A key component of the creative process is trial and error in order to determine the effectiveness of a technological design. For millions of years, humans have been using materials in their built and natural environments to solve problems (Martinez, 2019). Constructionism and the maker movement allows for the learning process to involve inventing, collaborating, tinkering, exploring and building (Donalson, 2014). It is through this movement that rejoices in the personal interest of creating and inventing which allows the students to be producers rather than consumers (Harvard Educational Review, 2014).

Little Bits is an example of the maker movement and constructionism relevant for investigation by children. Little bits are magnetic ‘bits’ that snap together to create a circuit. All the bits work together and are colour-coded according to function, thus ensuring a user-friendly experience. Through integration of the ‘bits’ and purple templates (see video 1 & 2), one can create a circuit that allows for sound, light and movement. An accompanying app provides easy-to-follow video tutorials with step by step visual information in order to produce these inventions. These tools enable hands-on learning, giving children the power to invent (Martinez, 2019). The grabber (video 1) could be used to pick up rubbish, thus being integrated with the cross-currocula priority of sustainability. This particular invention could be used as part of a Geography case study on the environment explored in Stage 3. Similarly, the door knob sensor (video 2) could be used as part of a STEM project where students need to design an invention that keeps people out of their bedroom. Moreover, it is clear that the “key to making is using authentic tools to create meaningful projects” (Martinez, 2019).

For practical implications in the classroom, this product is expensive per kit, requires iPads for final configuration and is fiddly to use. Hence, the recommedation is Stage 3 and above with use in STEM or Geography activities. The element of trial and error required with the construction process allows students to practice problem solving and other higher order thinking skills with real inventions (Martinez, 2019).

References:

Donaldson, J. (2014). The maker movement and the rebirth of constructionsim. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from: http://hybridpedagogy.org/constructionism-reborn/

Harvard Educational Review. (2014). The maker movement in education: designing, creating, and learning across contexts. Symposium, 84. Retrieved from: https://www.hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-84-number-4/herarticle/symposium

Martinez, S. (2019). February, 11. The maker movement: a learning revolution. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from: https://www.iste.org/explore/In-the-classroom/The-maker-movement%3A-A-learning-revolution?articleid=106

Creativity can be explored through colour, innovation and problem solving. Through technological games this can provide high levels of engagement and motivation in the classroom. The appeal of game-based learning supports immersive, self-directed student experiences (David & Watson, 2011). It is through good video games that good learning principles are supported by research (Gee, 2005).

Scracth is an ineractive snimation game that allows you to input instructions in order to make a ‘Spike’ move in particular directions with customised backgrounds and a number of pathways to choose from. This technology is certainly engaging and children in upper primary would be able to demonstrate the necessary ICT skills required to produce an effective learning game. Students are enabled to be committed players of the game, thus engendering a sense of ownership over the task. When students are allowed to be the game designers, there is infinitely greater incentive to create the learning experience as it is different to regular school-based routine work (Prensky, 2007).

It is necessary to watch the tutorial videos in order to effectively master the use of this program as it can be complicated. Teacher modelling would be imperative and the links to the syllabus would have to be thoughtfully considered. It could be incorporated during positioning in Maths, but apart from that relevance to explicit learning outcomes could be tenuous. Issues that may also arise would be control, behaviour management, scoring and keeping records (Prensky, 2007). There may also be a cost involved with a whole class of students needing access to accounts for games. Creating a good game in itself can be challenging, and creating a good educational game can be even more challenging (Prensky, 2007).

Overall, I would not implememnt this in my classroom but believe that games-based learning has many different positive benefits for increased levels of engagement and motivation amongst students, allowing them to be the agents of creativity and learning. This way of learning allows for children to exercise problem solving skills, stategy mastery and reflection of practice (Gee, 2005).

References:

David, M. M. & Watson, A. (2010). “Participating in what? Using Situated Cognition Theory to Illuminate Differences in Classroom Practices.” In A Watson and P New Winbourne (Eds). Directions for Situated Cognition in Mathematics. New York, NY: Springer

Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37.

Prensky, M. (2007). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games. Who else? Students as Educational Game Designers, 1-19.

Virtual reality (VR) simulates real time at fabricated locations where users interact with an interface that tracks and displays actions. Augmented reality and augmented virtuality exists between the physical and virtual environment. Through immersion in a digital environment, creativity in education can be enhanced by enabling transfer, various perspectives and situated learning (Dede, 2009). The Oculus Go is an example of immersive virtual reality (IVR), one of the most recent digital technologies on the block due to its emergence in 2016. A stand-alone head mounted display blocks out the world so the user can be completely immersed in the artificial surroundings. A hand controller allows for some manipulation but the restrictions are more limited than desktop VR (Southgate, 2018).

De Freitas & Veletisianos (2010) state that opportunities for creativity are evident through role playing, open learning spaces, experimentation and broadened capabilities for inquiry-based learning and problem solving. Students are able to develop a sense of empathy through these swapped perspectives they explore, thus challenging pre-conceived bias and stereotypes (Southgate, 2018).

There is research-based evidence for effective classroom practice using the Oculus Go, however it would need to be under careful supervision and within ethical guidelines so as to minimise risk of screen exposure and “cybersickness” (Southgate, 2018). Student devices would be required to download the various VR apps available for learning purposes (such as National Geographic VR, Ancient Egypt or Diary of Ann Frank). In the context of a lesson these could be used with HSIE to explore connections to people and place.

Overall, Oculus Go is a very exciting, stimulating tool for creativity in the classroom. It is best suited to small individual parts of a lesson and would benefit both primary and secondary students. However, the content of VR created through the apps previously mentioned is better catered to secondary syllabuses.

References

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning science, 323(5910), 66-69.

De Freitas, S. & Veletsianos, G. (2010). Crossing boundaries: Learning and teaching in virtual worlds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 3-9.

Southgate, E. (2018). Immersive virtual reality, children and school education. A literature review for teachers. Available at: https://ericasouthgateonline.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/southgate_2018_immersive_vr_literature_review_for_teachers.pdf.

Augmented reality (AR) blends the real and virtual together so as to exist in the same space and be interacted with on real time (Azuma, 1997). Different to virtual reality (VR), augmented reality allows the user to see the real world through a “virtual overlay” (Bower et al., 2014, p. 1). Collaborative work becomes immersive through the use of AR and is presented as highly engaging for students with significant behavioural or academic difficulties (Dunleavy, Dede & Mitchell, 2009). This technology is transformative for the future of digital learning and education.

Zap Works enable you to bring images and videos to life. Through the app linked with the website, content can be uploaded and then shared. Users can make past experiences an augmented reality through this design. Therefore it is completely customised, enabling the user to be the agent of creativity. It is worth noting that Zap Works requires a paid subscription to be able to entirely explore the options available including a bank of learning resources.

With further consideration, the benefits of AR allow for students to have simulated experiences enhancing their engagement, curiosity and education that otherwise might not exist. For example, the Solar System is often only viewed on videos, seen in 2D images or replicated through a diorama. Whereas, with the assistance of AR, it is possible to have a virtual experience of the planets; thus gaining knowledge and awareness about Space. For students who are increasingly visual and kinaesthetic in their learning, this is paramount for empowering a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Scholarly research on AR constantly affirms that classroom use enhances motivation and contributes to student learning outcomes (Bower et al., 2014, Billinghurst & Duenser, 2012). Moreover, the key pedagogical influence of this digital technology is the ability to manipulate the scale of objects that would have otherwise been too microscopic or too macroscopic to see in everyday life (Bower et al., 2014).

References

Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6,355-385.

Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45, 56–63.

Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A. & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented Reality in education – cases, places and potentials, Educational Media
International, 51(1), 1-15, DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2014.889400

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.

From early education through to higher education, technologies provide creative tools to enhance student-directed learning. As an important curriculum priority, technology should be integrated into lessons where possible and applicable. Robotics particularly is an emerging technology incorporating project-based learning drawing on the key learning areas of STEM. This enables students to manipulate the behaviour of a tangible model in an environment (Alimisis, 2012).

Children have a sense of ownership of their creativity from a young age, therefore learning visually aids understanding, confidence and builds agency. Beebots are programmed robot toys that follow a road pathway illustrated on a clear map as seen above. This allows children to become “co-constructors of learning…not [as] passive knowledge receivers nor as technology consumers” (Jung & Won, 2018, p. 1).

These robots in particular would be suited to younger stages, due to their simple computation, set directional pathways to orient position, and overall aesthetic. It is necessary to have both mat and Beebot in order to effectively teach a lesson on position in Mathematics. For ES1, concrete materials are a core part of the syllabus. Therefore, students would be given a mat similar to the one displayed and learn to input straightforward directions from a starting point to a finishing point. In Kindergarten, this would require a lot of explicit teaching to formulate understanding. However, to extend students who are working beyond, creativity could be expressed through the individual creating of one’s own mat that has places significant to the child personally. Moreover, that content has links to HSIE as well. A core lesson on position would be targeted at having students start at the “home” picture, turn left, continue straight and then turn left to end at the “pool” picture. This story-based approach helps sustain children’s motivation, even more than the attractive appearance of the Beebot. Creativity is exemplified through imagination.

Digital literacy is facilitated through robotics (Jung & Won, 2018). Studies highlight that robotics positively impacts both numeracy skills and literacy development (McDonald & Howell, 2012). Therefore, the Beebot is an effective classroom tool to develop digital creativity and learning.

References

Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in education & education in robotics: shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. Robotics in Education, 7-14.

Jung, S. E. & Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10, 1-24.

McDonald, S. & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 43, 641–651.

The Microbit is a handheld, programmable mini computer that can code and create a variety of different tools. This device is an example of a computational design product. Computational thinking refers to approaches drawn upon in the context of how computers solve problems. These approaches involve logical reasoning, abstraction, patterns and decomposition (Education Services Australia, 2016). Essentially, these thought processes construct problems and create solutions to transform “information for an agent to effectively carry out” (Wing, 2006, p. 59). Design is a key component of this digital approach, thus embedding creativity throughout both the computational thinking and planning processes.

Microbits allow for programmed games of scissors, paper, rock (as was practiced during the tutorial). This algorithm can link to Mathematics. Lesson plan ideas and ways to incorporate this technology into the curriculum can be found at https://microbit.org/en/2017-01-17-ks3-pos/. However, the time required to learn the programming as well as the resourcefulness required by teachers to incorporate Microbits into lessons, may not be an appropriate use of class time. This novelty for students can be enjoyable in terms of experimentation, but it would not be a technology that I would choose to use in my future classroom. In evaluation of digital technologies, it is also imperative to consider both time and cost effectiveness of specific resources. Exposure to computing lends itself to other concepts that could be explored further as a result of this initial engagement phase.

This current digital age of learning provides a wealth of opportunities for students in both primary and high schools. Inherently, through these explorations in STEM and ICT, students are empowered with the courage, curiosity and creativity to provide an enduring life-long love of learning. As teachers, this is also a time to develop knowledge and skills through the area of computing (Computing at School, 2013).

References

Computing at School (2013). Computing in the national curriculum: a guide for primary teachers, 1-31.

Education Services Australia (2016). Digital technologies hub. Retrieved from: https://www.digitaltechnologieshub.edu.au/teachers/topics/computational-thinking

Micro:bit Educational Foundation (2018). Get creative, get connected, get coding. Retrieved from: https://microbit.org/

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 1-59.

As a teacher, it is imperative to discern whether or not a digital technology is useful for the classroom or for aiding professional learning. Technologies can be critiqued through the RAT scale (Hughes et al., 2006) identifying if it is a replication, amplification or transformation. Students should be utilising technologies that amplify or transform their knowledge in order to enhance creative thinking and a child’s sense on agency. Digital technologies promote student engagement across all key learning areas.

ThingLink is an image enriching software that simulates a brainstorm or labelled diagram. A base image allows you to then add annotations of information and additional links to outsourced videos. The work is able to be shared electronically and is accessible for students to make their own or for teachers to use as part of a whole class discussion based topic in a lesson. It is accessible on all devices, but requires an account and payment for a classroom set-up. It could be used in the classroom as an alternative to a mind map drawn on the whiteboard. For a Science lesson, students could brainstorm and discover the steps encountered in the life cycle of a frog. With each brainstorm annotation, it is possible to provide more information through a text box or external video link. This would be best constructed by teachers as it is a time-consuming exercise. It provides a sense of amplification as this content would be more engaging than a search engine or a simple whiteboard brainstorm.

Upon evaluation, this technology would not effectively foster student engagement or creativity due to numerous impracticalities that hinder time-efficient learning. The time taken for a Stage 3 student to create a ThingLink would outweigh the learning benefits it may provide. Similarly, as a teaching tool both the cost and preparation required render this resource as redundant. According to Hughes et al. (2006), “computer technology has the potential to transform more than student mental processes” (p. 1619). Digital technologies should lessen teacher direction and promote student collaboration and ownership of learning.

References

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification and Transformation – Framework. Department of Curriculum and Instruction. University of Minnesota: USA, 1616-1620.

Digital technology and creativity fosters student learning and captivates engagement. Creativity acts as a higher order thinking skill (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), developing reflective and inquiry based learning. This thinking becomes an effective tool in developing both imagination and innovation for problem solving. Creative thinking is not linked to academic achievement and is attainable for all children. Therefore, classroom opportunities that facilitate success enhance these natural abilities (Wheeler et al., 2002). Students need to develop a sense of creative metacognition whereby they have self-knowledge of their own talents combined with an awareness of the context of when and how to explore creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013).

Ozobots is a transformative digital technology as it changes methods of mathematical instruction through position, patterns and coding. Therefore, learning becomes an involved, kinaesthetic process as students are agents of their own creativity. These programmed robots are linked to an app that allows for manipulation of movement, pace and colour in order to activate it. Different colours are distributed at certain points on the pathways allowing the Ozobots to change direction, spin or jump.

Upon critical evaluation, this resource would be best used in a Stage 3 classroom after sufficient introductory lessons in order to explicitly instruct. The students show responsibility for their learning by creating courses using the appropriate colour co-ordinated movement scale for reference. However, the cost for each Ozobot could limit use in a classroom. It is also necessary to have adequate iPads for device activation. Potential classroom issues that may arise include technical difficulties, behaviour management, property misuse and spatial awareness.

Moreover, the encouragement of creativity is primarily the task of the teacher (Wheeler et al., 2002) and this digital technology provides avenues of freedom and innovation for students. With links to the curriculum and other key learning areas through a variety of scaffolded lesson plans on the website (Ozobot & Evollve, 2019), possibilities for creativity to be fostered are clearly evident.

References:

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition. New York: Longman.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review.

Ozobot & Evollve. (2018). Ozobot Lesson Library. Retrieved from: <https://portal.ozobot.com/lessons&gt;.

Wheeler, S., Waute, S. J. & Bromfield, C. (2002). Promoting the use of creative thinking through ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18,367-378.

Link to the Community Engagement page: https://evangelinecharles.home.blog/community-engagement/