View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Children's Views on Making and Designing

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Children's Views on Making and Designing
Language: English
Authors: Hatzigianni, Maria (ORCID 0000-0001-9378-2598), Stevenson, Michael, Bower, Matt, Falloon, Garry, Forbes, Anne
Source: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2020 28(2):286-300.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Grade 1
Grade 2
Descriptors: Childrens Attitudes, Shared Resources and Services, Design, Constructivism (Learning), Active Learning, Young Children, Technology Uses in Education, Thinking Skills, Creativity, Learning Experience, Foreign Countries, Handheld Devices, Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735747
ISSN: 1350-293X
Abstract: This paper will focus on children's views on their making and design capabilities. There is a paucity of research investigating learning in makerspaces particularly for younger children. Theoretical ideas based on constructionism (Papert), Vygotsky (socio-constructivism) and Dewey's pragmatic, inquiry based and reflective learning underpin this study. Fourteen group interviews were conducted with 34 young children (five to eight years old). Their responses were inductively and thematically analysed. Children provided rich insights into new pedagogical approaches, like makerspaces, and identified challenges with the use of the digital tools (3D App and 3D printers). Children enjoyed directing their own learning and viewed their experiences as creative. This research will advance knowledge on how makerspaces and design thinking skills can be integrated in early childhood and early primary education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1248595
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwErFe2afBYc3Yvy00YDkUaWAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDALo36nUrVJhKkQA3AIBEICBm-Lk6iHJyPWjVUKxjuk2mcdXOQQvHsdtQcpy5F6Yo7-45AnEgu4KY_7WrAhPbY16MIK-visdAQZmP8zzA3pBtoIppGLH-YHVobEux77M7k7lVO5hq1POaxqjQ_tifBNMca3C-nSfhN3toj7K7AzlIW9M54cAYsLkipCdqPfR_OZiid8tsLBNeE42Un6UGFRr0gXk7rf_3d96nOiS
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0142400022;h3h01apr.20;2020Mar26.07:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0142400022-1">Children's views on making and designing </title> <p>This paper will focus on children's views on their making and design capabilities. There is a paucity of research investigating learning in makerspaces particularly for younger children. Theoretical ideas based on constructionism (Papert), Vygotsky (socio-constructivism) and Dewey's pragmatic, inquiry based and reflective learning underpin this study. Fourteen group interviews were conducted with 34 young children (five to eight years old). Their responses were inductively and thematically analysed. Children provided rich insights into new pedagogical approaches, like makerspaces, and identified challenges with the use of the digital tools (3D App and 3D printers). Children enjoyed directing their own learning and viewed their experiences as creative. This research will advance knowledge on how makerspaces and design thinking skills can be integrated in early childhood and early primary education.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood education; makerspaces; design thinking; 3D design; 3D printing</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Current educational agendas include the makers movement as an innovative approach for promoting twenty-first century skills of designing, critical thinking, creativity, decision making, collaborative skills and others (Martin [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]). A plethora of definitions around the makers movement exists, pointing to more than simply enhancing skills or capabilities for children, to contributing to the emergence of the makers' mindset and a culture that ' ... brings together individuals ... making nearly anything' (Peppler and Bender [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>], 23). A makers' mindset is also a positive step towards the integration of digital technologies into practices of designing and constructing physical, and sometimes virtual, objects (Peppler, Halverson, and Kafai [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]). However, there is also scepticism around the potential of maker movement to contribute to children's scientific and conceptual development in specific disciplines like science and maths (Bevan [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]; Niederhauser and Schrum [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The learning theory that is most often invoked to explain learning in makerspaces is constructionism. Constructionists hold that learning is most effective when it occurs through participation, and when the learning process embodies learner-led inquiry, creativity and making (Scheer, Noweski, and Meinel [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]). The leading exponent of the theory, Papert ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>], 2) states that constructionism 'takes a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge' before extending to the 'idea of manipulative materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences as constructing a meaningful product'. In addition to constructionism, this study drew also on Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]), socio-constructivism, where learners learn through social collaboration with their teachers and peers, and his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The difference between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development was explored through 'adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers' (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref9">24</reflink>], 86). Further, in arguing that 'what the child is able to do in collaboration today, [she/] he will be able to do independently tomorrow' (<reflink idref="bib287" id="ref10">287</reflink>), Vygotsky recognises the value of interaction as a tool for constructing knowledge. Finally, Dewey's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]) pragmatic, inquiry-based, experiential and reflective learning where experience is 'broadly conceived ... [and] more than simply a matter of direct participation in events' (Rodgers [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>], 846) is also aligned with this study. As Rodgers points out, reflection plays a crucial role in pragmatist epistemology and 'needs to happen in a community, in interaction with others' (<reflink idref="bib845" id="ref13">845</reflink>). Children in this study were asked to make different 'meaningful' objects using a 3D design app (constructionism), then use 3D printers to print their designs and use those designs to test scientific concepts (ZPD; inquiry-based and reflective learning) and problem-solving skills through, for example, the buoyancy of 3D-printed boats, the use of shadows and light in puppetry, or for helping class hermit crabs survive.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-3">Maker movement and young children</hd> <p>Makerspaces and the maker movement are, by virtue of their informal nature and public accessibility, inclusive of all ages, and position young children as equally capable makers with rights to participate in and to contribute to the maker movement, as older children. Bevan ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]) notes that making originates from eminent early childhood theorists such as Froebel, Montessori, and others who have emphasised the use of resources and materials for enhancing learning.</p> <p>Despite the growing popularity of makerspaces, limited research exists about their use in early childhood education (ECE) or early years of primary school. The <emph>Makerspaces in Primary School Settings study</emph> focused on the early years of three Australian primary schools, 500 children five to eight years old and 27 teachers. The study examined how engaging with makers activities using digital technologies (a 3D design app and 3D printing) could promote children's learning and enhance teaching practices. This project provided an opportunity to interrogate pedagogical issues surrounding learning and teaching in makerspaces, to work out what is (and is not) effective. The present paper focuses on children's voices and their views on the whole experience. Among the small number of studies in primary contexts, findings are encouraging. For example, in one study, Smith and Smith ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]) explored how fourth grade students created projects to illustrate the transfer and transformation of energy, finding that children had rich opportunities to work creatively, and that provision of authentic experiences through the use of novel materials could deepen children's scientific understandings. A promising European project, 'Makerspaces in the Early Years', (MakEY) has explored the possibilities of makerspaces in advancing digital literacies and creativity (details at: https://makeyproject.eu/projects/; Marsh, Arnseth, and Kumpulainen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]) for young children of three to eight years old, across eight countries, with forthcoming findings that will offer significant insights in this field. A smaller study by Bers, Strawhacker, and Vizner ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]) with a focus on designing early childhood makerspaces (ECMS) and their implementation in Denmark and USA has also provided a best-case example arguing for the rich potential and the consistency of this approach with other profound theories in the field of early childhood, such as the Reggio Emilia approach and the concept of the environment as the 'third teacher'. Makerspaces and 'ateliers' (the artistic centres of Reggio Emilia schools) have a lot in common. These spaces are conceptualised and organised to encourage creativity and learning. Process over products is valued and the use of open-ended tools (including technology) is underlined (Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]). Despite the dearth of research around makerspaces in early childhood education, several studies point to links with other approaches, including inquiry- and play-based pedagogies (Garaigordobil and Berrueco [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]; Robson and Rowe [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]) and the use of some established models for creative thinking (Riga and Chronopoulou [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, ECE has always advocated for holistic approaches in children's teaching and learning, has argued for the importance of open-ended resources, has valued process over product and has always supported the powerful role of play in learning. Making, as a pedagogical approach is consistent with these perspectives. Our study will attempt to shed some light in this field by exploring young children's views around making activities with innovative digital technologies (a 3D design app and 3D printing).</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-4">Research design</hd> <p>A collective case study design utilising mixed methodology was adopted for this project. The <emph>Makers Empire</emph> 3D design and printing platform includes the <emph>Makers Empire 3D</emph> app and teacher platform for class management and access to curriculum. For this project, <emph>Makers Empire</emph> provided their 3D platform to schools, along with a blended professional learning programme for participating staff. In total, 27 teachers from three NSW Department of Education schools participated in the project. The teachers who participated in the study ranged in teaching experience from being in their first year of teaching to having taught for over forty years (with an average experience of approximately 11 years). Each class had around 22 students, resulting in approximately 500 K-2 students who used the <emph>Makers Empire 3D</emph> app in the participating classes. Data collection took place between August and November of 2017. Nine data sources were utilised: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>) a pre-professional learning questionnaire; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>) researcher observations of professional learning; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>) a post-professional learning questionnaire; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>) researcher observations of lessons; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>) recordings of student iPad activity and discussions; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>) teacher reflective journals; (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>) children group interviews; (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>) teacher focus group interviews; and (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>) a post-implementation questionnaire. This paper will present the analysis of children's group interviews and the reflective accounts they offered around the whole process of their making and designs.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-5">Participants</hd> <p>Three Australian Government primary schools were involved in the project in 2017, each volunteering a minimum of one class from Kindergarten (children aged 5-6), Grade 1 (children aged 6-7) and Grade 2 (children aged 7-8), with class sizes in each grade ranging from approximately twenty to twenty-four children. Thirty-four children were interviewed in fourteen groups of two to three children, which included sixteen Kindergarten children (47.1%), twelve Grade 1 children (35.3%), and six Grade 2 children (17.6%).</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-6">Method</hd> <p>Two researchers conducted and audio recorded semi-structured interviews with the fourteen groups of children. In line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the child ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>], para. 14c), opportunities were created for young children to express their views, to reflect on their experiences and to articulate their personal meanings. During these interviews, the researchers encouraged children to talk about their experiences with makerspaces, explain highlights and challenges, and discuss possible next steps in in their making. The interviews included ten questions (Appendix 1). These questions encouraged reflection on the unit of their work and were supported by impromptu follow-up questions when needed. To make children feel comfortable and promote discussion, researchers asked them to bring either their 3D-printed object or iPad designs and describe it (see example of kindergarten lesson in Appendix 3). Their objects and designs were finalised after Interviews ranged in length from eight minutes to 20 min, with an average length of approximately 12 min.</p> <p>The qualitative data reported in this paper were explored inductively through segmenting, coding and the creation of category system of first- and second-order themes (see detailed codebook in Appendix 2). Three major themes will be discussed in detail in this paper: children discussing their views on 'making', 'designing' and 'learning', the 'challenges' they experienced and their aspirations for the future, 'next steps'.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-7">Ethics</hd> <p>Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the university's Human Research Ethics Committee and the New South Wales Department of Education State Education Research Approvals Process. In accordance with ethical protocols, all data were de-identified, and pseudonyms used in reference to individuals. Children and parents were informed by their teachers and Principals about the study and given the option of withdrawal at any time without consequence. Children were viewed as subjects, with rights to actively participate in the research activities; were treated fairly, sensitively, with dignity and without prejudice, and respectful of age, religion, language, disability, health condition, gender identity, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, national origin, culture, social economic status (Bertram et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>], 3). The interview took place in a school classroom, a familiar place for children during school hours by two researchers and children's oral consent was requested before the start of the interview and for the audio recordings.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-8">Results</hd> <p>Findings of the study are presented in association with the three educational theories and their relevant concepts to better understand the philosophy and the pedagogical practices around making and technology integrated learning.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-9">Children's views on making and designing</hd> <p>Children's explanations on what they designed (Question 1), what they learned from the whole process (Question 2) and whether they enjoyed the process (Questions 3; 5; 7 and 9) provided the basis for understanding their views on making and designing. In line with constructionist theory, children manipulated objects (the APP; the 3D printers) in their attempt to acquire meaningful learning (understand abstract scientific concepts such as 'buoyancy'). Furthermore, through inquiry-based approaches, children were given the chance to solve real-world problems (pragmatism) such as designing shelters for hermit crabs in collaboration with their teachers and peers (socio-constructivism). The Makers Empire 3D app ('Use of the App') as a tool of making received much attention in their discussions, with almost all children referencing how they had used the app to support their making. The 'Maker Efficacy' code reflected how they saw themselves as makers, which Question 9 directly informed ('Would you say that you are a good maker?').</p> <p>Almost all children (<emph>n</emph> = 32, for ages of children see Appendix 4) were keen to discuss their thoughts on the Makers Empire 3D app. Melanie argued that 'nothing is bad' when it came to using the app, while Philip gave the app 'eleven out of ten' as a score for how much he enjoyed using it. Melanie simply enjoyed the fact that with the app, 'you can create anything'. Several children believed that using the app to design and 3D-print objects had made school more fun for them relative to school without the Makers Empire 3D app.</p> <p>In terms of suggested improvements, Benson said he would like to see 'more shapes ... [and] new shapes' available to him in the design process. Denise, Charlotte and Damien felt they had been somewhat limited by a task that involved mainly working with shapes, and said they would like to see more options to design beyond this – in Charlotte's words, 'so we can choose different things and we just don't need to use those shapes.'</p> <p>All thirty-four children referenced complete products that had been designed and 3D-printed as part of their project. A number of these children created products together (collaboration, socio-constructivism), while remaining children referred to products they had made by themselves.</p> <p>Table 1 shows the range of objects referenced in response to Question 1 ('Can you tell us what you made ... ?'), taking children's first answers as the main object they designed and 3D-printed. The objects fell into five main categories, with the two most common categories 'two-dimensional characters' – all of which were created for a Year 1 unit of work on shadow puppets – and 'building models', which consisted of models created for a Year 2 unit of work on playground sculptures, and models created for a Kindergarten/Year 1 combined unit of work on the living needs of hermit crabs. The 'boats' category included boats that children created for a Kindergarten unit of work on buoyancy, whereas the 'three dimensional characters' and 'toys' categories included an assortment of objects that children made for introductory activities and/or in their free time.</p> <p>Table 1. Range of complete products (categories and examples).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Complete product (and examples)</td><td>No. children (n)</td><td>No. children (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Three-dimensional characters (fairy princess, man, woman, monster)</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Two-dimensional characters (shadow puppet)</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">26.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Boats</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">11.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Building models (cubby house, shelter, castle, house)</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">26.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Toy (log, 3D shape, soccer shoe, toy box)</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">20.6%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The complete products could be further understood through children's references to 'aesthetics' (<emph>n </emph>= 7) and 'functionality' (<emph>n</emph> = 18). For the eight children referring to aesthetic dimensions of their designs, colour, detail, size, shape and the ability to connect varying components were all important concerns. Melanie's main goal for her 'fairy princess' was to 'be pretty', and she said that she will seek to make aesthetically pleasing toys for other children when she grows up.</p> <p>The eighteen references to functional aspects of the designs reflected three main areas of focus in the units of work that teachers designed and delivered. For Denise and Macie, the complexities of designing and printing operational shadow puppets were evident. For example, Macie explained the different parts of her puppet before demonstrating the actions: 'these things [handles] are where you have to hold it, and then this is where it runs ... these are its bat wings ... then we can move it like this'. For others, such as Aaron, although there was the requirement that 3D-printed boats should be buoyant, the class treated the experience of failure as an opportunity to learn (constructionism):</p> <p>We all went out in the garden next to the school and we got a tub and put water inside, and then we tried all our boats ... and then, first we tried them by themselves, and then we tried them with teddies inside but my boat didn't carry the teddy because it was too heavy.</p> <p>Elsewhere, children such as Samantha, Lana and Ray needed to design functional objects to meet the identified needs of living things. Samantha had designed a stepped log 'so the crab can climb on it, and when the crab is tired, he can lie on it'. Lana had also designed a house that is appropriately-proportioned:</p> <p>I made a shelter, but the hermit crab was climbing in it ... and I made a hole in it so the hermit crab could crawl through and I thought it wasn't big enough but ... it was big enough for the hermit crab to crawl into like pooh!.</p> <p>For the small number of children referencing 3D printing in their discussions (<emph>n</emph> = 5), the presence of the 3D printer in the classroom seemed to serve more than its ostensible purpose. Samantha and Lana implied that the 3D printer was a tool to 'test' the effectiveness of the design – in particular, whether the size of the object was appropriate (problem-solving). Describing her first-time printing, Samantha explained that she was very keen 'to see the hermit crab and the 3D printout [interacting], so I can see it [the object] and put it in the hermit crab tank'.</p> <p>Twenty-six children discussed their efficacy as makers, largely in response to Question 9 ('Would you say that you are a good maker?'). For the most part, their discussions were limited to summative judgments of their abilities, and most children presented a positive picture of their efficacy. For example, Melanie said that she is 'a great maker', while Macie gave herself 'ten out of ten' for her abilities. Elsewhere, children offered reasons for their judgment, such as Jayde, who said she is 'a great maker ... because every Sunday and Saturday, my brother always teaches me ... ', and Samantha who was 'a good maker and a good painter', and 'good at building everything'. Only a small number of children, such as Nicholas, Randy and Cherie were more circumspect in their assessment. Nicholas conceded that he was 'not yet' a good maker, and requires further time and commitment to improve. Randy rated his ability as 'five out of ten', while Cherie thought she was only 'a little bit good'. Overall, children's views on making were strongly associated with the concrete tools they had to work with, the problems they had to solve in collaboration or on their own, and with the products they designed. Children were given opportunities to be autonomous, lead their learning and be creative. The extent to which this was possible varied across classrooms and teachers as will be explained in the discussion section.</p> <p>Finally, only 12 children specifically referred to content knowledge in their discussions. Aaron recognised the reasons for testing his boat in a bucket of water with a figurine, 'because real boats float'. Denise similarly recognised the need to test her shadow puppet fox through motion and light so that they work in the final performance: 'the fox has to run from the mouse because it thinks the Gruffalo's going to eat it ... so, this fox saw the Gruffalo, that's why it's going to run like this [demonstrates]'. Rodger, Ray, Samantha and Hayden all learned about the survival needs of hermit crabs – as Rodger puts it, ' ... about them eating corn and having a shower'.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-10">Identifying challenges</hd> <p>Listening to children's views on what was easy for them to complete (Questions 4, 6) on their own (Vygotsky's 'level of actual development') and what was more challenging and they needed more assistance with (Vygotsky's 'level of potential development') provided authentic insights for teachers to define children's Zone of Proximal Development or in Vygotsky's words teachers better understood: 'what the child is able to do in collaboration today, [she/]he will be able to do independently tomorrow' ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>], 287).</p> <p>Over four fifths of the children (<emph>n</emph> = 28) could clearly articulate the challenges they faced. For Melanie, Sanita, Nicholas, Emmanuel, and Aaron, successfully joining components of the object was the main challenge in the design process. When designing her princess, Melanie complained that 'the crown might be cheeky and fly all over the place'. Coby was concerned about the 'bomb icon', which could, when pressed, result in accidental or intentional deletion of the design. Macie found combining intricate components such as facial features difficult, because 'sometimes you can't put the head [in the right place], and then it comes a little thing over here ... and for the nose it's hard because you can't make it so short'. Both Rabia and Jayde expressed the difficulties of correctly sizing and proportioning their designs. As Jayde put it, confusion could emerge from not being able to size objects accurately in the design: 'these little features [components] are not in the same space ... one is too under [small] and one is the same [size] ... also, but these two hands, this is bigger than this one, or this one's smaller than that'.</p> <p>By contrast, sixteen children referenced aspects of the making process that they found easy. Melanie noted that creating a fidget spinner character is very simple: 'what's easy is to get the blob and put the glasses on, then put the wings in the fidget spinner on'. Aaron found the challenge of creating buildings very straightforward and thought, ' ... in Shaper you can make a castle ... [because] it has a cone on top, and a castle has, maybe I can put a rectangle in there [the design]'.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-11">Reflection and next steps</hd> <p>Close to the end of the interview, two questions (Question 8: 'Would you like to do more activities like this ... ?'; Question 10: 'Would you like to be a maker when you grow up?'). adopted a more reflective tone and a future oriented, pragmatic view. Children were asked to identify possible contexts in which they could further develop their knowledge and skills as makers. Children clearly referenced three contexts in their discussions – namely, 'home', 'school' and 'post-school'.</p> <p>All children that were interviewed positively reflected in their experience and indicated that they would like to continue using 3D design and printing technologies in their future classes and lessons in school. Of these, eight children explained how they would like to engage in their making. John said he would like to make objects that are 'bigger and better', further developing this idea by offering 'something using boxes and those things ... like, a big city ... '. Damien believed that, in future lessons, 'we can build our own things and then build something that can make the school better', to which Randy offered the suggestion of objects that provide 'more shade'. Sandy wanted to extend on the characters she, Melanie and Aaron had created, declaring that in future lessons, she was 'going to make a rainbow, and I'm going to make all the things rainbow [coloured], and my little character is going to be friends with Melanie's one and Aaron's [one]'. For Ray, simply having more choice in what to make was an important goal in future learning: 'I wish, when we go to Year 1, [the teacher] would say "they're big – let's do anything we want for them" [let them create what they want] ... and we can just say, "make us a phone!"'. Melanie echoed this sentiment, stating that if her future teacher allowed her to do so, 'I would just make anything I want'.</p> <p>Finally, post-school interests in making were expressed by almost all children (<emph>n</emph> = 32) with twenty-four of these children explaining their interests in further detail. These explanations fell into two main groups: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>) an apparent desire to make practical day-to-day objects such as buildings, clothing, jewellery and toys; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>) an apparent interest in working specifically as engineers, often with a focus on creating less conventional, unusual and perhaps even innovative objects. For children in the first group, there appeared to be a strong sense of the intended audience and purpose behind the making. For example, Denise was passionate about the idea of making clothes and jewellery for her friends, family and the public, and believed that she could 'give them some choices [in terms of colour, style, shape, etc.] and we make them in the Maker's Empire app'. Charlotte loved animals and saw herself becoming a vet, believing that she could 'use the [Makers Empire] app to make things to help animals, like a toy, because I [already] made a toy ball for my dog'. Coby said he would like to use 3D design to 'make a really safe [secure] house', and Talbert said he would like to similarly make 'a really big house ... so lots of people can live there'. Referring to his concern for the homeless, Randy felt that he could 'build houses so like ... maybe people living in the street can have houses for them to get and live in'. In terms of the second group, there seemed to be greater awareness of the potential for making beyond the already conceivable day-to-day objects that the first group discussed. Intimating his concern for those with a disability, Rodger said he would like to design 'a robotic hand ... that can collect it for him [be used by those with a disability to collect object objects]'. Hayden thought that he could invent 'a new musical instrument'.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-12">Discussion</hd> <p>This study explored young children's views around making, the challenges they faced and their future plans. Attempting to contribute to the limited but emerging literature around makerspaces and digital technologies for young children, the findings of this study are derived from children's feedback. Including children's voices and opinions as perspectives in research is not only ethical (Palaiologou [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]) but also provides more authenticity and reliability to our data (Danby [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]; Moss and Clark [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]). Research which aims to explore topics about children can only be strengthened by drawing on children's views (Mac Naughton, Rolfe, and Siraj-Blatchford [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]). Children were not asked questions around pedagogy or effective teaching strategies but through their comments' direct associations with learning theories and efficient teaching are evident.</p> <p>Children's comments revealed their growing skills but also their positive attitudes towards making and the evolution of the 'maker mindset', including important assets such as the willingness to try again and again, resilience and persistence even after failures. Peppler's and Bender's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]) definition was supported by the findings of this study. Children made many prototypes while working on design improvements, they responded to peer advice, and challenged themselves to reach their goals. Children were able to describe challenging and rewarding aspects of their design, identify solutions, offer alternatives, and brainstorm new ideas. In line with constructionism and Dewey's learning by actually doing something, children were capable of moving beyond a passive stance to knowledge to an active engagement with new ideas and skills. Shifting from simply being 'consumers' of digital technologies to being 'producers' and 'critical makers.' They saw themselves as future designers, innovators, engineers and scientists.</p> <p>A surprising comment made by a large number of children was around the extra enjoyment that the engagement with the 3D app was adding to their school days. Not only their lessons were more interesting, but their whole school experience was positively influenced by the use of the app and the making projects. Children experienced a holistic learning process which was dynamic, fluid, vibrant and took place across interdisciplinary fields.</p> <p>In terms of twenty-first century skills, children themselves mentioned how they were more creative and how their imagination was expressed freely (<emph>rainbow coloured objects</emph>). Additionally, they had opportunities to invent (<emph>a new musical instrument</emph>) and think of innovative solutions to help solve social problems (<emph>houses for homeless peopl</emph>e). Using innovative and creative approaches in Early Childhood educational settings (makerspaces, 3D Design and 3D printing) boosts children's confidence and provides opportunities to broaden children's future aspirations as designers and makers, not only for themselves, but for contributing to the solution of local and complex global issues (<emph>houses for the homeless</emph>). Working on in-school design challenges can inspire children to consider out-of-school challenges, and therefore contribute to their development as informed citizens while (<emph>the need to create more shade areas for their school</emph>), strengthening their creative, problem-solving, and decision-making skills (<emph>children's desire to become makers when they grow up</emph>). This finding is in line with Marsh's et al. study ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>], 7) where maker practices fostered, to different extents, elements of 'maker citizenship' such as: 'rights, belonging and/or participation'. Designing and reflecting on their own creations, children could enhance their sense of belonging but also actively participate in making the world around them a better and a safer place (Wagner and Compton [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref42">25</reflink>]). Children interacted and learned from collaborating with peers, more knowledgeable others (parents, siblings) but also with their natural and social environment (socio-constructivism). These multidirectional interactions produced authentic experiences and increased their knowledge. Children's learning enhancement was evident through comments around a deeper understanding of scientific concepts (living things and their needs; light; shadows etc). However, the number of references to these learning objectives was low and this area could be further explored in future studies.</p> <p>Finally, it is also worth noting that children also raised pedagogical issues such as how much freedom they were given to follow their interests and design what they really wanted, even when the objects they desired to make were not necessarily those prescribed by the task or teacher. There were instances where children reported their desire for more autonomy when learning in the classroom or beyond. This finding is also consistent with the consideration around citizenship and children's rights (Marsh, Arnseth, and Kumpulainen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>]). In children's views, when they 'grow up, teachers will trust them more and they will be able to make more choices. This pedagogical concern should be further examined in future research by investigating not only teachers' perspective but children's views as well. For example, what are the optimal pedagogical affordances that enhance making activities from a child's/student's perspective?</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-13">Limitations</hd> <p>The interviews took place at the end of the project and for future studies it would be useful to organise group interviews in different stages of a study (start, middle, end) to enhance the depth and breadth of children's answers but also be able to explore the development of these answers over time.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-14">Conclusion and implications</hd> <p>Makerspaces, 3D printing and design thinking are promising educational innovations and early childhood educators are already familiar with their core principles through similarities with eminent early childhood theories (the Reggio Emilia approach; Froebel's emphasis on play; Montessorian self-directed resources, etc.). In addition, the main forms of maker pedagogy such as: child-centredness; child-initiated learning and child-led experience; creativity; problem solving skills; collaboration; emphasis on the process and not on the product and others, are in line with the early childhood philosophy. However, a universal model which teachers could follow or a specific didactic method for teachers to implement does not exist (Scheer, Noweski, and Meinel [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]). The next step for early childhood teachers could be to explore in more depth pedagogical practices that focus on designing <emph>of</emph> and <emph>for</emph> learning, consistent with non-linear epistemologies of learning. This is not an easy task and presents numerous challenges (Bower [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref45">4</reflink>]), but is worth pursuing if we are to invest in establishing creative, twenty-first century learning conditions where solid foundations for the holistic development of our future generations are laid.</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-15">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0142400022-16">ORCID</hd> <p> <emph>Maria Hatzigianni</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-2598">http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-2598</ulink> </p> <hd id="AN0142400022-17">Appendices</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0142400022-18">Appendix 1. Focus group questions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>). Can you tell us about what you made? What problem did it solve? Why did you make it the way you did?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>). What did you learn from creating your product?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>). What did you enjoy most about making your product? Was there something you didn't enjoy?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>). What was most difficult about making your product?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>). Did you like using the <emph>Makers Empire 3D</emph> app? Why or why not?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>). What made the <emph>Makers Empire 3D</emph> app easy or difficult to use? Can you suggest any changes?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>). Do you think you like school more or less after the maker activities? Is school more interesting/enjoyable with maker activities? Why?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>). Would you like to do more activities like this in your future classes?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>). Would you say that you are a good 'maker'?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>). Would you like to be a maker (engineer) when you grow up?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0142400022-19">Appendix 2</hd> <p>Table A1. Codebook.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Code Label</td><td>No. Coding Refs</td><td>Description</td><td>Example</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Thoughts on Making</td><td char=".">168</td><td>Any thoughts that students expressed about the making process</td><td>'Because when they stick together they look funner and funner, but if they not stick together that means it's not fun'</td></tr><tr><td>Using 3D printing</td><td char=".">5</td><td>Specific thoughts on 3D printing</td><td>'When we've made our ideas and we finish it, when we're printing it out, it's got to melt some red stuff it, like cardboard or something. And then it will make itself. And then you got to put it in. It takes it like two hours or something'</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetics</td><td char=".">13</td><td>Thoughts about aesthetic dimensions of their designs or making</td><td>'When we're finished, we paint with Toy Designer; I am going to paint mine pink. I'm going to make mine rainbow'</td></tr><tr><td>Complete Product</td><td char=".">37</td><td>Descriptions and perceptions of the complete products they successfully made</td><td>'I made this owl, I put the beak behind this. I made it hidden, and I used tape right here, and made it turn around to make a hook so it can fly'</td></tr><tr><td>Functionality</td><td char=".">28</td><td>Thoughts about the functionality of their designs and/or finished work</td><td>'These things are where you have to hold it, and then this is where it runs, and then we can move it like this'</td></tr><tr><td>Maker Efficacy</td><td char=".">16</td><td>Students' perceptions of, and beliefs about, themselves as makers.</td><td>'I am a great maker because my ... Every Sunday and Saturday, my brother always teaches me'</td></tr><tr><td>Using the App</td><td char=".">67</td><td>Appraisals of the <italic>Makers Empire App</italic></td><td>'You can make characters and you can also do the, you can also have fun creating. And you can learn things, like for making shadow puppets'</td></tr><tr><td>1. Challenges</td><td char=".">63</td><td>Any kind of challenge students perceived during the making process</td><td>' ... but my friend Sarah just made a cot. And I did, I want to, but I didn't because I didn't know how'</td></tr><tr><td>Difficult</td><td char=".">43</td><td>Difficulties students believed they encountered</td><td>' ... the difficult thing is to put something on top of the head.</td></tr><tr><td>Easy</td><td char=".">20</td><td>Aspects of the making process students found (relatively) easy</td><td>'So what's easy is to get the blob and put the glasses on, and put the wings in the fidget spinner on'</td></tr><tr><td>2. Next Steps</td><td char=".">61</td><td>Perceptions and beliefs about what learning might occur in future</td><td>'I would just build anything I want to build'</td></tr><tr><td>Home</td><td char=".">13</td><td>Experiences and/or beliefs about making at home</td><td>'Me and my brother has that app as well and my mum and dad want me to make more things to be so creative'</td></tr><tr><td>Post-School</td><td char=".">37</td><td>Experiences and/or beliefs about making when students finish school</td><td>'When I'm a grown up I'm going to make something else, like maybe I'm going to make an iPad school. Or maybe a football champion trophy'</td></tr><tr><td>School</td><td char=".">11</td><td>Experiences and/or beliefs about making in future lessons, years, and classrooms</td><td>'I want to make a big ... A big ... A big ... Something using boxes and those things. I want to make like a big city!'</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0142400022-20">Appendix 3</hd> <p>Table A2. Example of kindergarten lesson and photos of designs and activities.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Teacher's Name Year Lesson title Stage</td><td>Lesson Description (based on researcher's observations)</td><td>Observed learning outcomes/Evidence</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Ella</italic><italic>(K) Time to Play!</italic><italic>Early Stage</italic></td><td>After demonstrating a simple toy that she had made, the teacher encouraged her students to open-endedly explore the Toy Designer feature of the app and share their discoveries with the class. Students shared a range of things they discovered, including how to move and resize objects, change colours and delete and restart the design process. Students then had further time to apply the shared discoveries to work on a basic toy design.<graphic href="recr_a_1735747_ilg0001.gif" content-type="Graph" /><graphic href="recr_a_1735747_ilg0002.gif" content-type="Graph" /></td><td>Collaboration was evident throughout the lesson, with excited students who were often keen to share their discoveries with both their peers and the class. Although the lesson did not explicitly explore a problem or area of inquiry, students directed their learning through play, interaction with peers and ideas and starting points shared by the teacher. They also demonstrated problem solving to some of the basic problems that the app presents to first-time users (such as correctly resizing and attaching objects). Motivation and engagement were evident throughout.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Mid Stage</italic></td><td>Students proceeded to the Outdoor Makerspace, where they tested the floating or sinking properties of a range of objects that included Lego pieces, plastic forks, wooden pegs, stones, and pepper shakers. Using a two-column table on a portable whiteboard, students added their findings to the table. Students were then given playdough and instructed to make an object that can float. When students returned to their classroom, the teacher facilitated a discussion about their findings.<graphic href="recr_a_1735747_ilg0003.gif" content-type="Graph" /></td><td>Students demonstrated enthusiasm and engagement throughout the lesson: they were keen to test objects and make designs with playdough that would float. Some students appeared to miss the intent of the lesson, instead focusing on activities such as collecting and distributing water, or the colouring of the playdough when added to the water. Many students were unable to create playdough designs that float.</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Late stage</italic></td><td>An opening class discussion encouraged students to constructively criticise a teacher-modelled 'flawed' boat design. After discussing some of the problems that would cause the boat in the design not to float, students continued use the Blocker feature of the app to build a boat that they believed would float. The findings from the class discussion – that boats require sufficient walls, enough space and no holes – were explored through students' designs and discussion during the lesson was facilitated through peer interaction and dialogic discourse with the teacher.<graphic href="recr_a_1735747_ilg0004.gif" content-type="Graph" /></td><td>Having identified factors that negatively impact on the buoyancy of boats, students demonstrated some critical thinking by ensuring that their designs have high walls, enough room and no holes. Creativity was limited by the fact that most students designed square boats – objects that rather appeared to be rafts with walls instead of resembling actual boats. Students were engaged and enthusiastic throughout the lesson and appeared keen to ensure they build a boat that would fit the requirements explored in their critique of the 'flawed' design.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0142400022-21">Appendix 4. Children's pseudonyms and ages</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Kindergarten: 5–6 years old (K) Grade 1: 6–7 years old (G1) Grade 2: 7–8 years old (G2)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Antony</td><td>G2</td><td>Jayde</td><td>G1</td></tr><tr><td>Anna</td><td>K</td><td>Leanne</td><td>G1</td></tr><tr><td>Aaron</td><td>K</td><td>Lana</td><td>G1</td></tr><tr><td>Ashley</td><td>G2</td><td>Melanie</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Benson</td><td>K</td><td>Macie</td><td>G1</td></tr><tr><td>Baker</td><td>G1</td><td>Nicholas</td><td>G1</td></tr><tr><td>Charlotte</td><td>G2</td><td>Philip</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Charlie</td><td>G1</td><td>Polly</td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Cherie</td><td>G1</td><td>Rabia</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Coby</td><td>K</td><td>Roger</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Damien</td><td>G2</td><td>Ray</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Denise</td><td>G1</td><td>Randy</td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>David</td><td>K</td><td>Sanita</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Emmanuel</td><td>K</td><td>Serena</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Edward</td><td>G1</td><td>Sandy</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>Hayden</td><td>G1</td><td>Samantha</td><td>K</td></tr><tr><td>John</td><td>G1</td><td>Talbert</td><td>K</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0142400022-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bers, M. U., A. Strawhacker, and M. Vizner. 2018. " The Design of Early Childhood Makerspaces to Support Positive Technological Development." Library Hi Tech 36 (1): 75 – 96. doi: 10.1108/LHT-06-2017-0112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bertram, T., J. Formosinho, C. Gray, C. Pascal, and M. Whalley. 2015. "EECERA Ethical Code for Early Childhood Researchers." <ulink href="http://eecera-ext.tandf.co.uk/documents/pdf/organisation/EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf">http://eecera-ext.tandf.co.uk/documents/pdf/organisation/EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bevan, B. 2017. " The Promise and the Promises of Making in Science Education." Studies in Science Education 53 (1): 75 – 103. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref25" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bower, M. 2017. Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning - Integrating Research and Practice. Bingley, UK : Emerald Publishing Group. <ulink href="http://bit.ly/DesignOfTEL">http://bit.ly/DesignOfTEL</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Danby, S. 2017. " Technologies, Child-Centred Practice and Listening to Children." In Digital Technologies and Learning in the Early Years, edited by Lorna Arnott, 127 – 138. London : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. London : Macmillan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Garaigordobil, M., and L. Berrueco. 2011. " Effects of a Play Program on Creative Thinking of Preschool Children." The Spanish Journal of Psychology 14 (2): 608 – 618. doi: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref29" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Mac Naughton, G., S. A. Rolfe, and I. Siraj-Blatchford. 2001. Doing Early Childhood Research: International Perspectives on Theory and Practice. Buckingham, UK : Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Marsh, J., H. C. Arnseth, and K. Kumpulainen. 2018. " Maker Literacies and Maker Citizenship in the MakEY (Makerspaces in the Early Years) Project." Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2 (3): 50 – 69. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/2/3/50">www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/2/3/50</ulink>. doi: 10.3390/mti2030050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, L. 2015. " The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education." Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 5 (1): 30 – 39. doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1099.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, L. M. 2007. " Using Technology in Reggio Emilia-Inspired Programs." Theory Into Practice 46 (1): 32 – 39. doi: 10.1080/00405840709336546.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, P., and A. Clark. 2011. Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. London : Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niederhauser, D. S., and L. Schrum. 2016. " Enacting STEM Education for Digital Age Learners: The "Maker" Movement Goes to School." In 2016 CELDA Conference: Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age, edited by D. Sampson, J. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, and P. Isaisa, 357 – 360. Mannheim, Germany : International Association for Development of the Information Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palaiologou, I. 2014. " 'Do We Hear What Children Want to Say?' Ethical Praxis When Choosing Research Tools with Children Under Five." Early Child Development and Care 184 (5): 689 – 705. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2013.809341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papert, S. 1986. Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education. Cambridge, MA : Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler, K., and S. Bender. 2013. " Maker Movement Spreads Innovation One Project at a Time." Phi Delta Kappan 95 (3): 22 – 27. doi: 10.1177/003172171309500306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler, K., E. Halverson, and Y. B. Kafai, eds. 2016. Makeology: Makerspaces as Learning Environments (Vol. 1). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riga, V., and E. Chronopoulou. 2014. " Applying MacKinnon's 4Ps to Foster Creative Thinking and Creative Behaviours in Kindergarten Children." Education 3-13 42 (3): 330 – 345. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2012.692700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robson, S., and V. Rowe. 2012. " Observing Young Children's Creative Thinking: Engagement, Involvement and Persistence." International Journal of Early Years Education 20 (4): 349 – 364. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2012.743098.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodgers, C. 2002. " Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking." Teachers College Record 104 (4): 842 – 866. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheer, A., C. Noweski, and C. Meinel. 2012. " Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action: Design Thinking in Education." Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 17 (3): 8 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, W., and B. C. Smith. 2016. " Bringing the Maker Movement to School." Science and Children 54 (1): 30 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2005. "General Comment No. 7 (2005): Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood." Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, T., and R. A. Compton. 2012. Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World. New York : Scribn.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Maria Hatzigianni; Michael Stevenson; Matt Bower; Garry Falloon and Anne Forbes</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib287" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib845" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref42"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1248595
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Children's Views on Making and Designing
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hatzigianni%2C+Maria%22">Hatzigianni, Maria</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-2598">0000-0001-9378-2598</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stevenson%2C+Michael%22">Stevenson, Michael</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bower%2C+Matt%22">Bower, Matt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Falloon%2C+Garry%22">Falloon, Garry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Forbes%2C+Anne%22">Forbes, Anne</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Early+Childhood+Education+Research+Journal%22"><i>European Early Childhood Education Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2020 28(2):286-300.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Attitudes%22">Childrens Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shared+Resources+and+Services%22">Shared Resources and Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Constructivism+%28Learning%29%22">Constructivism (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Experience%22">Learning Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735747
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-293X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper will focus on children's views on their making and design capabilities. There is a paucity of research investigating learning in makerspaces particularly for younger children. Theoretical ideas based on constructionism (Papert), Vygotsky (socio-constructivism) and Dewey's pragmatic, inquiry based and reflective learning underpin this study. Fourteen group interviews were conducted with 34 young children (five to eight years old). Their responses were inductively and thematically analysed. Children provided rich insights into new pedagogical approaches, like makerspaces, and identified challenges with the use of the digital tools (3D App and 3D printers). Children enjoyed directing their own learning and viewed their experiences as creative. This research will advance knowledge on how makerspaces and design thinking skills can be integrated in early childhood and early primary education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1248595
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1248595
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735747
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 286
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Shared Resources and Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Constructivism (Learning)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Children's Views on Making and Designing
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hatzigianni, Maria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stevenson, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bower, Matt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Falloon, Garry
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Forbes, Anne
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-293X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1