.

Keywords

creative thinking visual programming Scratch mind mapping

Introduction

Creativity is the desire and ability to use one’s imagination, insight, intelligence, feeling, and emotion to transfer an idea from one state to another previously unexplored state (Dellas & Gaier, 1970). Creativity makes a huge difference in people’s lives (Whler & Reinhardt, 2021). It is critical to foster creative learning skills among children to prepare them well for future study and work. Creative thinking skills include finding, analyzing, and solving problems from different perspectives that are not identified by others (Hensley, 2020). The learning environment has a great effect on the cultivation of creative thinking (Besançon & Lubart, 2008). Marcos et al. (2020) proposed a method of reading and writing with the cooperation approach in the learning classroom to promote children’s creative learning. Navarrete (2013) carried out a case study to facilitate middle school students’ creative thinking in the design and development of digital games. Instructional strategies and methods were implemented in the cultivation of creative learning in different learning environments. Ersoy and Başer (2014) aimed to explore the effects of the problem-based learning method on creative thinking skills. In the present study, the method of scaffolding construction with mind mapping was used in a digital world constructed by Scratch software to promote children’s creative thinking.

Scratch, a kind of visual programming software as an entry-level programming language, is becoming increasingly popular (Coronado et al., 2020). Early programming languages were difficult to learn, so many children simply could not master programming syntax (Chou et al., 2019; Resnick et al., 2009; Su et al., 2015; Wu & Su, 2021). Using graphics makes programming tasks easier and is named “graphical programming” or “visual programming.” Daniel (1984) proposed that visual programming has shown that just with very little training people can create fairly complex programs. From design and development to creation of works of visual programming, learners’ creative thinking is cultivated. Due to wide use of the Scratch course in Chinese primary schools, studies are needed on its cultivation of creative learning.

In the 1960s, Buzan, a British scholar, invented the visual thinking tool mind mapping. With the development of knowledge visualization theory, mind mapping has been further popularized and applied. In Britain and Singapore, mind mapping has been included in the compulsory curriculum of national primary and secondary education, with teachers required to be able to use it skillfully. In the United States, mind mapping has also been a necessary teaching tool (Shiina et al., 2008). Mind mapping is effective in improving critical, creative and logical thinking (Mueller et al., 2010; Swestyani et al., 2018). This study focuses on the cultivation of creative thinking. Many studies have demonstrated that mind mapping is a tool for training students in creative thinking (Anderson, 1993; Lin & Shih, 2009; Pillay et al., 2020). Therefore, this study focuses on promoting children’s creative thinking in a digital world constructed by the Scratch course applying the method of scaffolding construction with mind mapping.

Literature Review

Creative Learning

People with high levels of creativity tend to have higher levels of academic achievement. Different levels of cognitive ability determine different levels of creativity. However, creativity is an independent ability of intelligence (Wallack & Koga, 1965). The integrative thinking that is the basis of our creativity is not enough. It must be developed along with the set of temperaments, qualities, and abilities that are necessary to succeed in solving difficult problems, as well as based on the knowledge and understanding stemming from rigorous research into and immersion in the problems in the field (Watts & Blessinger, 2016). In contrast to groupthink, which seeks the only correct solution to a problem, creative thinking involves the ability to generate new ideas that stretch and offer multiple possible solutions to a given problem consciously (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2011).

Studies have shown that the creative process, the ability to construct original explanations, is found in all individuals (Shaheen, 2010). Creative thinking is considered a core skill required for all students (Chen et al., 2019; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Shaheen, 2010). Researchers have noted that creativity can refer to the ability to create novel, useful, and generative works (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Hence, creativity is a characteristic of expression and the best way to express it through an original, valuable, and socially accepted idea, product or work of art. That is, creativity can be measured by performance indicators obtained from creative thinking tasks or psychological tests (Fink et al., 2009).

Previous studies have suggested that the learning method of student-centered game creation can benefit learners with an enjoyable and rich learning experience, promote practical technology application, and encourage deep and insightful learning (Navarrete, 2013). There are many ways and technologies to improve students’ creative thinking, such as applying higher-order thinking skills to storytelling (Aisyah & Setiawan, 2016), the training method of free painting (Laili & Yuniarti, 2017), and procedural learning for digital games (Behnamnia et al., 2020).

Scratch as a Visual Programming Software

Visual programming is a process of using meaningful graphical representations during programming (Shu, 1986). Students have hands-on experience because they can manipulate a program with visual concrete building blocks in a digital world, such as text boxes and buttons, and quickly generate an application (Eid & Millham, 2012). Visual programming software programs, including Alice, App Inventor, Kodu, Blockly, and Scratch, have been widely used in primary school courses. Among these, Scratch is the most typical and common, having been translated into more than 70 languages and used in more than 150 countries.

Scratch, a multimedia visual programming tool, was created by the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Laboratory in collaboration with Yasmin Kafai’s group at UCLA (Maloney et al., 2008). There have been over a million Scratch projects since its inception (Maloney et al., 2010). The software is easier to modify and more meaningful and social than any other programming environment (Maloney et al., 2010). Scratch syntax is based on a set of graphical "blocks" that combine to create program subroutines in a digital world and does not require coding but rather can be programmed by dragging and assembling building blocks and is generally suitable for students ages 5–12. This is similar to Lego but in different learning environments. For the cultivation of creative thinking in adults, there are higher-level programming languages, such as R and Python. This study was mainly aimed at cultivating creative thinking in children. Many studies show that Scratch can enhance creative thinking. Kim et al. (2012) integrated information technology into teaching methods and confirmed that Scratch courses can improve students' computational thinking and creative thinking. Sayavaranont et al. (2018) studied a new Scratch teaching spiral model and proved its promoting effect on creative thinking. Thus, this study explored the cultivation of children’s creative thinking in the Scratch course, which constructs a digital environment. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was put forward.

Mind Mapping

Popularized by Buzan, mind mapping is a representation method that makes divergent thinking concrete and pictorial. It enables the inner cognitive structure of the brain to be shown and expressed through visualization (Buzan & Buzan, 2010). Mind maps are nonlinear visual contours of complex information that help promote memory, organization, creativity, and productivity. Ideas are displayed in context graphically, with the main theme at the center of the diagram and radiating out from the branches that surround each of the subthemes (Murley, 2007). The use of mind mapping has also shifted from simple pen-and-paper methods to computer software and collective collaborative mapping.

Studies have shown that mind mapping can help improve learners' creativity and learning interest (Malycha & Maier, 2017; Murley, 2007; Wang et al., 2010). In overseas teaching practice research, Conole and Weller (2008) found that mind mapping helped organize and represent design content and enabled designers to share and discuss design ideas more effectively. Eriksson and Hauer (2004) found that using mind mapping could help stimulate students’ interest in learning and improve their enthusiasm and concentration. Moreover, Thorpe (2008) determined that mind mapping could aid in visually representing the design of a series of learning tasks, enabling the designer to grasp the design content from a macro and global perspective and realize the perfect combination of learning tasks, goals, and situations.

Since then, most studies (Chen et al., 2020; Ismail et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2018) have applied mind mapping to programming teaching given its promoting effect on learning quality. Ismail et al. (2010) conducted a group of experiments among students majoring in computer science, proving that the mind mapping cooperative learning method can improve students' programming ability, problem-solving ability, and metacognitive knowledge. Liu et al. (2018) applied the teaching method of mind mapping to undergraduate programming and language teaching, transforming abstract and invisible thinking modes into visible, and radioactive thinking ones. It is proven that mind mapping can improve students' logical thinking and creative thinking skills. Chen et al. (2020) integrated mind mapping into MAPS (Mind Mapping, Asking Questions, Presentation, Scaffolding Instruction), a new kind of flipped classroom learning model, to enhance students’ learning motivation and reflection during Scratch learning. However, the application of mind mapping in Scratch learning to improve students’ creative thinking has not been demonstrated in previous studies. Therefore, this study used mind mapping as a control variable to explore the cultivation of creative thinking in children’s Scratch learning.

Chang et al. (2008) studied the influence of two teaching methods, “independent construction” and “scaffolding construction,” on students' biological learning. The system, which was in the "independent construction" learning environment, provided students with timely evaluation report and corresponding feedback. Students constructed their own mind maps with the help of feedback. In the scaffolding-building learning environment, students received an incomplete mind map in which some nodes and links were set as blank scaffolders. Scaffolding building is a transformation from complete building (Paas, 1992; Van Merriënboer, 1990). The “scaffolding” teaching method provides students with an incomplete framework as scaffolding in which some nodes and links are left blank. Students must finish the incomplete maps by filling in the blanks to finish the framework. This method, also called the “fill structure” method, has proven to be an effective teaching method that uses incomplete knowledge graphs to evaluate knowledge structures (Naveh-Benjamin et al., 1986, 1998). This kind of assistance can help reduce the psychological burden of students and provides them with a meaningful knowledge structure. Rourke and Lewer-Fletcher (2015) studied the application of scaffolding construction in mind mapping and proved that this approach can promote collaborative and reflective learning among students. Some scholars have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach in education (Antoniou, 2016; Rajapriya & Kumar, 2017). Therefore, due to the fear that the cognitive level of fifth-grade students may not be sufficient for the self-construction of mind mapping, the mind mapping method with scaffolding construction was adopted. In this teaching method, the teacher prepares the frame of mind mapping in advance, leaving out some key knowledge points that will be filled in by students. The other group did not use any kind of mind mapping method. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was proposed.

Hypotheses

This study, based on drawing lessons from previous successful cases of Scratch learning, explored whether the cultivation of creative thinking skills is effective in Scratch visual programming education. The study divided instructional methods into scaffolding construction with mind mapping and without mind mapping to explore whether scaffolding construction with mind mapping can better improve pupils’ creative thinking. The following research hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 1

Both the experimental group (EG, scaffolding construction with mind mapping) and the control group (CG, no mind mapping) would significantly improve their creative thinking skills through 16 weeks of Scratch learning.

Hypothesis 2

Students in the EG and CG would show significant differences in promotion of their creative thinking skills.

Method

Participants

Eighty-four fifth-grade children who took the Scratch course in the fall semester of 2020 participated in the experiment. The students were randomly assigned to the EG (44 students: 22 male and 22 female), which used the method of scaffolding construction with mind mapping, and the CG (40 students: 22 male and 18 female), which did not use the mind mapping approach.

According to Piaget’s theory of children’s cognitive development, children approximately 10 years old are in the concrete operational stage and gradually develop to the formal operational stage (Piaget, 1932). At this stage, children obtain the ability to think logically and to finish activities within a phase. They cannot complete tasks but can gradually overcome self-centered tendencies. However, children’s ability to think abstractly is insufficient in this stage. Therefore, their abstract thinking, logical thinking, and system thinking abilities need to be gradually cultivated. In addition, they should be guided step by step from the concrete operational stage to the formal operational stage (Ojose, 2008; Zhao et al., 2021). Therefore, the fifth-grade participants in this study were considered to be aided with scaffolding instruction when applying the mind mapping approach. The participants gained basic knowledge from the information technology course in third grade and mastered basic computer knowledge and skills. They began to learn Scratch programming in fifth grade, which provided an opportunity for the development of this study.

Procedure

Sixteen-week learning units with tests at three time points using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F) and Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale tools were designed according to the course objectives and Scratch content for fifth grade children, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Design of the 16-Week Learning Unit.

Week	Content	Objectives
Pretest before Teaching Activities
1	Know Scratch	1. Know what Scratch is
1	Know Scratch	2. Know what Scratch does
2	Draw the role	1. Know the characters and stages in Scratch
2	Draw the role	2. Learn to use the repeat control and other common controls
3	The dance of the match man	1. Understand the concept of modeling and master the methods of modeling switching
3	The dance of the match man	2. Learn how characters and background colors change
4	Frog crossing the river	1. Understand the Scratch stage size, X and Y coordinate concepts
		2. Know the controls associated with coordinates
		3. Know the detection control and its concept
5	Draw regular polygons	1. Understand the related controls of the “brush” module
5	Draw regular polygons	2. Use the methods and skills of drawing regular polygons
6	Flowers in full bloom	1. Learn to use a graphical editor to draw petals
6	Flowers in full bloom	2. Learn how to use random functions
7	Through the maze	1. Use the methods of various control roles
7	Through the maze	2. Create a game using multiple detection and judgment controls
8	Programming link	1. Use knowledge to make a small program on the topic of environmental protection
Middle test after 8 weeks of teaching activities
9	The bean game	1. Understand and master the meaning of control-oriented use
9	The bean game	2. Use the method of using key control
10	The racing game	1. Learn how to create a game with detection and judgment controls
10	The racing game	2. Learn how to optimize scripts
11	A cat with a problem	1. Learn to set up variables and use them to calculate
11	A cat with a problem	2. Use the logical operation method to compare the size of variables
12	The animal shows	1. Understand the meaning of broadcasting and receiving messages
12	The animal shows	2. Create a story or game using radio to receive messages
13	Clone plane wars	1. Know and understand clone controls
13	Clone plane wars	2. Use clone controls to control the role change
14	Draw the castle	1. Learn to create and use blocks
14	Draw the castle	2. Understand the modular approach to build blocks in script design
15	Make a game	Make a small game with what you have learned
16	Optimize the game	Make the game as innovative as possible
Posttest after 16 weeks of teaching activities

The learning activities for each unit were designed to demonstrate what the teacher and the students should do in each unit during the 16 weeks of learning, as shown in Table 2. For each of the three tests of creative thinking, the TTCF-F test sheet was first given to each student in the two groups, and they were asked to fill in the test paper according to their own situation. 20 minutes later, the TTCF-F test sheets were returned, and the Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale was then distributed to each participant to fill out. Finally, all the material was retrieved, and the students waited for the next test. Next, the collected data are analyzed, the results are presented, and a discussion is presented, as shown in Figure 1.

Table 2.

Learning Activities for Each Unit.

Teachers’ Activities	Teaching Link	Students’ Activities
Organize the knowledge of the last class (EG uses the scaffolding mind map, and CG uses the teacher’s oral statement)	Knowledge consolidation	Review former knowledge points to deepen impressions
Create a situation and present the case	Situation introduction	Generate interest and trigger thinking
Analyze cases and build mind maps	Case analysis	Think about cases, learn new knowledge and master skills
EG was given a mind map learning sheet, while the control class had no such task	Task layout	The mind map learning sheet was added in EG, while CG did not have this activity
Answer questions, enlighten and guide	Programming practice	Inquire independently and write scripts
In-time teacher evaluation and feedback	Work display	Share works and evaluate each other
EG used a mind map to summarize knowledge, while CG used the teacher’s oral summary	Reflection summary	Modify works and mind maps

Figure 1.

Experimental procedure.

Instruments

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

Clements and Gullo (1984) applied the TTCT to measure the effect of the programming domain on young children’s cognition. Torrance (2011) tested the effectiveness of the scale through short- and long-range tests. Seo and Kim (2016) used the TTCT to analyze the effects of coding education through pair programming for the creativity of elementary school students. The TTCT has been translated into more than 35 languages (Millar, 2002) and is used worldwide. It has been widely used in the field of education and business, which is recognized as a universal measurement tool in most fields (Hong, 2014; Kim, 2011). It has become highly recommended in education and even used in the corporate world (Kim, 2006). TTCT scores predict creative achievement better than scores on other tests (Kim, 2011). The TTCT includes two forms, the TTCT-Verbal and TTCT-Figural (TTCT-F). The TTCT-Verbal has two forms, A and B, and the TTCT-F also has two forms, A and B (Kim, 2006).

The TTCT-Verbal comes in two parallel forms, A and B. It consists of five activities, question and guess, product improvement, unconventional use, unconventional questions, and assumptions. Each task stimulus consists of a picture to which people respond in writing (Torrance, 1974). The TTCT-F has two parallel forms A and B, which are composed of three kinds of activities: constituting the picture, completing the picture, and repeating the graph of lines or circles (Kim, 2006). Researchers have used participants' scores on both versions and found significant results for both, but the TTCT-F has been more comprehensive, reliable, and effective (Kim, 2017). In terms of grading, this study referred to the grading criteria from existing studies (Urban, 2005). The following 14 key criteria are listed in Table 1, constituting the overall construction of the TTCT-F and serving as evaluation criteria (Jellen & Urban, 1986, 1989; Urban & Jellen, 1995).

In this study, the 14 items of the TTCT-F in Table 3 were used as scoring items S1–S14 and scored according to the evaluation criteria for specific methods in Table 3. The scores were five points to one point according to the criteria of high conformity, relatively good conformity, neutral, relatively poor conformity, and low conformity. The total score for S1–S14 was recorded as S15, which was used to measure overall creative thinking ability. In this study, five experts in the creative thinking field were invited to score the TTCT-F. The experts selected are all teachers engaged in educational psychology teaching who have the title of associate professor or above. These experts have much to say about the cultivation of creative thinking. After removing the highest and lowest scores, the average score of the remaining three experts was taken as the final score to ensure scientific and rigorous scoring.

Table 3.

TTCT-F Scoring Criteria.

Number	Standard	Specific Methods
1	Continuation	Any use, continuation or extension of six given graphic fragments
2	Completion	Any supplement or complement to the utilized, extended or extended graphics fragments
3	New element	Any new symbol, figure, or element
4	Connections	To connect a graphic fragment or graph with a line
5	Connection made to produce a theme	Any figure that helps compose a theme or gestalt
6	Fragmentation-based boundary breaking	Any use, continuation, or extension of a “small open square” outside the square frame
7	Breaking the boundary	Is fragment independence
8	Perspective	Anything that is out of two dimensions
9	Humor and emotion	Any painting that arouses a humorous response, expresses feelings or emotions, or is highly expressive
10	Unconventional	Any operation of materials
11	Unconventional	Any surreal, fictional and/or abstract element or picture
12	Unconventional	Use of any symbol
13	Unconventional	Unconventional use of a given piece
14	Speed	Time spent in accordance with the production drawings, exceeding the time limit

Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale

The study used the Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale as a supplement to the TTCT-F. In 1965, Torrance compiled a self-report scale of creative personality, “What kind of personality do you have?”, which included 66 creative personality traits. It is necessary to gain a preliminary understanding of children’s creativity and to give positive or negative answers at the end of each item according to the subjects’ actual situation (Torrance & Hansen, 1965). Cox (2002) applied the tool to explore the relationship between self-directed learning and creativity among community college adult students, including computer science students. Garaigordobil and Berrueco (2011) used the tool to evaluate the effects of a play program on preschool children’s creative thinking. The tool contains 20 topics. Examples include Analogies are often used when speaking and writing; Able to actively identify problems and find relationships with them.

The Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale has only two answers: yes and no. The study recorded 20 items on the scale as Q1–Q20, and the subjects scored 1 point for an affirmative answer and 0 points for a negative answer, adding the sum of Q1–Q20 as Q21 to test the subjects’ self-cognition of their own creative thinking.

Results

Reliability and Validity Measurements

The reliability and validity of the scale with the pretest scores were measured. SPSS 25.0 was applied for the Cronbach’s alpha value and correlation analysis. The higher the Cronbach’s value is, the higher the reliability consistency of the scale. In exploratory studies, when the Cronbach’s value is greater than 0.80, the reliability is relatively high; when the Cronbach’s value is lower than 0.35, it must be rejected (Cronbach, 1951). The Cronbach’s value of this study was 0.913, indicating that the reliability of this measurement was very good. The correlation analysis of the 14 standard TTCT-F scores is shown in Table 4. Most of the 14 scores for the subjects showed a statistically significant correlation. This measurement had good reliability and validity.

Table 4.

Correlation Analysis of the TTCT-F.

	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14
S1	1	.500**	.403**	.403**	.427**	.487**	.546**	.378**	.625**	.378**	.485**	.266*	.549**	.090
S2	.500**	1	.556**	.455**	.480**	.575**	.522**	.495**	.547**	.373**	.506**	.325**	.612**	.242*
S3	.403**	.556**	1	.398**	.495**	.526**	.466**	.599**	.506**	.292**	.411**	.345**	.530**	.322**
S4	.403**	.455**	.398**	1	.489**	.381**	.412**	.407**	.410**	.355**	.408**	.468**	.521**	.309**
S5	.427**	.480**	.495**	.489**	1	.372**	.514**	.525**	.412**	.247*	.438**	.339**	.412**	.314**
S6	.487**	.575**	.526**	.381**	.372**	1	.629**	.554**	.554**	.430**	.504**	.271*	.576**	.367**
S7	.546**	.522**	.466**	.412**	.514**	.629**	1	.494**	.547**	.372**	.617**	.305**	.517**	.317**
S8	.378**	.495**	.599**	.407**	.525**	.554**	.494**	1	.529**	.272*	.502**	.261*	.532**	.159
S9	.624**	.547**	.506**	.410**	.412**	.554**	.547**	.529**	1	.308**	.499**	.154	.592**	.143
S10	.378**	.373**	.292**	.355**	.247*	.430**	.372**	.272*	.308**	1	.377**	.459**	.478**	.169
S11	.485**	.506**	.411**	.408**	.438**	.504**	.617**	.502**	.499**	.377**	1	.387**	.605**	.344**
S12	.266**	.325**	.345**	.468**	.339**	.271*	.305**	.261**	.154	.459**	.387**	1	.433**	.347**
S13	.549**	.612**	.530**	.521**	.412**	.576**	.517**	.532**	.592**	.478**	.605**	.433**	1	.382**
S14	.090	.242*	.322**	.309**	.314**	.367**	.317**	.159	.143	.169	.344**	.347**	.382**	1

Notes. *p < .05; **p < .01; CG: control group; EG: experimental group.

Three-Time Test Results for the EG and CG

Pretest

The pretest was carried out for the two groups. As shown in Table 5, the TTCT-F and Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale were used to test the two groups. The test questionnaires from the two groups were scrambled. The students’ names were hidden to ensure the objectivity and scientific nature of the scores. SPSS 24.0 was used to carry out an independent-sample t-test on the scores, and the EG and CG corresponded to groups 1 and 2, respectively. The results revealed that the two groups showed no significant difference in the pretest scores; that is, the creative thinking levels of the two groups of children were similar.

Table 5.

Results of the Pretest.

Item	EG		CG		t
Item	M	SD	M	SD	t
S1	2.50	.821	2.23	.832	1.524
S2	2.75	.781	2.60	.841	.847
S3	2.55	.875	2.45	.815	.516
S4	2.20	.509	2.35	.864	−.928
S5	2.16	.713	2.38	.897	−1.213
S6	2.64	.865	2.48	.960	.810
S7	2.30	.701	2.25	.870	.265
S8	2.66	.914	2.58	.747	.459
S9	2.70	.851	2.45	1.037	1.234
S10	2.64	.810	2.43	.903	1.131
S11	2.59	.787	2.45	.815	.806
S12	2.27	.758	2.53	.847	−1.440
S13	2.73	.924	2.50	.906	1.136
S14	2.25	.811	2.55	.714	−1.792
S15	34.93	7.000	34.20	9.008	.418
Q21	13.36	2.712	13.35	2.815	.023

Notes. *p < .05; **p < .01; CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Middle Test

Eight weeks later, the middle test was conducted for the two groups. The results are shown in Table 6. The scores of the two groups gradually increased. The mean score of the EG group was higher than that of the CG group. The results showed that the Scratch course using mind mapping could improve children’s creative thinking. Hence, scaffolding construction with a mind map had a positive effect in training children on creative thinking.

Table 6.

Results of the Middle Test.

Item	EG		CG		t	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
Item	M	SD	M	SD	t	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
S1	3.11	1.262	2.85	.580	1.249
S2	3.09	1.235	2.98	.800	.515
S3	3.86	.734	3.00	.934	4.734**	1.024	.456
S4	3.89	.841	2.78	.891	5.879**	1.281	.737
S5	3.77	.985	2.70	.758	5.553**	1.217	.520
S6	3.66	.861	2.93	.971	3.672**	.796	.370
S7	3.00	.988	2.70	.939	1.423
S8	2.86	1.193	2.68	.730	.883
S9	3.84	.914	2.90	1.033	4.431**	.964	.434
S10	3.73	.758	2.85	.975	4.625**	1.001	.450
S11	3.23	1.236	2.88	.911	1.495
S12	3.68	.934	2.90	.841	4.015**	.878	.402
S13	3.70	.930	2.75	.927	4.707**	1.023	.456
S14	3.77	1.097	2.93	.917	3.822**	.831	.384
S15	52.41	10.700	39.80	9.638	5.654**	1.238	.526
Q21	15.36	2.469	14.13	2.875	2.124*	.459	.224

Notes. *p < .05; **p < .01; CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

In addition, the two groups differed significantly in some scoring standards, including S3, S4, S5, S6, S9, S10, S12, S13, and S14. They also showed significant differences in the total score (S15) and the evaluation of their own creative personality (Q21). The effect size was also used in this study to detect the t-test effect. Although there are many ways to calculate effect size, Cohen’s d is the most frequently used method in the independent-sample t-test (Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007; Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). A Cohen’s d value ≥ 0.2 and < 0.5 indicates small effects, a value ≥ 0.5 and < 0.8 indicates a medium effect, and a value ≥ 0.8 signals a large effect (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, S6, S14, and Q21 were shown to have small effects, while the rest had medium effects, indicating significant differences between the two groups.

Posttest

Sixteen weeks later, the study carried out the posttest with the two groups, and the test results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7.

Results of the Posttest.

Item	EG		CG		t	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
Item	M	SD	M	SD	t	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
S1	4.43	.501	3.63	.490	7.446**	1.614	.628
S2	4.27	.544	3.60	.545	5.653**	1.230	.524
S3	4.16	.713	3.63	.490	3.959**	.867	.397
S4	4.23	.605	3.60	.591	4.801**	1.053	.466
S5	4.14	.632	3.48	.599	4.911**	1.072	.472
S6	4.20	.594	3.68	.526	4.310**	.927	.420
S7	3.73	.817	3.15	.700	3.486**	.762	.356
S8	3.20	.553	2.60	.632	4.643**	1.010	.451
S9	3.82	.657	3.00	.679	5.610**	1.227	.523
S10	3.84	.680	3.48	.679	2.465*	.530	.256
S11	3.93	.545	3.50	.555	3.592**	.782	.364
S12	3.82	.620	3.45	.597	2.766**	.608	.291
S13	3.91	.563	3.45	.597	3.616**	.793	.368
S14	3.59	.996	4.38	.740	−4.062**	-.900	-.411
S15	55.18	5.091	48.40	3.747	6.692**	1.517	.604
Q21	16.23	2.551	14.73	2.961	2.497*	.543	.262

Notes. *p < .05; **p < .01; CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

The results revealed the following: (1) The mean scores of S1–S13 and Q21 in the EG were higher than those in the CG. (2) There were significant differences in the S1–S15 and Q21 scores between the two groups. (3) The S3, S7, S10, S12, S13, and Q21 scores indicated small effects, while the other scores indicated medium effects; thus, scaffolding construction with mind mapping was effective for the cultivation of creative thinking. (4) S14 scores in the CG were higher than those in the EG, which was an interesting phenomenon. In the limited time of the 20-minute TTCT-F test, CG students filled in more blanks than EG students. This is why the CG score in S14 was higher than that in the EG. However, as shown in Figure 2, for each blank, the EG students drew more complicated and meaningful pictures than those of CG students, indicating more creative answers for each item than the CG students gave (criteria refer to S–S13, S15. The scores of the two tests indicated that the EG scored higher than the CG in items S1–S13 and S15).

Figure 2.

Comparison of S14 responses for EG and CG students. Note. The figure shows Task 3: Parallel lines of the TTCT. There are 20 pairs of parallel lines below. Please add lines to complete each picture. You can paint anywhere in between, above or beyond the two lines. Try to think of things that others can’t think of. Draw as many different pictures as you can. Also, put as many ideas as you can into each picture to make it as full and interesting as possible, and write the name of each story on the line below each picture. Please take 10 minutes to complete this activity.

Comparison of creative thinking before and after the experiment

In this study, we analyzed the creative thinking scores of the two groups before and after the experiment, as shown in Tables 8 and 9. After 16 weeks of learning, both groups of children’s creative thinking skills improved. There were obvious differences between the beginning and the end of the experiment. In the EG, the S4, S5, and S15 scores showed strong effects. The results for the other standards, including the creative personality score (Q21), showed medium effects. In the CG, the S8, S9, and Q21 scores showed small effects; the S4, S5, and S15 scores showed strong effects; and the others showed medium effects. Therefore, the Scratch course with the mind mapping method was able to effectively improve children’s creative thinking. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was proved.

Table 8.

EG Students’ Creative Thinking Before and After the Experiment.

	Pretest		Posttest		T	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
	M	SD	M	SD	T	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
S1	2.50	.821	3.63	.490	−11.937**	−1.671	−.641
S2	2.75	.781	3.60	.545	−8.834**	−1.262	−.534
S3	2.55	.875	3.63	.490	−10.490**	−1.523	−.606
S4	2.20	.509	4.23	.605	−15.784**	−3.631	−.876
S5	2.16	.713	4.14	.632	−14.618**	−2.939	−.827
S6	2.64	.865	4.20	.594	−6.080**	−2.102	−.725
S7	2.30	.701	3.73	.817	−6.750**	−1.879	−.685
S8	2.66	.914	3.20	.553	−6.834**	−.715	−.337
S9	2.70	.851	3.82	.657	−6.918**	−1.473	−.593
S10	2.64	.810	3.84	.680	−8.803**	−1.605	−.626
S11	2.59	.787	3.93	.545	−8.124**	−1.980	−.703
S12	2.27	.758	3.82	.620	−11.492**	−2.238	−.746
S13	2.73	.924	3.91	.563	−4.217**	−1.542	−.611
S14	2.25	.811	3.59	.996	10.329**	−1.475	−.594
S15	34.93	7.000	55.18	5.091	−15.519**	−3.309	−.856
Q21	13.36	2.712	16.23	2.551	−5.211**	−1.090	−.479

Notes. *p < .05; **p < .01; CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Table 9.

CG Students’ Creative Thinking Before and After the Experiment.

	Pretest		Posttest		t	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
	M	SD	M	SD	t	Cohen’s d	Effect sizes
S1	2.23	.832	3.63	.490	−9.171**	−2.050	−.716
S2	2.60	.841	3.60	.545	−6.308**	−1.411	−.577
S3	2.45	.815	3.63	.490	−7.814**	−1.755	−.660
S4	2.35	.864	3.60	.591	−7.555**	−1.689	−.645
S5	2.38	.897	3.48	.599	−6.452**	−1.442	−.585
S6	2.48	.960	3.68	.526	−6.932**	−1.550	−.613
S7	2.25	.870	3.15	.700	−5.099**	−1.140	−.495
S8	2.58	.747	2.60	.632	−.162**	−.029	−.015
S9	2.45	1.037	3.00	.679	−2.807**	−.628	−.299
S10	2.43	.903	3.48	.679	−5.880**	−1.314	−.549
S11	2.45	.815	3.50	.555	−6.736**	−1.506	−.602
S12	2.53	.847	3.45	.597	−5.646**	−1.256	−.532
S13	2.50	.906	3.45	.597	−5.538**	−1.238	−.526
S14	2.55	.714	4.38	.740	−11.220**	−2.517	−.783
S15	34.20	9.008	48.40	3.747	−9.335**	−2.058	−.717
Q21	13.35	2.815	14.73	2.961	−2.128**	−.478	−.232

Notes. * p < .05; **p < .01; CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Discussion

Learning Scratch Improved Children’s Creative Thinking

Students' creative thinking can be measured through their work (Fink et al., 2009). Hence, this study used the TTCT-F picture test, which is widely recognized by the academic community for identifying changes in students’ creative thinking, and the Torrance Creative Personality Self-Report Scale as a supplementary tool. This study was conducted in a Scratch course for 16 weeks in a primary school. A pretest, middle test, and final test were conducted, and the results showed that each test score increased gradually. The scores before and after the experiment were significantly different, which indicated that the experimental design of this study was helpful for improving children’s creative thinking. The results are consistent with those of Garneli et al. (2015) and Pacheco et al. (2015).

The study showed that both groups showed significant differences after 16 weeks of Scratch course learning. This result was consistent with the study of Garneli et al. (2015). Fifty-three middle school students were divided into three groups, proving that the use of project-based learning methods and teaching methods based on visual programming tools can stimulate students' creative learning experience. However, whereas most research has linked visual programming with other teaching methods to measure children’s creative thinking levels, the present study links visual programming with the learning method of mind mapping. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was confirmed.

Mind Mapping is Effective in Promoting Creative Thinking

The control variable of this experiment was that the EG adopted the learning method of scaffolding construction with mind mapping, while the CG adopted the learning method without mind mapping. The two groups’ pretest, middle test, and posttest results were compared and analyzed. The pretest results showed no significant difference between the EG and CG, and their similar scores indicated that creative learning was at the same level for the two groups before the experiment. However, after the middle test, the study found that the children’s creative thinking in both groups had improved, and the scores of the EG students gradually rose higher than those of the CG students, showing significant differences in some standards. However, there was no significant difference in the overall scores. Although the posttest scores of creative thinking for both the EG and CG improved more than they had previously, the EG scores were higher than the CG scores for most of the standards, and the total scores differed significantly. To measure creative thinking, Urban (2005) noted that it is not accurate to look only at one of the 14 criteria and that instead the total score of the 14 criteria should be used, namely, S15 in the paper. Although the influences of S8, S9, and Q21 were small, the influences of other standards were medium or high efficiency. Thus, it was shown that scaffolding construction with mind mapping had a greater effect on children’s creative learning than the method without mind mapping. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was confirmed. This result is in line with the study of Vernon and Hocking (2016).

Conclusion

Due to the need for future citizens to gain creative thinking skills, it is critical to cultivate children’s creative learning skills in different courses. The Scratch course creates a digital world for children to design, develop, and create new coursework. In the course, the strategy of scaffolding construction with mind mapping promotes children’s creative learning.

Implications

The theoretical contribution of this study is to prove the positive influence of visual programming tools and mind mapping on the cultivation of creative thinking for children. Scratch, as a kind of visual programming tool, can help provide a creative learning environment in a digital world without preparation of other real materials for children’s hands-on activities. The strategy of mind mapping helps guide children in designing and creating their coursework.

The practical contribution of this study is that the results can provide some guidance for teachers to optimize their teaching methods and processes. For example, teachers can use scaffolding teaching methods and various tools, such as mind mapping, to guide students’ thinking patterns and use visual tools to cultivate students’ creativity.

Limitations and Future Works

Some limitations of this study need to be given more attention in future studies. First, the information technology course in fifth grade was only 16 weeks long in the semester in which the experiment occurred, so the frequency of testing—once every 2 months—may have caused the previous test to impact the later tests. An experiment should involve a long-term process (Liu et al., 2021; Su et al., 2021; Wu & Su, 2021). Second, each test in this study was analyzed according to the average score (rounded) from three experts to ensure scoring objectivity, but the number of experts may have been too small. These limitations overall warrant further optimization of the experimental design in subsequent studies. Third, this study considered the cultivation of creative thinking in the Scratch course. There may be other factors that influenced the changes in students’ creative thinking, such as the similar courses that students took in the same semester, which will be explored in future studies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. BCA200093), and Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. Moreover, this study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grant MOST 109-2511-H-019-004-MY2 and MOST 109-2511-H-019-001.

ORCID iDs

Yu-Sheng Su

Li Zhao

References

Aisyah

Setiawan

(2016). The use of high order thinking skill in story telling method in order to improve children' critical thinking. Journal of English and Education, 3, 15-26. doi:10.20885/jee.vol3.iss1.art2

Anderson

J. V.

(1993). Mind mapping: a tool for creative thinking. Business Horizons, 36(1), 41-46. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(05)80102-8

Antoniou

. (2016) Scaffolding understanding at a conceptual level in an L2 academic context: A SCT approach. [PhD thesis, University of Essex].

Behnamnia

Kamsin

Ismail

(2020). The landscape of research on the use of digital game-based learning apps to nurture creativity among young children: a review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100666. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100666

Besançon

Lubart

(2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 381-389. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009

Buzan

(2010). The mind map book: Unlock your creativity, boost your memory, change your life (1st edition). Pearson Education Ltd.

Chang

K. E.

Sung

Y. T.

Chen

S. F.

(2008). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 21-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x

Chen

T. L.

Hsiao

T. C.

Kang

T. C.

T. Y.

Chen

C. C.

(2020). Learning programming language in higher education for sustainable development: Point-earning bidding method. Sustainability, 12, 4489. doi: 10.3390/su12114489

Chen

S. Y.

Lai

C. F.

Lai

Y. H.

Y. S.

(2019). Effect of project-based learning on development of students’ creative thinking. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education. doi: 10.1177/0020720919846808

10.

Chou

C. H.

Y. S.

Chen

H. J.

(2019). Interactive teaching aids integrating building blocks and programming logic. Journal of Internet Technology, 20(6), 1709-1719. doi: 10.3966/160792642019102006003

11.

Clements

D. H.

Gullo

D. F.

(1984). Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051.

12.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Conole

Weller

(2008). Using learning design as a framework for supporting the design and reuse OER. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 5, 1-13. doi: 10.5334/2008-5.

14.

Coronado

Mastrogiovanni

Indurkhya

Venture

(2020). Visual programming environments for end-user development of intelligent and social robots, a systematic review. Journal of Computer Languages, 58, 100970. doi:10.1016/j.cola.2020.100970

15.

Cox

B. F.

(2002). The relationship between creativity and self-directed learning among adult community college students. [PhD Dissertation, The University of Tennessee. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing]. 3059737.

16.

Cronbach

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555

17.

Daniel

C. H.

(1984). Programming by example. [PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. AAI8512843. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_674

18.

Dellas

Gaier

E. L.

(1970). Identification of creativity: The individual. Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 55-73. doi:10.1037/h0028446

19.

Eid

Millham

(2012). Which introductory programming approach is most suitable for students: Procedural or visual programming? American Journal of Business Education, 5(2), 173-178. doi:10.19030/ajbe.v5i2.6819

20.

Eriksson

L. T.

Hauer

A. M.

(2004). Mind map marketing: a creative approach in developing marketing skills. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 174-187. doi: 10.1177/0273475304265634

21.

Ersoy

Başer

(2014). The effects of problem-based learning method in higher education on creative thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(21), 3494-3498. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.790

22.

Fink

Graif

Neubauer

A. C.

(2009). Brain correlates underlying creative thinking: eeg alpha activity in professional vs. novice dancers. NeuroImage, 46(3), 854-862. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.036

23.

Garaigordobil

Berrueco

(2011). Effects of a play program on creative thinking of preschool children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 608-618. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.9

24.

Garneli

Giannakos

M. N.

Chorianopoulos

Jaccheri

(2015). Serious game development as a creative learning experience: Lessons learnt. 2015 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Games & Software Engineering, Florence, Italy, (pp. 36-42). doi:10.1109/GAS.2015.14

25.

Hensley

(2020). Educating for sustainable development: Cultivating creativity through mindfulness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118542. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118542

26.

Hong

(2014). Creative thinking abilities: Measures for various domains. New York: Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8_11

27.

Ismail

M. N.

Ngah

N. A.

Umar

I. N.

(2010). The effects of mind mapping with cooperative learning on programming performance, problem solving skill and metacognitive knowledge among computer science students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 35-61. doi: 10.2190/EC.42.1.b

28.

Jellen

H. G.

Urban

K. K.

(1986). The tct-dp (test for creative thinking-drawing production): an instrument that can be applied to most age and ability groups. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 11(3), 138-155. doi:10.1037/t53164-000

29.

Jellen

H. G.

Urban

K. K.

(1989). Assessing creative potential world-wide: the first cross-cultural application of the test for creative thinking--drawing production (tct-dp). Gifted Education International, 6(2), 78-86. doi: 10.1177/026142948900600204

30.

Kaufman

J. C.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. doi:10.1037/a0013688

31.

Kim

K. H.

(2006). Can we trust creativity tests? a review of the Torrance tests of creative thinking (ttct). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2

32.

Kim

K. H.

(2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-295. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.627805

33.

Kim

K. H.

(2017). The torrance tests of creative thinking - figural or verbal: which one should we use? Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, 4(2). doi: 10.1515/ctra-2017-0015

34.

Kim

Choi

Han

H. J.

(2012). Enhancing teachers' ict capacity for the 21st century learning environment: three cases of teacher education in korea. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 965-982. doi: 10.14742/ajet.v28i6.805

35.

Laili

S. I.

Yuniarti

E. V.

(2017). Influence of free drawings to improve creativity in 5th grader children in mi mu'awanah al-hasyimiyah. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Science, 1, 83-88. doi: 10.29082/IJNMS/2017/Vol1/Iss1/44

36.

Lin

C. C.

Shih

D. H.

(2009). Mind mapping: a creative development in industrial engineering education. 5th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WICOM.2009.5303453

37.

Liu

Shao

Liu

Zhao

(2021). Exploring the influential factors on readers' continuance intentions of e-book APPs: Personalization, usefulness, playfulness, and satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 262-273. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640110

38.

Liu

Tong

Yang

(2018). The application of mind mapping into college computer programming teaching - sciencedirect. Procedia Computer Science, 129, 66-70. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.03.047

39.

Maloney

Peppler

Kafai

Y. B.

Resnick

Rusk

(2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch. Acm Sigcse Bulletin, 40(1), 367-371. doi:10.1145/1352322.1352260

40.

Maloney

Resnick

Rusk

Silverman

Eastmond

(2010). The scratch programming language and environment. Acm Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1-15. doi:10.1145/1868358.1868363

41.

Malycha

C. P.

Maier

G. W.

(2017). The random-map technique: enhancing mind-mapping with a conceptual combination technique to foster creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 114-124. doi:10.1080/10400419.2017.1302763

42.

Marcos

R. I. S.

Fernándezc

V. L.

González

M. T. D.

Phillips-Silverd

(2020). Promoting children’s creative thinking through reading and writing in a cooperative learning classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100663. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100663

43.

Millar

G. W.

(2002). The torrance kids at mid-life: Selected case studies of creative behavior. Westport, CT: Ablex Pub.

44.

Mueller

Johnston

Bligh

(2010). Joining mind mapping and care planning to enhance student critical thinking and achieve holistic nursing care. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies & Classifications, 13(1), 24-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-618X.2002.tb00161.x

45.

Murley

(2007). Technology for everyone. Mind mapping complex information. Law Library Journal, 99(1), 175-183. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9080-6

46.

Nakagawa

Cuthill

I. C.

(2007). Effect size, confidence intervals and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 82(4), 591-605. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x

47.

Navarrete

C. C.

(2013). Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case study. Computers & Education, 69, 320-331. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.025

48.

Naveh-Benjamin

Mckeachie

W. J.

Lin

Y. G.

Neely

R. K.

(1998). Assessment and modification of flexibility of cognitive structures created in university courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 209-232. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0957

49.

Naveh-Benjamin

Mckeachie

W. J.

Lin

Y. G.

Tucker

D. G.

(1986). Inferring students’ cognitive structures and their development using the “ordered tree technique”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 130-140. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.130

50.

Ojose

(2008). Applying piaget's theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction. Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26-30.

51.

Paas

G. W. C.

(1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429

52.

Pacheco

Fogh

Lund

H. H.

Christensen

D. J.

(2015). Fable II: design of a modular robot for creative learning. Proceedings of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, (pp. 6134-6139). doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2015.7140060

53.

Piaget

(1932). The moral judgment of the child. Routledge, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.

54.

Pillay

H. T.

Funk

(2020). Introducing mind mapping as a creative counseling modality. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 15(4), 474-481. doi:10.1080/15401383.2020.1746721

55.

Rajapriya

Kumar

(2017). Effectiveness of mind mapping in higher education. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 975-981.

56.

Resnick

Maloney

Monroy-Hernández

Rusk

Eastmond

Brennan

Millner

Rosenbaum

Silver

J. S.

Silverman

Kafai

Y. B.

(2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the Acm, 52(11), 60-67. doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779

57.

Rourke

Lewer-Fletcher

(2015). Scaffold learning, peer review and mind mapping: promoting collaborative practice in the elearning environment. In Progress in Education, New York: Nova Science, 71-88.

58.

Sayavaranont

Piriyasurawong

Jeerungsuwan

(2018). Enhancing Thai generation z's creative thinking with scratch through the spiral model. International Journal of Learning Technology, 13(3), 181-202. doi: 10.1504/IJLT.2018.10017160

59.

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 & Technology, 9(46), 1-5. doi:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i46/107837

60.

Shaheen

(2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1(3), 166-169. doi:10.4236/ce.2010.13026

61.

Shamay-Tsoory

S. G.

Adler

Aharon-Peretz

Perry

Mayseless

(2011). The origins of originality: the neural bases of creative thinking and originality. Neuropsychologia, 49(2), 178-185. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.020

62.

Shiina

Tomizawa

Yamada

(2008). A new proposal of vocabulary teaching with mind mapping. Bulletin of Salesian Polytechnic, 34, 155-164.

63.

Shu

N. C.

(1986). Visual programming languages: A perspective and a dimensional analysis. In Chang

S. K.

Ichikawa

Ligomenides

P. A.

(Eds.), Visual Languages. Management and Information Systems. Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1805-7_2

64.

Sternberg

R. J.

Lubart

T. I.

(1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist. 51(7), 677-688. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.7.677

65.

Y. S.

Huang

S. J.

Yang

J. H.

(2015). Effects of annotations and homework on learning achievement: An empirical study of scratch programming pedagogy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 331-343. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.331

66.

Y. S.

Ding

T. J.

Chen

M. Y

. (2021). Deep Learning Methods in Internet of Medical Things for Valvular Heart Disease Screening System. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3053420

67.

Sullivan

G. M.

Feinn

(2012). Using effect size-or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1

68.

Swestyani

Masykuri

Prayitno

B. A.

Rinanto

Widoretno

(2018). An analysis of logical thinking using mind mapping. Journal of Physics Conference, 1022, 012020. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1022/1/012020

69.

Thorpe

(2008). Effective online interaction: Mapping course design to bridge from research to practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 57-72. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1230

70.

Torrance

E. P.

(1974). The torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, forms a and b- figural tests, forms a and b. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

71.

Torrance

E. P.

(2011). Predictive validity of the torrance tests of creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236-262. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x

72.

Torrance

E. P.

Hansen

(1965). The question-asking behavior of highly creative and less creative basic business teachers identified by a paper-and-pencil test. Psychological Reports, 17(3), 815. doi:10.2466/pr0.1965.17.3.815

73.

Urban

K. K.

(2005). Assessing creativity: The test for creative thinking - drawing production (tct-dp). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272-280.

74.

Urban

K. K.

Jellen

H. G.

(1995). Test zum schöpferischen Denken-Zeichnerisch (TSD-Z). Frankfurt am Main: Swets.

75.

Van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

(1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 1. doi: 10.2190/4NK5-17L7-TWQV-1EHL.

76.

Vernon

Hocking

(2016). Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 153-159. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.009

77.

Wallack

M. A.

Koga

(1965). Modes of thinking in young children, New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

78.

Wang

W. C.

Lee

C. C.

Chu

Y. C.

(2010). A brief review on developing creative thinking in young children by mind mapping. International Business Research, 3(3), 233-238. doi:10.5539/ibr.v3n3p233

79.

Watts

Blessinger

(2016). Creative learning in higher education: International perspectives and approaches. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315659473

80.

Whler

Reinhardt

(2021). The users' perspective on how creativity techniques help in the idea generation process—a repertory grid study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(1), 144-163. doi: 10.1111/caim.12424

81.

S. Y.

Y. S.

(2021). Visual programming environments and computational thinking performance of fifth- and sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1075-1092. doi: 10.1177/0735633120988807

82.

Zhao

Y. S.

(2021). Innovative pedagogy and design-based research on flipped learning in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 577002. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.577002