James' EDUC362 Blog

Recent technological advances have increased the availability and affordability of technologies that enable hands-on learning, such as 3D printers, robotics, microprocessors, virtual and augmented reality and e-textiles (Martinez & Stager, 2014). Such technologies are often utilised in makerspacers, which are ‘informal sites for creative production in art, science and engineering where people of all ages blend digital and physical technologies to explore ideas, learn technical skills, and create new products’ (Sheridan et al., 2014, p. 505).

While makerspacers exist in many contexts, they can be particularly effective in education. Makerspacers align with numerous principles of the constructivist pedagogy, including student-centred learning, engaging student activities, and minimal teacher instruction and intervention (Bichelmeyer & Hsu, 1999). The independence offered to students in makerspacer tasks promotes the development of critical thinking skills (Martinez & Stager, 2014), which is a general capability of the Australian syllabus (ACARA, 2016).

The Makeblock Neuron kit is one example of a technology that could be used in a makerspacer environment. This kit comes with over 30 electronic and magnetic blocks, including a voice sensor, light sensor and infrared sensor. This kit is intuitive to use and particularly well suited to STEM subjects. Based on my experience, I believe that science classes in particular would benefit from this technology. For example, when studying photosynthesis, as is required by the Years 7-10 NSW science syllabus, students could take measurements of soil temperature and moisture to understand how these factors influence plant growth. One potential issue, however, is that students may resort to simply following the instructions provided and consequently not engage in the higher order thought processes. Although tools such as the Makeblock Neuron kit can be highly effective, it is important to note that makerspacers can also incorporate more basic tools. This is demonstrated by the activity below, which only required nails and wooden box!

Fostering Creativity

Makerspacers encourage creativity by placing students in a role where they must identify problems and generate solutions. As students encounter flaws in their initial designs they must respond with new approaches, which often leads to creative ideas (Pink, 2011). Furthermore, makerspaces encourage collaborative learning, which allows students to share their unique and diverse ideas with others, and thus is conducive to creativity as it (Slavin, 2015).

Potential Limitations

The key challenge for teachers when using makerspacers is to create well-designed learning activities. For example, activities must be cognitively engaging, as those that involve hands-on activities alone are unlikely to result in effective learning (Mayer, 2004).

References

ACARA. (2016). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general-capabilities.

Bichelmeyer, B, A., & Hsu, Y. (1999). Individually-guided education and problem-based learning: A comparison of pedagogical approaches from different epistemological views. In K. E. Sparks & M. Simonson (Eds.), Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the 21st National Convention of the Association for Education Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 73-39). Washington, DC: AECT.

Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2014). The maker movement: A learning revolution. International Society for Technology in Education. Available at https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=106

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1): 14-19. doi: 10.1037/0003- 066X.59.1.14

Pink, D. (2011). Creative fluency. In L. Crocket, I. Jukes, A. Churches (Eds.), Literacy is not enough – 21st century fluencies for the digital age. (pp. 43-54). Corwin.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 4: 505-531. doi: 10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education, 43(1): 5-14. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2015.963370

Games-based learning (GBL) refers to the integration of game characteristics and principles into tasks to achieve learning outcomes (University of Waterloo, 2019). In addition to providing students with a fun and engaging learning environment, GBL is often more effective than traditional approaches in improving students’ acquisition of knowledge and understanding of content (Hainey, Connolly, Boyle, & Wilson, 2016). Furthermore, GBL can produce cognitive, motivational, emotional and social benefits (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014) and assist students in building 21^st century skills, such as those relating to thinking, problem-solving and collaboration (Beavis, 2014). GBL is relatively simple to incorporate into the lessons because it is available through a variety of platforms, including tablets, smartphones, PCs and online, and can be applied to a diverse range of subject areas (Hainey et al., 2016).

Students as game designers

One of the most effective applications of GBL in classrooms is having students design their own games. This activity deepens students’ understanding of the programming that underlies digital games (Gee, 2005) and therefore develops students’ information and communication technology capabilities, which is one of the general capabilities of the Australian curriculum (ACARA, 2016). Furthermore, the design process fosters student creativity by allowing them to devise and implement their own ideas through game elements, such as characters, context and information (Prensky, 2007). Teachers wishing to maximise student creativity might encourage students to try to incorporate the principles that Gee (2005) identified as being central to ‘good’ games. Creating a game that aligns with these criteria is likely to foster creative thinking by encouraging students to produce novel ideas within these paramters (Edwards, 2001).

Click here to the above game, which was created using Scratch.

Limitations

One of the limitations of GBL is that the effectiveness of using it can be influenced by the game’s characteristics. For example, games that are single player, have lower realism and are played from third person perspective tend to be more effective in promoting learning than games without these characteristics (Clark, Tanner-Smith, & Killingsworth, 2016). A further challenge is that the games students create are unlikely to convey extensive information, which may result in little content knowledge being gained (Prensky, 2007). Teachers must also put appropriate safeguards in place to reduce the possibility of students encountering inappropriate content or having their privacy compromised by sharing personal data online (Beavis 2014). Finally, as with all technology, there is also the risk of distraction and technical issues.

References

ACARA. (2016). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general-capabilities

Beavis, C., Rowan, L., Dezuanni, M., McGillivray, C., O’Mara, J., Prestridge, S. & Zagami, J. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about the possibilities and limitations of digital games in classrooms. E-learning and Digital Media, 11(6): 569-581. doi: 10.2304/elea.2014.11.6.569

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1): 79-122. doi: 10.3102/0034654315582065

Edwards, S. M. (2001). The technology paradox: Efficiency versus creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2): 221-228, doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ13029.

Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37. Retrieved from https://gamesandimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GoodVideoGamesLearning.pdf

Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1): 66-78. doi: 10.1037/a0034857

Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., & Wilson, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers and Education, 102: 202-223. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.001

Prensky, M. (2007). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6): 1-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x

University of Waterloo. (2019). Gamification and game-based learning. Retrieved from https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-resources/teaching-tips/educational-technologies/all/gamification-and-game-based-learning

Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) is an emerging technology that replaces the real world with an entirely digitally recreated one (Kiryakova, Angelova, & Yordanova, 2018). IVR environments respond to users’ physical movements in real time, which creates the illusion that they are “interacting with and being immersed in the virtual world” (Tussyadiah, Wang, Jung, Claudia tom Dieck, 2018, p. 141). Using IVR, students can engage in rich experiences that may not otherwise be possible due to their dangerous or infeasible nature.

Oculus Go

I experienced IVR with the Oculus Go, which is a wearable headset that has been specially designed to provide IVR experiences. The Oculus Go is a highly portable unit and can be purchased for under $300 (AUD). While wearing the headset, I immersed myself in a hammerhead shark encounter using the National Geographic VR program. I found this to be an engaging experience, especially as I was able to control my perspective throughout.

Fostering Creativity

IVR fosters creativity by providing students with completely different perspectives and experiences, which is likely to expand their thinking and encourage innovative ideas. Jacobson and Holden (2005) suggest that IVR focuses students’ attention on the subject matter, which assists in developing the depth of understanding often needed for creative thinking. One of the most effective ways to foster creativity using IVR, however, is to have students design their own IVR world. This provides students with the freedom needed to incorporate their unique ideas and perspectives into their work.

Create your own VR world using this link

Potential Limitations

IVR provides a highly personalised user experience, which can make it difficult for teachers to provide students with the opportunity to work in a collaborative environment (Kiryakova et al., 2018). Additionally, IVR is often associated with motion sickness, particularly when products have high latency (Kavanagh, Luxton-Reilly, Wuensche, & Plimmer, 2017). Although the Oculus Rift has low latency in comparison to other VR products, I experienced a small amount of motion sickness after using the product for a short period.

Additionally, it is unlikely that teachers will have the resources or skills to personally create IVR content for specific topics, which might make it difficult to align IVR learning activities with syllabus content. Nevertheless, a single widely-available IVR experience could be used for multiple syllabus topics, subjects and stages. For example, the hammerhead shark experience discussed above could be used for Year 7-10 science (marine life), geography (oceans) and commerce (ecotourism).

A finally limitation is the lack of control the teacher has over the experience. The highly personal nature of the experience makes it difficult for teachers to monitor students’ use of the product and to provide assistance to them when needed.

References

Jacobson, J., & Holden, L. (2005). The virtual Egyptian temple. World Conference on Educational Multimedia Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada.

Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2): 85-119. doi: 10.1007/s10055-019-00379-9

Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N., & Yordanova, L. (2018). The potential of augmented reality to transform education into smart education, Journal of Association for Information Communication Technology, Education and Science, 7(3): 556-565. doi: 10.18421/TEM-11

Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H, & Claudia tom Dieck, M. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management. 66: 140-154. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003

Augmented Reality (AR) is an emerging technology that provides users with an enhanced real-world context by overlaying it with virtual information, which may include text, images, video clips, sounds, 3D models and animations (Bower, Howe, McCredie, Robinson, & Grover, 2014; Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). AR can be used to create authentic, contextualised and interactive learning tasks, which makes it an excellent tool to encourage student engagement (Kiryakova, Angelova, & Yordanova, 2018).

Aurasma

One popular AR program is Aurasma, which uses the image-recognition capabilities of smartphones or tablets to overlay virtual objects on top of real world images. Aurasma differs from many other AR technologies as it allows for design-based learning, which, according to Bower et al. (2008), is much more effective in encouraging higher order thinking skills than “pre-packaged” (p. 7) AR learning tasks.

Fostering creativity with design-based learning

Design-based learning tasks foster creativity by giving students direct control over the outcome of their projects, which allows them to be imaginative and experimental (Bower et al., 2008). Furthermore, observation and interviews suggest that students find design-based AR projects challenging, motivating and enjoyable (Bower et al., 2008), which are important requisites for creative ideas (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010).

A further appeal of design-based learning AR tasks is that they draw on a range of diverse skills, including those relating to research, technology usage, and critical thinking (Bower et al., 2008). The opportunity to build these skills will assist students in developing ACARA’s (2016) general capabilities, such as ‘critical and creative thinking’ and ‘information and communication technology capability’.

Potential limitations

The diverse skills required to use Aurasma can also present learning challenges, however. If students lack skills in spatial navigation, problem solving, technology manipulation, or mathematical estimation, the learning benefits of the task may be compromised (Wu et al., 2013). As such, teachers must ensure that appropriate support is provided so that the utility of AR as a learning tool can be maximised.

Additionally, issues with software, Internet connection, cameras, and other technological factors will inevitably arise. However, teachers will take comfort in knowing that these technical problems are usually not serious enough to prevent the task from being completed or to diminish the enthusiasm of students (Di Serio, Blanca Ibanez, & Delgado Kloos, 2013).

References

ACARA. (2016). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general-capabilities.

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.

Di Serio, A., Blanca Ibanez, M., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2013). Impact of augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual arts course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569-598.

Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N., & Yordanova, L. (2018). The potential of augmented reality to transform education into smart education, Journal of Association for Information Communication Technology, Education and Science, 7(3): 556-565.

Wu, H., Wen-Yu Lee, S., Chang, H., & Liang, J. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education. 62, 41-49.

Robotics refers to the design, construction, operation and application of robots and robotic systems (Jung & Won, 2018). Robots are valuable educational tools as they allow students to develop various skills simultaneously and in an engaging manner. In addition to teaching students about technology itself, robots can be used to teach traditional subject matter, such as science and mathematics (Jung & Won, 2018). Furthermore, robotics have been demonstrated to improve cognitive skills, such as analysis, prediction and computational thinking (Bers, Flannery, Kazakoff, & Sullivan, 2014).

MINDSTORMS EV3

One popular product used in robotics is Lego’s MINDSTORMS EV3, which is a programmable robotics construction set. The built robot is programmed using the freely available MINDSTORMS EV3 software by simply dragging icons into the desired sequence and making any necessary adjustments. The programming is then downloaded onto the programmable brick and the robot will respond as instructed to colour, touch and infrared light.

The programming required to instruct the MINDSTORM EV3 to follow the curved line in the video below.

Fostering Creativity

The MINDSTORMS robot engages students by allowing them to interact and experiment with a tangible object. Student engagement is important as it often leads to inquiry, which has been identified as a crucial component of creativity (Loveless, Burton, & Turvey, 2006). Furthermore, MINDSTORMS give students the liberty to lead the interaction with the technology, which, according to Edwards (2001), is an important component of fostering creativity with digital products. Furthermore, he believes that creativity is maximised when individuals are given sufficient time to explore various options and have limits placed on the possible solutions to encourage novel ideas. Therefore, teachers wishing to foster creativity within students should set specific tasks for them, such as making the MINDSTORM follow a line.

Limitations

Personally, I believe it would be difficult to use the MINDSTORMS to teach specific content as the programming required to teach the basic content that the robot is most appropriate for teaching (e.g. angles in mathematics) is too advanced. MINDSTORMS would be much more effective in teaching specific technology skills, and general skills that are broadly applicable, such as critical thinking. In particular, the MINDSTORMS robot may be useful for delivering the Technology syllabus that became mandatory for Year 7 and 8 students in 2019.

The main practical difficulty I experienced was that the paper underneath constantly slipped when the robot moved. I recommend that teachers organise large pieces of cardboard (or another large, flat surface) before using the MINDSTORMS robot in lessons.

References

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computer Education, 72, 145-157. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.

Edwards, S. M. (2001). The technology paradox: Efficiency versus creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2): 221-228, doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ13029.

Jung, S. E., & Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10, 1-24. doi10.3390/su10040905.

Loveless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2006). Developing conceptual frameworks for creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 3-13. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2005.07.001.

Computational thinking (CT) refers to the process of using concepts based in computer science to solve problems and design systems that can then be implemented using digital technology (Yadav, Stephenson, & Hong, 2017). Many now regard CT as so important that they believe it should be given the same priority in education as literacy and numeracy (Yadav, Hong, & Stephenson, 2016). Contrary to popular belief, CT does not require computer programming skills (Yadav, Stephenson.& Hong, 2017), and it has practical utility well beyond the computer science discipline (Yadav, Hong, & Stephenson, 2016). This blog post focuses on Scratch, which is one of many resources available for those seeking to develop their CT skills.

Fostering creativity using Scratch

Scratch is a website that allows users to create visual programs using block-based programming language. Scratch fosters creativity by allowing students to actively construct their own information technology (Yadav, Hong, & Stephenson, 2016). This ‘open’ learning environment, in which no specific outcome is specified, encourages students to innovate and take risks (Collard & Looney, 2014). Furthermore, Scratch gives students the opportunity to work independently and explore, which, according to Amabile (1990), are crucial conditions for fostering creativity.

Classroom implementation

Scratch has obvious applications in STEM subjects given the numerical and highly sequenced nature of subject matter in these disciplines. Its place in such subjects is supported by a recent study showed that using CT ideas significantly improved students understanding of mathematical concepts (Caleo, Moreno-Le, & Robles, 2015). However, Scratch can also be incorporated into subjects that fall outside of the STEM disciplines, as demonstrated by the example I created below. As shown by this project, one potential application of Scratch is for students to create quizzes for other students to teach and reinforce content.

Click here to play the quiz!

Scratch is a great resource for teachers to use in lessons as it assists in developing a number of the general capabilities required by the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2016). In addition to literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, Scratch fosters critical and creative thinking skills by encouraging students to determine the relationships between inputs and outputs in order to solve problems (Yadav, Hong, & Stephenson, 2016).

Limitations

The main challenge of using Scratch is that it can take some time to identify where the problem is in the coding, especially when it is complex and lengthy. In this respect, it may be difficult for teachers to move between students and provide assistance to them in a timely manner.

References

ACARA. (2016). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general-capabilities.

Amabile, T, M. (1990), Within you, without you: the social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In M. A. Runco., & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Cresshill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Caleo, L, A., Moreno-Le, H., E., & Robles, G. (2015). Developing mathematical thinking with scratch an experiment with 6th grade students. In Design for teaching and learning in a networked world (pp. 17-27). Springer International Publishing.

Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3): 348-363.

University of California San Francisco. (2019). Computational Health Sciences. Retrieved from http://precisionmedicine.ucsfg.edu/computational-health-sciences.

Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications for the Association for Computing Machinery, 60(4): 55-62.

Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. Technology Trends, 60: 565-568.

3D printing (3DP) is a relatively new technology that enables computerised designs to be transformed into tangible three-dimensional products. It is rapidly growing in popularity, with the world market expected to reach 21 billion US dollars during 2020 (Kwon, 2017). The primary benefit of 3DP is that it enables prototypes and designs to be produced in a cheap and timely manner (Kwon, 2017).

3DP in education

3DP has value in educational settings as it provides students with the opportunity to interact with 3D structures as tangible objects, rather than having to visualise them based on two-dimensional representations (Da Veiga Beltrame et al., 2017). This enables students to form intuitive understanding of the properties of objects by drawing on their “well-developed modes of human sensation” (Da Veiga Beltrame et al., 2017, pp. 7). For example, science students could use 3DP to familiarise themselves with the properties of scientific objects, such as molecules, that cannot be observed or handled in their normal proportions.

Fostering Creativity

3DP is particularly useful for prototyping designs, and this is the aspect of 3DP that most allows student creativity to thrive. Prototyping could be used in various subjects. For example, students could build weapons of war in a history class, or sculptures in an art class. Pink (2011) suggests that reflection and critique are essential elements of the creative process as they provide the opportunity to improve initial ideas. In this respect, 3DP fosters creativity by allowing students to examine their initial designs and to enhance later models. This iterative process allows students to incrementally improve designs, and is likely yield much more creative ideas than would a single-step process.

Furthermore, the opportunity to utilise a novel technology with abilities beyond merely accessing and managing information is likely to create student interest, enjoyment, and engagement, which have all been identified as important elements in fostering creative energy (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Song, 2018).

Potential Limitations

Despite its potential benefits 3DP has numerous practical difficulties. Generally only one student can print at once, and printing is slow and time-consuming. Although teachers could create designs and print them for students before class, this would fail to utilise the creativity capacity that makes 3DP printers so appealing.

Additionally, the machines are still novel and therefore little research has investigated how best to utilise the technology for educational and creative purposes (Kwon, 2017). Furthermore, teachers are likely to have to invest time and effort into becoming competent with the machines and determining the most effective way to incorporate them to achieve creativity (Song, 2018).

Getting Started

3D Printers are available at Officeworks and various other technology stores. The entry level price is approximately $300, however the most advanced machines go into the tens of thousands of dollars. The cheapest model at Officeworks is the safe and portable Da Vinci nano, which features in the video below.

References

Da Veiga Beltrame, E., Tyrwhitt-Drake, E., Roy, I., & Shalaby, R., Suckale, J., & Pomeranz Krummel, D. (2017). 3D Printing of biomolecular models for research and pedagogy. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 121: 1-8.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569-598.

Kwon, Y. M. (2017). Case study on 3D printing education in fashion design course. Fashion and Textiles, 4(26): 1-20.

Pink, D. (2011). Creative fluency. In L. Crocket, I. Jukes, A. Churches (Eds.), Literacy is not enough – 21st Century fluencies for the digital age. (pp. 43-54). Corwin.

Song, M. J. (2018). Learning to teach 3D printing in schools: how do teachers in Korea prepare to integrate 3D printing technology into classrooms? Educational Media International, 55(3): 183-198.

The Apple Pencil is a product designed for iPad Pros, which enables the functions of traditional writing devices to be applied to the digital realm. This accessory provides a convenient and efficient method of hand-writing, drawing, colouring, marking-up and otherwise altering digitally-stored files and pictures, as demonstrated in the below video.

Introducing the Apple Pencil

The creative potential of the Apple Pencil is maximised when it is used in conjunction with one of the many apps with features that enhance the product’s design capabilities. One such example is ArtRage, which enables users to create sophisticated digital images using the various tools available to users, each providing a unique visual effect.

Speed painting using ArtRage

A tool for creativity

The Apple Pencil can be used to achieve both of the elements of creativity proposed by Beghetto & Kaufman (2010). They propose that rather than merely requiring originality, creativity also requires task appropriateness, which refers to whether a student’s work conforms to the requirements of the set task. From this perspective, the Apple Pencil is advantageous it creates the opportunity for tasks to be completed within the confines of specified boundaries while also being unique and personalized.

For example, in a hypothetical task students may be instructed to draw and label a plant cell. Though student’s completed diagrams would be sure to vary widely, the fundamental concepts and key points would align. As such, the Apple Pencil provides a means of achieving these two components of creativity simultaneously.

Examples: Diagrams of cell

• 

• 

Potential limitations

The most obvious limitation of the Apple Pencil is that students may become preoccupied with the aesthetic details of their work at the expense of learning outcomes. In response, teachers must ensure the set tasks that encourage students to move beyond the popular and unsophisticated notions of creativity merely involving brainstorming and beautification, and instead emphasise other elements of creativity, such as overcoming challenges (Loveless, Burton, & Turvey, 2006).

Furthermore, the financial costs of purchasing the pencils (in addition to iPads and apps) may be an obstacle for learning institutions with tight budgets. If this results in students students having to work in pairs or groups, creativity may be stifled if individuals feel they lack control of their own learning (Wheeler, Waite & Bromfield, 2002).

Final thoughts

The Apple Pencil is an excellent tool to encourage student creativity while simultaneously achieving learning outcomes. Teachers who thoughtfully design tasks will provide a fun and engaging learning environment for students to build their information and communication technology skills.

References

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010), ‘Fundamentals of creativity’. Educational Leadership, 70, 10-15.

Loveless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2006), ‘Developing conceptual frameworks for creativity, ICT and teacher education’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 3-13.

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