Conference PaperPDF Available

All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten


Abstract and Figures

This paper argues that the "kindergarten approach to learning" - characterized by a spiraling cycle of Imagine, Create, Play, Share, Reflect, and back to Imagine - is ideally suited to the needs of the 21st century, helping learners develop the creative-thinking skills that are critical to success and satisfaction in today's society. The paper discusses strategies for designing new technologies that encourage and support kindergarten-style learning, building on the success of traditional kindergarten materials and activities, but extending to learners of all ages, helping them continue to develop as creative thinkers.
Content may be subject to copyright.
All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking)
I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten*
Mitchel Resnick
MIT Media Lab
Presented at Creativity & Cognition conference, June 2007
This paper argues that the “kindergarten approach to
learning” – characterized by a spiraling cycle of Imagine,
Create, Play, Share, Reflect, and back to Imagine – is
ideally suited to the needs of the 21st century, helping
learners develop the creative-thinking skills that are critical
to success and satisfaction in today’s society. The paper
discusses strategies for designing new technologies that
encourage and support kindergarten-style learning,
building on the success of traditional kindergarten
materials and activities, but extending to learners of all
ages, helping them continue to develop as creative thinkers.
Kindergarten is undergoing a dramatic change. For nearly
200 years, since the first kindergarten opened in 1837,
kindergarten has been a time for telling stories, building
castles, drawing pictures, and learning to share. But that is
starting to change. Today, more and more kindergarten
children are spending time filling out phonics worksheets
and memorizing math flashcards [5]. In short, kindergarten
is becoming more like the rest of school.
In my mind, exactly the opposite is needed: Instead of
making kindergarten like the rest of school, we need to
make the rest of school (indeed, the rest of life) more like
As I see it, the traditional kindergarten approach to learning
is ideally suited to the needs of the 21st century. In a society
characterized by uncertainty and rapid change, the ability
to think creatively is becoming the key to success and
satisfaction, both professionally and personally [2]. For
today’s children, nothing is more important than learning to
think creatively – learning to come up with innovative
solutions to the unexpected situations that will continually
arise in their lives [17].
Unfortunately, most schools are out-of-step with today’s
needs: they were not designed to help students develop as
creative thinkers. Kindergartens (at least those that remain
true to the kindergarten tradition) are an exception. The
traditional kindergarten approach to learning is well-
matched to the needs of the current society, and should be
extended to learners of all ages.
What do I mean by the kindergarten approach to learning?
In traditional kindergartens, children are constantly
designing, creating, experimenting, and exploring. Two
children might start playing with wooden blocks; over
time, they build a collection of towers. A classmate sees the
towers and starts pushing his toy car between them. But the
towers are too close together, so the children start moving
the towers further apart to make room for the cars. In the
process, one of the towers falls down. After a brief
argument over who was at fault, they start talking about
how to build a taller and stronger tower. The teacher shows
them pictures of real-world skyscrapers, and they notice
that the bottoms of the buildings are wider than the tops. So
they decide to rebuild their block tower with a wider base
than before.
This type of process is repeated over and over in
kindergarten. The materials vary (finger paint, crayons,
bells) and the creations vary (pictures, stories, songs), but
the core process is the same. I think of it as a spiraling
process in which children imagine what they want to do,
create a project based on their ideas, play with their
creations, share their ideas and creations with others,
reflect on their experiences – all of which leads them to
imagine new ideas and new projects (see Figure 1).
In going through this process, kindergarten students
develop and refine their abilities as creative thinkers. They
learn to develop their own ideas, try them out, test the
boundaries, experiment with alternatives, get input from
others – and, perhaps most significantly, generate new
ideas based on their experiences. In reality, the steps in the
process are not as distinct or sequential as indicated in the
diagram. Imagining, creating, playing, sharing, and
reflecting are mixed together in many different ways. But
the key elements are always there, in one form or another.
* Apologies to Robert Fulghum (1986). Fulghum’s best-
selling book All I Really Need to Know I Learned in
Kindergarten focused on what children learn in
kindergarten, and why those lessons remain important for
the rest of their lives. This paper focuses on how children
learn in kindergarten, and why kindergarten-style
learning serves as a useful model for learners of all ages.
Some of the most creative artists and inventors of the 20th
century credit their kindergarten experiences with laying
the foundation for their later success [1].
If this learning approach has been so successful in
kindergarten, why hasn’t it been applied in other parts of
the educational system? One reason, I believe, is a lack of
appreciation for the importance of helping young people
develop as creative thinkers. Another reason has to do with
the availability of appropriate media and technologies.
Wooden blocks and finger paint are great for students
working on kindergarten projects and learning kindergarten
concepts (like number, shape, size, and color). But as
students get older, they want and need to work on more
advanced projects and learn more advanced concepts.
Wooden blocks and finger paint won’t suffice. If older
students are going to learn through the kindergarten
approach, they need different types of tools, media, and
materials [12].
Figure 1: The kindergarten approach to learning
This is where, in my opinion, digital technologies can play
a transformational role in education. I believe that digital
technologies, if properly designed and supported, can
extend the kindergarten approach, so that learners of all
ages can continue to learn in the kindergarten style – and,
in the process, continue to develop as creative thinkers.
My focus here is on what researchers have called “little c”
creativity – that is, creativity within one’s personal life –
not “big C” Creativity that transforms the boundaries of an
entire discipline or domain. The goal is not to nurture the
next Mozart or Einstein, but to help everyone become more
creative in the ways they deal with everyday problems.
The rest of this paper is organized around the different
aspects of the kindergarten learning approach: Imagine,
Create, Play, Share, Reflect, and back to Imagine. Each
section discusses strategies for designing new technologies
that encourage and support kindergarten-style learning,
building on the success of traditional kindergarten
materials and activities, but extending to older learners, in
hopes of helping them continue to develop as creative
Consider the most popular kindergarten materials: blocks
for building, crayons for drawing, dolls for role-playing,
tiles for making geometric patterns. All of these materials
are designed to encourage a child’s imagination. The
materials do not over-constrain or over-determine. Children
with different interests and different learning styles can all
use the same materials, but each in his or her own personal
In developing technologies for older learners, we try to
achieve a similar effect. Our guiding principle is “many
paths, many styles” – that is, to develop technologies that
can be used along many different paths, by children with
many different styles. Too often, educational technologies
are overly constrained, such as tutoring software for
teaching algebra, or simulation software for modeling
planetary motion in the solar system. Our goal is to provide
tools that can be used in multiple ways, leaving more room
for children’s imaginations.
When my research group developed Cricket technology,
for example, we explicitly tried to broaden the range of
projects that children could create [15]. Crickets are small
programmable devices, small enough to fit in the palm of a
child’s hand. Children can plug motors, lights, sensors, and
other electronic blocks into a Cricket, then program their
creations to spin, light up, and play music. Children have
used Crickets to make a wide range of imaginative
creations. For example, a group of girls at an after-school
center in Boston used Crickets and craft materials to create
an interactive garden, with flowers that danced and
changed colors when you clapped your hands. At a
workshop in Hong Kong, a 12-year-old boy created a
wearable jukebox that played different songs when you
inserted different coins, and an 11-year-old girl added
lights to her boots and programmed them to turn different
colors based on the pace of her walk, as measured by
sensors that she attached to her boots (see Figure 2).
Cricket kits are similar, in many ways, to the Mindstorms
robotics kits developed by the LEGO toy company, in
collaboration with my research group. But there are
important differences. While Mindstorms kits are designed
especially for making robots, Cricket kits are designed to
support a diverse range of projects combining art and
technology. Cricket kits include not only LEGO bricks and
motors but also a collection of arts-and-craft materials,
colored lights, and a sound-box for playing sound effects
and music. By providing a broader range of materials, we
hoped to encourage a broader range of projects – and spark
the imaginations of a broader range of children. In
particular, we aimed to encourage broader participation
among girls. Even with strong efforts to increase female
participation, only 30% of the participants in LEGO
robotics competitions are girls [9]. In Cricket activities at
museums and after-school centers, participation has been
much more balanced among boys and girls [16].
As we develop new technologies for children, our hope is
that children will continually surprise themselves (and
surprise us too) as they explore the space of possibilities.
When we created Crickets, we didn’t imagine that children
would use them to measure their speed on rollerblades, or
to create a machine for polishing and buffing their
fingernails. To support and encourage this diversity, we
explicitly include elements and features that can be used in
many different ways. The design challenge is to develop
features specific enough so that children can quickly learn
how to use them, but general enough so that children can
continue to imagine new ways to use them [14].
Figure 2: Projects from a Cricket workshop
Create is at the root of creative thinking. If we want
children to develop as creative thinkers, we need to provide
them with more opportunities to create.
Friedrich Froebel understood this idea when he opened the
world’s first kindergarten in 1837. Froebel filled his
kindergarten with physical objects (such as blocks, beads,
and tiles) that children could use for building, designing,
and creating. These objects became known as Froebel’s
Gifts. Froebel carefully designed his Gifts so that children,
as they played and constructed with the Gifts, would learn
about common patterns and forms in nature.
In effect, Froebel was designing for designers – he
designed objects that enabled children in his kindergarten
to do their own designing. Froebel’s work can be viewed as
an early example of Seymour Papert’s constructionist
approach to education [11], which aims to engage learners
in personally-meaningful design experiences.
In creating his Gifts, Froebel was limited by the materials
available in the early 19th century. With today’s electronic
and digital materials, we can create new types of
construction kits, expanding Froebel’s kindergarten
approach to older students working on more advanced
projects and learning more advanced ideas. With
Mindstorms and Crickets, for example, children can create
dynamic, interactive constructions – and, in the process,
learn concepts related to sensing, feedback, and control.
I view Mindstorms and Crickets as Froebel’s Gifts for the
21st century, using new technologies to extend the
kindergarten approach to learners of all ages.
Unfortunately, they are the exception rather than the rule in
today’s toy stores. Most electronic toys are not in the spirit
of Froebel’s Gifts, since they do not provide children with
opportunities to design or create. Most of today’s electronic
toys are pre-programmed by the toy company. Children
cannot design or create with these toys, they can only
interact with them; for example: hold the doll’s hand and
its mouth turns to a smile, sing to the doll and it starts
dancing. I am sure that designers and engineers at the toy
companies learn a great deal while creating these toys, but I
doubt that children learn very much while interacting with
the toys.
Piaget famously proclaimed that “Play is the work of
children.” Certainly, play has been an integral part of the
traditional kindergarten approach to learning, and most
adults recognize the importance of providing young
children with opportunity to play. But as children grow
older, educators and parents often talk about play
dismissively, referring to activities as “just play,” as if play
is separate and even in opposition to learning.
In my mind, play and learning can and should be intimately
linked. Each, at its best, involves a process of
experimentation, exploration, and testing the boundaries
[19]. Unfortunately, many recent attempts to link play and
learning are at odds with the kindergarten approach to play
and learning. Consider the recent focus on “edutainment”
products. Creators of edutainment products tend to view
education as a bitter medicine that needs the sugar-coating
of entertainment to become palatable. They provide
entertainment as a reward if you are willing to suffer
through a little education. Or they boast that you will have
so much fun using their products that you won’t even
realize that you are learning – as if learning were the most
unpleasant experience in the world.
I also have a problem with the word “edutainment” itself.
When people think about “education” and “entertainment,”
they tend to think of them as services that someone else
provides for you. Studios, directors, and actors provide you
with entertainment; schools and teachers provide you with
education. Now, edutainment companies try to provide you
with both. In all of these cases, you are viewed as a passive
recipient. If we are trying to help children develop as
creative thinkers, it is more productive to focus on “play”
and “learning” (things you do) rather than “entertainment
and “education” (things that others provide for you).
Spurred by the extraordinary popularity of video games in
youth culture, a growing number of researchers have begun
examining how and what children learn as they play video
games [4]. There is no doubt that children learn many
things when they play video games, and children exhibit a
deep sense of engagement that is all too rare in school
classrooms. But, with a few notable exceptions, such as the
Sim series games and Shaffer’s “epistemic games” [18],
currently-available video games do not support
kindergarten-style learning. Even games that engage
children in strategic thinking and problem solving provide
few opportunities for children to design and create, a key
ingredient in the kindergarten approach to learning.
How can we use new technologies to integrate play, design,
and learning? One way is to provide children with the
opportunity to design their own games. In her book Minds
in Play, Yasmin Kafai [7] documents how elementary-
school students become more creative thinkers as they
design their own games. More recently, my research group
teamed up with Kafai to develop a new programming
language, called Scratch (, that
enables children to create not only games but also
interactive stories, animations, music, and art [13]. In
designing Scratch, one of our key goals was “tinkerability”
– that is, we wanted to make it easy for children to
playfully put together fragments of computer programs, try
them out, take them apart, and recombine them. To create
programs in Scratch, you simply snap together graphical
blocks, much like LEGO bricks or puzzle pieces (see
Figure 3). You don’t need to worry about where to put
semi-colons or square brackets: the blocks are designed to
fit together only in ways that make sense, so there are no
“syntax errors” as in traditional programming languages.
You can even add new blocks as the program is running, so
it is easy to “play with your code,” testing out new ideas
incrementally and iteratively.
Figure 3: Scratch programming blocks
At an educational-technology workshop a few years ago,
participants were asked which of the following learning
experiences had been most difficult for them:
o Learning to ride a bicycle
o Learning to write a computer program
o Learning to share
An overwhelming majority selected “learning to share.”
Sharing has always been an important part of the creative
process in kindergarten, but the ability to share and
collaborate has generally received less emphasis in later
years of schooling. That has started to change recently, as a
result of several independent but converging trends, all of
which are pushing schools to pay more attention to sharing
and collaboration:
Business leaders and policy makers, noting that
teamwork is more important in today’s workplace
than ever before, have encouraged schools to put
more emphasis on collaboration to help prepare
students for their future jobs
Educational researchers, building on foundational
work of Vygotsky, have focused more attention on
the social nature of learning and strategies for
supporting communities of learners [8]
The proliferation of interactive technologies and
widespread access to the Internet has led to a
flourishing of what Henry Jenkins [6] calls a
“participatory culture” – in which people actively
create and share ideas and media with one another
on blogs and collaborative websites like Flickr
(for photographs) and YouTube (for videos).
Our Scratch programming language aims to build on these
trends, making sharing an integral part of the programming
process. Even in today’s participatory culture, very few
people are creating and sharing programmable media (such
interactive characters and interactive games). While online
worlds like Second Life make it relatively easy to create
and share graphical objects, making those objects dynamic
and interactive requires some form of programming, and
traditional programming languages have had a steep
learning curve. The difficulty in sharing programmable
media has been one of the critical limiting factors in
previous efforts to engage children in programming. In a
critique of the Logo programming language, for example,
Marvin Minsky [10] noted that Logo has a great grammar
but not much literature. Whereas young writers are often
inspired by the great works of literature that they read,
there is no analogous library of great Logo projects to
inspire young programmers – and no outlets where young
programmers can share their Logo projects with others.
To overcome these limitations, the Scratch programming
language is interwoven into a website that provides both
inspiration and audience. Children can try out projects
created by others, re-use and modify code from those
projects, and post their own projects for others to try. The
goal is a collaborative community in which children are
constantly building on and extending one another’s work
with programmable media. We have found that
construction and community go hand-in-hand in the
creative process: children become more engaged in the
construction process when they are able to share their
constructions with others in a community, and children
become more engaged with communities when they are
able to share constructions (not just chat) with others
within those communities.
The kindergartens in Reggio Emilia, Italy, are a mecca for
researchers and educators interested in kindergarten.
People making the pilgrimage to the Reggio schools
invariably come away impressed with the organization of
the space, the availability of diverse materials for
experimentation and creative expression, the support of
collaborative activities. But for me, the most impressive
part of the Reggio kindergartens is the way they encourage
children to reflect on what they are doing. Children in
Reggio are constantly producing drawings and diagrams as
they work on projects. Teachers use these artifacts to
engage the children in discussing and reflecting on their
design process and thinking process. The classroom walls
are filled with children’s drawings, with teachers’
annotations, providing children a way to look back at
earlier stages of their work.
Such reflection is a critical part of the creative process, but
all too often overlooked in the classroom. In recent years,
schools have adopted more “hands-on” design activities,
but the focus is usually on the creation of an artifact rather
than critical reflection on the ideas that guided the design,
or strategies for refining and improving the design, or
connections to underlying scientific concepts and related
real-world phenomena.
As we introduce new technological tools like Crickets and
Scratch, we make a special effort to engage children in
reflecting on the process of design. We explicitly talk about
the spiral of imagine-create-play-share-reflect-imagine, and
look for ways for children to use and communicate these
ideas. At the end of a two-day workshop using our Cricket
technology, for example, my colleague Bakhtiar Mikhak
asked the 12-year-old participants to write down “tips” for
children who would be starting a similar workshop the next
day. The children provided the following tips:
Start simple
Work on things that you like
If you have no clue what to do, fiddle around
Don't be afraid to experiment
Find a friend to work with, share ideas!
It’s OK to copy stuff (to give you an idea)
Keep your ideas in a sketch book
Build, take apart, rebuild
Lots of things can go wrong, stick with it
These tips capture some of the core elements of the
kindergarten approach to learning. We see it as an
important indicator of success when participants in our
workshops not only practice a kindergarten approach to
learning but also understand and articulate the core ideas
underlying the approach.
Iteration is at the heart of the creative process. The process
of Imagine, Create, Play, Share, and Reflect inevitably
leads to new ideas – leading back to Imagine and the
beginning of a new cycle..
We try to apply these ideas to ourselves, in my research
group, as we develop new technologies like Crickets and
Scratch. We never expect to get things right on the first try.
We are constantly critiquing, adjusting, modifying,
revising. The ability to develop rapid prototypes is
critically important in this process. We find that
storyboards are not enough; we want functioning
prototypes. Initial prototypes don’t need to work perfectly,
just well enough for us (and our users) to play with, to
experiment with, to talk about. We’ll build a prototype,
play with it ourselves, watch some children play with it,
talk with them about it, talk among ourselves about it – and
then quickly build a new prototype.
When children use our technologies, we encourage them to
go through the same process. It doesn’t matter whether they
are creating an animated story or building an interactive
sculpture. In all cases, our message is the same: iterate,
iterate, and iterate again. Time, of course, is essential in
this process. If children have enough time to go through the
cycle only once, they’ll miss out on the most important part
of the creative process.
The process of becoming a creative thinker is itself an
iterative process. Historically, kindergarten has provided a
good foundation for creative thinking. Think of
kindergarten as the first time through the creative-thinking
cycle. Unfortunately, after leaving kindergarten, children
have not had the opportunity to iterate on what they learned
in kindergarten, to continue to develop as creative thinkers.
By extending the kindergarten approach, we hope to
provide opportunities for learners of all ages to build on
their kindergarten experiences, iteratively refining their
abilities as creative thinkers throughout their lives.
I would like to thank members of the Lifelong
Kindergarten group at the MIT Media Lab for
collaborating on the technologies and ideas discussed in
this paper. This research has received financial support
from the LEGO Company, the Intel Foundation, the
National Science Foundation (ITR-0325828), and the MIT
Media Laboratory’s research consortia.
1. Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing Kindergarten. Harry
N. Adams Inc.
2. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic
3. Fulghum, R. (1986). All I Really Need to Know I
Learned in Kindergarten. Ivy Books.
4. Gee, J.P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us
About Learning and Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Golinkoff, R. (2003). Einstein
Never Used Flash Cards. Rodale.
6. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old
and New Media Collide. New York University Press.
7. Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in Play: Computer Game
Design As A Context for Children's Learning. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
8. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge
University Press.
9. Melchior, A., Cutter, T., & Cohen, F. (2004).
Evaluation of FIRST LEGO League. Waltham, MA:
Center for Youth and Communities, Heller Graduate
School, Brandeis University.
10. Minsky, M. (1986). Introduction to LogoWorks. In
Solomon, C., Minsky, M., & Harvey, B. (eds.),
LogoWorks: Challenging Programs in Logo. McGraw-
11. Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking
School in the Age of the Computer. Basic Books.
12. Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for Lifelong
Kindergarten. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 46, 4, 43-55.
13. Resnick, M., Kafai, Y., Maeda, J., Rusk, N., and
Maloney, J. (2003). A Networked, Media-Rich
Programming Environment to Enhance Technological
Fluency at After-School Centers in Economically-
Disadvantaged Communities. Proposal to the National
Science Foundation (project funded 2003-2007).
14. Resnick, M., and Silverman, B. (2005). Some
Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids.
Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children
conference. Boulder, CO.
15. Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as Paintbrush:
Technology, Play, and the Creative Society. In Singer,
D., Golikoff, R., and Hirsh-Pasek, K. (eds.), Play =
Learning: How play motivates and enhances children's
cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford
University Press.
16. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., and Pezalla-Granlund,
M. (in preparation). New Pathways into Robotics:
Strategies for Broadening Participation.
17. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for Innovation.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 1, 41-48.
18. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How Computer Games Help
Children Learn. Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Singer, D., Golikoff, R., and Hirsh-Pasek, K., eds.
(2006). Play = Learning: How play motivates and
enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional
growth. Oxford University Press.
... According to Papert [3], learning programming can help improve students' mental development and logical thinking, which is the main aims of computer science program. However, the learning of most of the courses of such a program has not been fully effective in developing students with a creative mind [4], which may be partly attributed to the pedagogical methods used by teachers or lecturers that tends to be didactic" [5]. ...
Conventional classroom teaching and learning of programming tends to be didactic, which is usually tends to be monotonous and less interesting. In learning programming – a subject that is deemed extremely challenging to master – such a situation can have a serious repercussion in that students can easily become unmotivated and demoralized to learn. As such, students need to use relevant learning tools that can stimulate and motivate them to learn such a course. Of late, many researchers have started using online game-based learning (GBL) tools to improve students’ motivation and performance. Invariably, most of the studies mainly focused on GBL tools to move avatars. As such, this study focuses on programming as the activities in such a game. In this study, the researchers used the prototyping model to develop an online GBL application called Prog-GBL by integrating the elements of mastery learning approach and ARCS model to help motivate students in learning programming. The evaluation of the Prog-GBL was carried out through a survey involving 30 students from one public university in Perak, Malaysia. The research findings showed that the use of such an online learning tool helped improve students’ motivation in learning programming. More revealingly, the four elements of ARCS, namely attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction were highly rated by the students, suggesting that the use of Prog-GBL can motivate students to learn the subject matter.
... Scratch is developmentally based on the ideas of Seymour Papert (Papert, 1980) and was developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Media Lab. Papert's ideas support Scratch design with "repairability", as one of its main goals is to assemble, disassemble, and reassemble the building blocks of coding to build what child programmers want (Resnick, 2007). With Scratch, users can solve and reassemble blocks as they logically develop the moves and effects they want. ...
This paper analyzed Scratch projects developed by undergraduate students. The sample consisted of 22 child development students (18 women and four men) in the 2018-2019 academic year. The study adopted an action research design within the scope of a course titled “Teaching Science and Mathematics in Preschool Education.” The research was conducted within 14 weeks. In the first four weeks, we provided participants with training on why and how to use Scratch in science and mathematics teaching. In the following ten weeks, participants designed Scratch projects every week based on age groups, topics, and learning outcomes of their choice. Participants evaluated their projects themselves and also received feedback from peers and academics. Each participant designed ten Scratch projects (five for math and five for science). The data consisted of 220 Scratch projects and design logs. The data were analyzed using content analysis. In the first weeks, participants knew little about the content of Scratch and used one or two characters and mostly control and looks blocks. In the following weeks, they learned more about Scratch and used different Blocks.
... Within this sociomaterial context, documenting and sharing learning experiences and projects can make learning and personal processes of learning visible (Bers, 2008;Chapman, 2009). Sharing is a central tenet within constructionist approaches, as it Connected portfolios reciprocally serves the purpose of deepening the engagement in construction (Resnick, 2007). ...
Purpose In contrast to traditional portfolio practices that focus on the individual, this paper aims to reenvision portfolio practices to encompass sociocultural aspects of learning by considering how young makers, both in- and out-of-school, imbue digital cultural practices into the documenting and showcasing of their work, as well as observe the extent to which their portfolios are used to build community inside and outside their local settings. Design/methodology/approach Drawing from a connected learning approach, the authors engaged in qualitative and ethnographic study of youth’s digital maker portfolios in an out-of-school and a school-based makerspace. Through qualitative and thematic coding of portfolio walkthroughs, the authors identified four underlying characteristics within portfolio artifacts (i.e. personal and shared projects) and capturing practices (i.e. personal and shared capturing practices) that differently presented projects. Findings The analysis showed that portfolios that included shared productions and shared portfolios (i.e. projects and portfolios contributed to by more than one youth) and that were shared in open-ended ways across communities valued connected learning principles. These connected portfolios made community building within and beyond maker-educational communities of the young makers possible. In particular, openly shared and collaboratively captured work showed individual achievements (e.g. projects and techniques) and made visible connective and social engagement (e.g. opportunities for feedback and refinement, possibilities to narrate work to multiple audiences). Originality/value This paper has implications for the design of portfolio assessment in makerspaces and expands the role of portfolios as a way to capture individual and cognitive achievements alone toward connected community-building opportunities for youth as well as maker-centered settings within and beyond the youth’s local maker-centered settings.
... The learners went through reflection processes two times together with sharing. Therefore, they understood presentation order, reflection, and the importance of presentation in conceptualizing and developing a designed work and ideas [71]. The second-highest average score was creative compared to the group that learned through the traditional method, followed by craft, technical, and design. ...
Online learning is recognized as an effective teaching method and tool, widely integrated into different teaching and learning strategies to provide quality education at different levels. However, the field of design education does not have extensive research into online learning, delivery, and assessment. This study developed an online learning model for design disciplines to improve creative work effectively. This paper describes an empirical study to test the BEE model outcomes developed following previous research. This present study has focused on the intensity of the live virtual classroom in every step to compare differences in the scores of creative works. Therefore, the assumption was that Thai undergraduate design students who learned with the BEE model through live classroom learning (experimental group) would have at least one element of the creative work scores compared to the group learning through the traditional online teaching method (control group). Furthermore, we conducted a multistage randomized sample of 66 participants, divided into an experimental group of 33 participants and a control group of 33 subjects. To compare the scores of creative works, the test of creative works assessment rubric was used to collect the data. Then, they were analyzed using the MANOVA statistical test. The results found at least one element of them, and the average creative work scores of the experimental group showed that they were significantly higher than the control group (p<0.05). Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-08 Full Text: PDF
... However, Chee et al. (2018) found that teachers still adopted conventional teaching methods that failed to attract children to learn to read. Therefore, unpleasant learning has been a contributing factor to early childhood literacy problems (Resnick, 2007;Marxen et al., 2008;Hoffman, 2010& Arshad, 2013. ...
Full-text available
Technological advances in education have expanded to preschool, primary, secondary and tertiary education. It is fundamental for the effectiveness of teaching and learning a subject in the classroom. The writing of this article covers the development of IWB in education and the advantages of IWB that are relevant to teaching and learning and to what extent they assist the development of preschool children, the challenges for teachers and children in using interactive whiteboard and ICT in teaching and learning and understanding the readiness of teachers and preschool children in the application of ICT especially IWB in teaching and learning reading skills. The review of the literature covers the development of the use of IWB in education, the advantages of IWB that help improve the knowledge and skills, the challenges and readiness of teachers and children in the integration of IWB in learning reading skills. The use of ICT especially IWB in learning can improve children's knowledge and skills. The features of IWB create a fun learning environment especially when teachers are teaching literacy skills. The challenges faced by teachers in integrating IWB in teaching and learning are time constraints to plan lessons, lack of training, teacher attitudes and the lack of technical support. The use of technologies in teaching is an added value in improving the quality of existing teaching to make it more effective. The teachers who use IWB in the classroom depend on their pedagogical skills and how they convey the lesson using this technology. The use of IWB is one of the initiatives of the preschool teachers to increase children's literacy skills especially reading skills.
... In a world where information and technological tools are abundantly available, an essentially content-based education can no longer fulfil the purposes of the educational process. We currently live in what Resnick (2007) called the "society of creativity", with professions and activities that are increasingly diversified, based especially on problem-solving, and that requires creativity. To succeed in this new reality, students must learn to think creatively, in addition to developing e-ISSN nº 2447-4266 Palmas, v. 7, n. 2, p. 1-24, abr.-jun., 2021 3 communication, planning, and critical analysis skills, as well as collaboratively acting (CAMPOS, 2017). ...
Full-text available
This work addresses the use of the educational robotics as learning tools. The paper aims to evaluate the possible contributions of the First Lego League (FLL) robotics competition to develop students knowledge and required skills for good professionals. To achieve the research objective, this article presents a study that provides objective data based on the opinions of teachers and students that participated of the FLL. The data analysis strongly indicates that both teachers and students believe in FLL potential to promote school performance and the development of the skills of a good professional.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Η ραγδαία τεχνολογική ανάπτυξη των τελευταίων ετών έχει μετασχηματίσει τους τρόπους που άνθρωποι αλληλεπιδρούν με τη μουσική. Τα παιδιά της σύγχρονης ψηφιακής εποχής μεγαλώνουν σε ένα περιβάλλον που διευρύνει καθημερινά τις εμπειρίες και τις μουσικές τους προτιμήσεις. Οι εξελίξεις αυτές έχουν οδηγήσει στη σχεδίαση ψηφιακών μαθησιακών περιβαλλόντων και λογισμικών προσανατολισμένων στην προσχολική ηλικία, προκρίνοντας τη διαμόρφωση ενός παιδαγωγικού πλαισίου ριζικά διαφορετικού από το συμβατικό. Ωστόσο, η μουσική παιδαγωγική δε φαίνεται να ευθυγραμμίζεται με το νέο ψηφιακό εκπαιδευτικό συμφραζόμενο, δίνοντας έμφαση σε μουσικά διδακτικά μοντέλα που έχουν σχεδιαστεί δεκαετίες πριν και, όπως είναι αναμενόμενο, δεν περιλαμβάνουν δράσεις με την αξιοποίηση ψηφιακών τεχνολογιών στο περιεχόμενό τους. Το παρόν άρθρο συζητά τα ευρήματα από μία εκπαιδευτική παρέμβαση για την ένταξη και χρήση ψηφιακών μέσων στον χώρο της προσχολικής και πρωτοσχολικής μουσικής εκπαίδευσης, αξιοποιώντας το μουσικό εκπαιδευτικό λογισμικό Synth4kids. Τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνας καταδεικνύουν τη διαμόρφωση ενός νέου τεχνοκεντρικού μαθησιακού περιβάλλοντος όπου τα παιδιά βρήκαν νόημα και συμμετείχαν ενεργά και με ενθουσιασμό σε αυθεντικές περιστάσεις μουσικής διδασκαλίας-μάθησης, οδηγώντας στον μετασχηματισμό των εμπειριών τους και στην απόκτηση νέων μουσικών και τεχνολογικών δεξιοτήτων.
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to gain a deep understanding of kindergarten children's drawings as a form of documentation of their work, of their ability to notice and depict substantial details, as well as their understanding of how objects in the world "work". In the study, we examined drawings created by kindergarten children for documenting artefacts they previously constructed. The drawing process demands the cognitive transition from the perception of the 3D object to its 2D drawing. Most theoretical and research work conducted over the years focused on children's free, intuitive and/or spontaneous drawing. As well, most studies focused on children drawings of given objects, even their copy of drawings of objects, or on free representation of ideas or feelings. In this study, we addressed two aspects that differ from the foci of previous work: (a) children drew an object they have constructed; and (b) the drawing has a functional purpose (i.e., documentation) as part of a design task. The study participants included 30 kindergarten children, aged 5-6. During freeform play, the children produced constructions using a building kit and documented these in drawings. A total of 39 constructions and corresponding drawings were analyzed. Data analysis was conducted to examine the characteristics of children's drawings, as well as the relationship between the features of the constructions and the corresponding drawings. The insights emerging from the study indicate that drawing can serve as a tool for documentation and reflection by kindergarten children and may support the development of technological thinking.
In this chapter we narrate two stories of a group of 18 five-seven year-old children, ‘playfully’ learning in the context of a STEM afternoon club. The creative environment and activity design provoked learning by promoting dynamic interactions between ideas, objects, children and adults. The pedagogical framework we adopted underpins internationally recognised Early Childhood Education (ECE) approaches (e.g., Reggio Emilia and Free Play approaches) and their Constucti-vism/onist roots. Rather than pinpointing strategies for ‘teaching’ children how to learn and how to be creative, we used this framework to identify ways to build on children’s innate qualities of curiosity, creativity, attention and persistence through activities that share the same characteristics as play which is acknowledged as their natural way of learning. We reflect on data from the implementation of two STEM activities, seeking to describe the children’s innate recourses used to think and work in creative ways and their ability to invent creative, or alternative ways to explain, express, communicate, and represent their understandings in STEM disciplines; while approaching challenges and problems creatively. Additionally, we describe the design of the activities which allowed the children to function and think in creative ways, and gave ‘space’ for their creativity to emerge and flourish.
Full-text available
In this paper, we present ten guiding principles for designing construction kits for kids, informed by our experiences over the past two decades:* Design for Designers* Low Floor and Wide Walls* Make Powerful Ideas Salient -- Not Forced* Support Many Paths, Many Styles* Make it as Simple as Possible -- and Maybe Even Simpler* Choose Black Boxes Carefully* A Little Bit of Programming Goes a Long Way* Give People What They Want -- Not What They Ask For* Invent Things That You Would Want to Use Yourself* Iterate, Iterate -- then Iterate AgainWhile these principles apply especially to the development of construction kits, we believe that they could be useful for everyone who designs new technologies for kids.
Full-text available
This paper suggests new strategies for introducing students to robotics technologies and concepts, and argues for the importance of providing multiple entry points into robotics. In particular, the paper describes four strategies that have been successful in engaging a broad range of learners: (1) focusing on themes, not just challenges; (2) combining art and engineering; (3) encouraging storytelling; (4) organizing exhibitions, rather than competitions. The paper describes a new technology, called the PicoCricket, that supports these strategies by enabling young people to design and program artistic creations that integrate light, sound, music, and motion. The paper concludes with an analysis of robotics activities in three educational environments, examining how these new strategies and technologies can engage young people with diverse interests and learning styles.
How can we make sure that our children are learning to be creative thinkers in a world of global competition - and what does that mean for the future of education in the digital age? David Williamson Shaffer offers a fresh and powerful perspective on computer games and learning. How Computer Games Help Children Learn shows how video and computer games can help teach children to build successful futures - but only if we think in new ways about education itself. Shaffer shows how computer and video games can help students learn to think like engineers, urban planners, journalists, lawyers, and other innovative professionals, giving them the tools they need to survive in a changing world. Based on more than a decade of research in technology, game science, and education, How Computer Games Help Children Learn revolutionizes the ongoing debate about the pros and cons of digital learning.
Why is it that the best and brightest of our children are arriving at college too burned out to profit from the smorgasbord of intellectual delights that they are offered? Why is it that some preschools and kindergartens have a majority of children struggling to master cognitive tasks that are inappropriate for their age? Why is playtime often considered to be time unproductively spent? In this book, top experts in child development and learning contend that the answers to these questions stem from a single source: in the rush to create a generation of Einsteins, our culture has forgotten about the importance of play for children's development. Presenting a powerful argument about the pervasive and long-term effects of play, Singer, Golinkoff, and Hirsh-Pasek urge researchers and practitioners to reconsider the ways play facilitates development across domains. Over forty years of developmental research indicates that play has enormous benefits to offer children, not the least of which is physical activity in this era of obesity and hypertension. Play provides children with the opportunity to maximize their attention spans, learn to get along with peers, cultivate their creativity, work through their emotions, and gain the academic skills that are the foundation for later learning. Using a variety of methods and studying a wide range of populations, the contributors to this volume demonstrate the powerful effects of play in the intellectual, social, and emotional spheres. This book will be an important resource for students and researchers in developmental psychology. Its research-based policy recommendations will be valuable to teachers, counselors, and school psychologists in their quest to reintroduce play and joyful learning into our school rooms and living rooms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)