Fostering Learner Creativity through Robotics-Enhanced Story Creation Experience

Framework

Creativity
Creativity is commonly defined as requiring both originality and effectiveness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Beyond the standard definition, theorists emphasize that creativity involves an active, intentional process within a specific context (Kampylis & Valtanen, 2010). It often begins with perceiving a problem or sensing a need (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) and requires long incubation periods (Vygotsky, 2004) and deliberate practice and time (Weisberg, 1999). Creativity may or may not lead to the creation of tangible products, so the study of creativity should go beyond the end results to also examine the creative processes involved (Walia, 2019).
Rhodes’ (1961) 4P model has been widely cited for studying creativity (e.g., Ghahremani et al., 2022; Franceschelli & Musolesi, 2024). According to Rhodes (1961), creativity can be viewed through four strands: person, process, press, and product. Person refers to personal characteristics, such as “personality, intellect, temperament, physique, traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defense mechanisms, and behavior (p. 307).” Process concerns how original ideas or solutions are generated. It captures individuals’ “motivation, perception, learning, thinking, and communication (p. 308).” Press describes “the relationship between human beings and their environment (p. 308).” Environmental factors, such as time, material resources, expectations, and opportunities for autonomy and freedom, impact creativity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Witt & Beorkrem, 1989). Products are outcomes of the creative process, often in tangible forms (Rhodes, 1961). However, products say little about the creative process, and not all creative efforts result in a product (Runco & Pagnani, 2011).

Creativity, Robotics, and Storytelling
Rhodes’s (1961) 4P model highlights the multiple facets of creativity. Researchers have found that the immediate learning contexts (i.e., press) can influence divergent thinking and creative potential among K-12 students (e.g., Dudek et al., 1993; Wallach & Kogan,1965). Recent studies have documented the positive impact of robotics environments on creativity (e.g., Canbeldek & Isikoglu, 2023; Ghahremani et al., 2022; Sung et al., 2023); however, these studies predominantly focus on the quantitative changes in creativity measures, such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking - Figural scores (TTCT-F; Torrance, 1974). Only a few have examined the creative process or contextual factors influencing creativity in robotics settings (e.g., Ghahremani et al., 2022; Nemiro et al., 2015).
Additionally, most research uses robotics to foster creativity through programming and engineering design activities, which represents an unnecessarily narrow approach (Rusk et al., 2008). Scholars have advocated for broader applications of robotics that include narrative components such as storytelling to engage more diverse learners (Bers, 2008; Turbak & Berg, 2002). Storytelling has shown potential to enhance creativity (e.g., Erişti, 2016; Tisoglu et al., 2022), yet few studies have explored robotics as a storytelling tool to promote creativity (Angel-Fernandez & Vincze, 2018).

This study seeks to address this gap by investigating children’s creativity in a robotics-enhanced story creation summer camp. Informed by the literature, we approach creativity as a multifaceted concept, examining both the story creation process and the final products to identify evidence of campers’ creative thinking and attitudes. Moreover, we examine the contextual factors, particularly the design features of story creation activities, to inform the design of future learning tasks aimed at fostering creativity. The research questions of this study are:
1. Did the campers’ creativity, as measured by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking - Figural (TTCT-F) assessments, change after completing the summer camp?
2. What were the key features of the story creation tasks in which campers engaged, and how did these features influence their story creation?
3. In what way did the campers demonstrate creativity, if any, during the creation processes?
4. How did the campers’ final products demonstrate creativity, if at all?

Methods

The context of this study is a week-long summer camp held in mid-July 2024 at a public university. Offered free of charge, this camp drew design principles from previous experience (author et al., 2023; author et al., 2024) while introducing a new story creation component to promote creativity in a robotics environment. The camp took place in a large classroom where four tables were set up, each accommodating three or four campers supported by one facilitator. The main project for the campers was working in groups to develop summer-themed stories, bringing them to life through drawings, LEGOs, and VEX Go robotics, culminating in presentations on the final day. To foster creativity, the following principles were considered:
(a) Integration of robotics with theme-based narratives and artistic components (author et al., 2023; Rusk et al., 2008).
(b) Open-ended, hands-on exploration to encourage imagination, originality, and flexibility (Ghahremani et al., 2022; Nemiro et al., 2015).
(c) Collaborative project-based experience, prioritizing sharing, expression, and collaboration (Angel-Fernandez & Vincze, 2018; Kim, 2021).

We adopted a case study design using a mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A PhD student in instructional technology led the design of the camp activities and managed the overall camp operations. She was a participant-observer of the research, and the lead author served as a non-participant observer. Over five days, 14 campers, ranging from kindergarten to Grade 4, voluntarily participated in 22.5 hours of robotics-enhanced story creation activities, including facilitator-led learning, collaborative projects, and free play.

Quantitative Data
Campers’ creativity was assessed through a pre- and post-approach, using the TTCT-F (Torrance, 1974). The TTCT-F includes two forms, Form A and Form B, each consisting of drawing activities, prompting respondents to construct pictures, complete partial images, and create new drawings based on repeated lines (Form A) or circles (Form B). In this study, the TTCT-F was administered at the beginning and end of the summer camp.

Qualitative Data
We conducted daily observations (22.5 hours) and audio-recorded group-based story creation sessions (8.8 hours). We examined the artifacts campers produced, such as settings, props, and characters, and engaged them in informal conversations to better understand the more nuanced aspects of their experience.

Data Analysis
We used R (R Core Team, 2024) to conduct descriptive analysis and paired t-tests to analyze the TTCT-F scores. Qualitative data analysis underwent several phases. First, all audio recordings were transcribed using Clipto, and the lead author reviewed the recordings and cleaned the transcripts for completeness and accuracy. Next, the lead author used NVivo to analyze the data through descriptive coding, applying initial codes to capture the core meaning of data excerpts. These initial codes were generated inductively, drawing on the lead author’s close knowledge of the camp’s design and implementation. This was followed by an iterative, reflexive coding process, allowing the codes to evolve as our understanding of data deepened (Saldana, 2015).
During reflexive coding, the first author led the review of the data and initial codes, regularly meeting with the second author to discuss and refine the analysis. Our first-hand observation and engagement in the summer camp helped us contextualize and interpret the data. Guided by the research questions, we focused on evidence of creativity or its absence (RQs 3 and 4), as well as the key characteristics of the process in which creativity did or did not emerge (RQ 2). Our discussions were also informed by relevant literature. For example, the finalized codes reflected the two dimensions of creativity outlined in Kim’s (2021) framework of creative thinking and attitudes. We also considered key characteristics of the creative processes, including sensitivity in perceiving a problem, generating ideas, and digging deeper into ideas (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Treffinger et al., 2013).
When relevant data segments were identified, we deliberated to reach a consensus on accurate coding. Disagreements were resolved through discussions and collective reflections on the camp design, implementation, and our conceptual understanding of creativity. To minimize bias, we critically reflected on our role as observers, designers, and trainers, ensuring that our intentions in designing the camp did not influence the coding of the campers’ actual performance. Furthermore, we presented the codes with an individual who was not closely involved in the camp and incorporated their feedback to refine the codes. Through this iterative and reflexive process, we developed a set of codes that captured evidence of campers’ creative thinking and attitudes. The finalized codes and their descriptions are presented below:
• Imagining: Use imagination to verbally describe and elaborate on ideas, create visuals and artifacts, or physically manipulate objects to represent various characters, settings, or plots of the story.
• Generating diverse and original ideas: Fluently produce different ideas or generate ideas that are original, unique, and unconventional.
• Deepening idea processing: Engage in sense-making. Dig deeper into ideas through evaluation, explanation, and synthesis to create richer meanings.
• Perceiving and solving problems: Show sensitivity in identifying problems or challenges and engage in various mental or physical activities to develop fitting solutions in an organic and integrative manner.
• Showing humor and playful spirits: Use humor and playful, childlike actions; have fun and keep a lighthearted attitude.

Results

TTCT-F Results
All 14 campers completed the pre- and post- assessments of creativity, using the TTCT-F. The average creativity index score slightly declined after the summer camp, but the change was not significant (p > .05). Similarly, scores on originality, abstractness of titles, and resistance to premature closure showed non-significant decreases (all p > .05). In contrast, campers’ fluency (p < .01) and elaboration (p < .05) scores were significantly improved.

Creation Process: Unstructured Activity
On the first day of camp, before any formal instruction, campers engaged in an unstructured 40-minute LEGO activity to practice story creation. Working in groups, they built scenes without detailed plans, quickly deciding on plots and building objects based on interest. From this activity, two distinct types of creation processes were observed:
1) Some groups simply described what they built and imagined basic actions, creating incomplete stories lacking conflict or resolution.
2) Some groups engaged in an iterative refinement process where objects and stories were co-evolving. As their narratives developed, campers modified existing objects or built new ones to align with the story. Stories developed using the second approach featured more complicated plots that involved a chain of events.

Creation Process: Structured Project
After the unstructured activity, all groups started a multi-day project following a preplanned structure: learning about story elements and project requirements, discussing story outlines, discussing story details, drawing and/or building story elements, coding robot characters, rehearsing, and presenting the final story. In the structured creation process, three features shaped creativity:
1) A systematic linear process guided campers step-by-step, ensuring complete narratives but sometimes stifling idea flexibility and iteration.
2) An emphasis on formal presentation motivated students to organize and synthesize story elements for performance, fostering coherence but limiting risk-taking and iterative refinement.
3) Diverse collaborative experiences exposed campers to discussion, drawing, building, and coding, sparking creative problem-solving but also presenting challenges when skills (like coding) were underdeveloped.

Creativity During the Story Creation Process
Campers demonstrated creative thinking and attitudes in both the unstructured activity and the structured project. Evidence from the qualitative data are summarized below.

Imagining
Campers imagined story elements through discussions, drawing, LEGOs, and robots. They added details like realistic lakes or transforming cars into police cars, and used robots to mimic actions such as shivering during a volcano scene.

Generating Diverse and Original Ideas
Campers produced numerous ideas and artifacts for their stories. Their ideas often went beyond conventional thinking and demonstrated originality. For instance, beach activities could include chasing a megalodon. An imaginary world could be reached through “teleportation”. A sea monster could be kind and helpful.

Deepening Idea Processing
Campers explored some ideas more thoroughly and processed them at a deeper level to develop new insights. They evaluated, explained, or synthesized ideas to create richer meanings for their stories. For example, one group developed a well-reasoned explanation about why the wolf in their story ran faster than the car, prompting the group to rebuild the road in the forest.

Perceiving and Solving Emerging Problems
Campers paid close attention to subtle details and used them to enrich their stories. For example, two campers realized they had accidentally used different shades of green for grass and came up with an explanation:
"The light one could be the fresh and new grass, and the dark one could be the old and dying-out grass…maybe the fresh, new grass should be just around the … water because, at first, it was all near the fountains. So, we decided it could be around the bodies of water and around the entrance."

Showing Humor and Playful Spirits
Throughout the process, campers showed humor and playful spirits (Kim, 2021). Jokes, tunes, and playful suggestions—like adding a six-pack to a character—reflected their creative attitudes.

Creativity Reflected in Final Products
Campers’ final products—eight unique stories and various artifacts—demonstrated their creativity through diverse settings, conflicts, and imaginative details. They showed fluency in generating ideas and visual elements. However, most groups created simple 2-D characters, and all stories ended with “They lived happily ever after.” This preference for traditional choices suggests their originality was limited, consistent with the TTCT-F results.

Importance

As a vital component of the 21st-century skills, creativity plays a crucial role in everyday activities (Runco, 2007a) and is central to the contemporary global workplace (Florida, 2003). Recent research highlights the potential of robotics to foster creativity through hands-on problem-solving, open-ended expression, and the creation of tangible artifacts (Canbeldek & Isikoglu, 2023; Guven et al., 2022). Although creativity encompasses multiple dimensions (Walia, 2019), most studies adopt a product-oriented approach (Lubart, 2018), emphasizing the pre- and post-assessment changes rather than exploring the creative process. Furthermore, most research focuses on coding with robotics (e.g., Canbeldek & Isikoglu, 2023) instead of broadening the use of robotics to promote creativity among diverse learners. To address these gaps, this study implemented a robotics-enhanced story creation summer camp to leverage robotics as a tool for narrative expression, engaging all learners and emphasizing both the creative process and its product. This pilot study reveals how robotics-enhanced storytelling can influence multiple dimensions of young learners’ creativity in nuanced and complex ways. The camp, offering both unstructured and structured story creation opportunities, showed how freedom, hands-on building, and robotics can spark fluency, elaboration, problem sensitivity, and playful engagement. At the same time, rigid task sequences, limited coding skills, and emphasis on polished presentations sometimes constrained originality and risk-taking. These findings affirm that creativity emerges from the dynamic interaction of person, process, press, and product (Rhodes, 1961). Several design principles can be derived from this study: balance structure with open exploration, value process as much as product, leverage robotics to sustain playfulness and iteration, and provide scaffolds for skillful tool use. This study extends current robotics and creativity research by revealing how the design of task and learning environment can shape the development of creativity in a summer camp environment.

References

Altan, E. B., & Tan, S. (2020). Concepts of creativity in design-based learning in STEM education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09569-y
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment work scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534321
Angel-Fernandez, J. M., & Vincze, M. (2018). Introducing storytelling to educational robotic activities. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363286
Author et al. (2023).
Author et al. (2024).
Bers, M. (2008). Engineers and storytellers: Using robotic manipulatives to develop technological fluency in early childhood. In Mathematics, science, and technology in early childhood education series: Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Canbeldek, M., & Isikoglu, N. (2023). Exploring the effects of “productive children: Coding and robotics education program” in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 3359–3379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11315-x
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energetic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(88)90001-3
Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Liang, J.-C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3
Dudek, S. Z., Strobel, M. G., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Cumulative and proximal influences of the social environment on creative potential. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(4), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1993.9914747
Erişti, S. D. B. (2016). Participatory design-based digital storytelling and creativity indicators in elementary school. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 462–492.
Florida, R. (2003). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books.
Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2024). On the creativity of large language models. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02127-3
Ghahremani, M., Pereira, N., Desmet, O. A., & Gentry, M. (2022). Students’ experiences in summer enrichment engineering courses: An input–process–outcome model of collaborative creativity. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(1), 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211040744
Glăveanu, V. P., & Beghetto, R. A. (2021). Creative experience: A non-standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1827606
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1856769
Kampylis, P. G., & Valtanen, J. (2010). Redefining creativity—Analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.x
Kim, D. (2020). Four Ps of creativity: Person, process, press, and product. In S. Pritzker & M. Runco (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (3rd ed., pp. 516-520). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.06193-9
Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 106–130.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805
Kim, K. H. (2017). The Torrance tests of creative thinking figural or verbal: Which one should we use? Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 4(2), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2017-0015
Kim, K. H. (2021). Creativity crisis update: America follows Asia in pursuing high test scores over learning. Roeper Review, 43(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1840464
Kim, K. H., & Coxon, S. V. (2016). Fostering creativity using robotics among students in STEM fields to reverse the creativity crisis. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 273–289). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_19
Liang, C., & Lin, W. (2015). The interplay of creativity, imagination, personality traits, and academic performance. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 34(3), 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236614568638
Lubart, T. (2018). Creativity across the seven Cs. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 134–146). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936.012
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
Mumford, M. D., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Creative thinking processes: The past and the future. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.197
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press.
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2015). Developing creative behavior in elementary school students with robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.87
Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge University Press.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.4.2) [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Resnick, M. (2018). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT Press.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Runco, M. A. (2007a). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education, 55(3), 1–9.
Runco, M. A. (2007b). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Runco, M. A., & Pagnani, A. (2011). Psychological research on creativity. In J. Sefton-Green, P. P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of creative learning (pp. 63–71). Routledge.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9082-2
Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Shotwell, J., Wolf, D., & Gardner, H. (1979). Exploring early symbolization: Styles of achievement. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and learning (pp. 127-156). Gardner Press.
Sung, J., Lee, J. Y., & Chun, H. Y. (2023). Short-term effects of a classroom-based STEAM program using robotic kits on children in South Korea. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00417-8
Tanggaard, L., & Juelsbo, T. (2016). Mess. In V. P. Glăveanu, L. Tanggaard, & C. Wegener (Eds.), Creativity: A new vocabulary (pp. 78–86). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tisoglu, S., Piri, Z., Mericelli, M., & Catan-Inan, F. (2022). Targeting creativity through a learner-generated digital storytelling project. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.37120/ijttl.2022.18.1.01
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms and technical manual. Scholastic Testing Service.
Treffinger, D. J., Schoonover, P. F., & Selby, E. C. (2013). Educating for creativity and innovation. Prufrock Press.
Turbak, F., & Berg, R. (2002). Robotic design studio: Exploring the big ideas of engineering in a liberal arts environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016376818781
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210
Walia, C. (2019). A dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix. Atheneum.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press.
Witt, L. A., & Beorkrem, M. (1989). Climate for creative productivity as a predictor of research usefulness and organizational effectiveness in an R&D organization. Creativity Research Journal, 2(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534299