Literacy+review+exploring+the+use+of+animation


 * || What is the theoretical basis for animation editing software in education? ||  ||
 * Literature review exploring the educational value of collaborative animation software || CB230996S, SID 0414622, 12 January 2007 ||

An attempt is made to ground the software in learning theory and to describe a classroom environment in which the software can be used creatively. Learning opportunities and their educational benefits are discussed in the light of recent research, and barriers to the creative use of the software are described. ||
 * || [[image:http://research.fluxtime.com/uv/y2/m5/topic.gif width="320" height="270"]] || This literature review aims to explore the educational value of collaborative animation software in the light of learning theory and research.

Consumer level animation editing is an emerging field. Only recently animation software has become available that is easy enough for non-professionals to use, and only recently standard personal computers have become powerful enough to handle vector animation. Therefore, very little research has been carried out to explore and evaluate educational uses and benefits of digital animation editing or moving image editing in general. This lack of a research history became apparent in the literature search carried out for this review, and is also mentioned in some of the studies discussed here (e.g. Sefton-Green and Parker 2000, Burn and Leach 2004). There is however a large body of learning theory and research on related aspects, which can help to identify suitable uses and potential benefits of digital animation editing in an educational context. The term ** collaborative animation software ** hints at three aspects that resonate with certain fields in learning theory and offer specific arguments for practical uses in educational contexts: > ** Collaboration ** involves communication, negotiation, organisation, peer tutoring, sharing resources. There is a large body of research suggesting that social interaction, feedback and reflection help us conceptualising our learning (Dyer and Johnson 2005, Vygotsky 1978, Wenger 1998), and that peer tutoring has unique benefits for pupils' learning (Ryokai 1999, Wheeler 2003). Research involving children in collaborative multimedia projects shows how audio-visual and time-based software can be used in educational contexts, and provides pointers to possible gains and pitfalls (Cappellatti et al 2004, Ryokai 2002, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000). > ** Animation ** involves imagination, storytelling, design, craft, multimedia literacy. Research reports emphasise the importance of media education in a society where new media are ubiquitous and become increasingly influential, suggesting learners must make the step from consumer to producer to fully understand new media (Bazalgette 2001, Buckingham 1996, Burn and Parker 2001, Kirschenmann 2001). Studies also suggest that multimedia projects can help learners in developing narrative, meaning-making and literacy skills (Fusai 2003, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000), can motivate and engage students (Long 2001, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000), and can address different modal preferences. (Gardner 1983, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000). > ** Software / ICT ** involves interaction, experimentation, technology literacy. The transformative role of ICT in learning and teaching has been researched extensively (e.g. Papert 1980, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993a, 1993b, Resnick 1996, 1998, Vincent 2001), but some theorists see this research still in its infancy (Papert 1988), and there are voices claiming that larger, contextual changes are needed to take full advantage of the new possibilities in education offered by digital technologies (Kirschenmann 2001, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000, Wheeler 2003). Also relevant for this discussion are overarching themes like **Literacy** and **Creativity**, which are educational objectives in any modern curriculum (Baynes 2000, Bazalgette 2001, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000). > Studies argue that **Literacy** needs to be redefined in a society pervaded by information technology, new media and electronic communication, and that ICT and multimedia software play an important role in preparing learners to function and communicate in a modern world (Buckingham 1993, Long 2001, Papert 1993, Stankiewicz 2003). > **Creativity** pervades all areas of teaching and learning and is thought to play an important role in meeting future challenges in a fast changing knowledge economy (Baynes 2000, Bell 2000, NACCCE 1999, Prentice 2000). Creativity is closely related to play, imagination and motivation (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, Fusai 2003, Vygotsky 1978), and suitable ICT applications can offer an excellent environment for learners to develop these qualities (Kafai 1996, Papert 1988, 1999, Resnick 1996, 1998). While the term //educational value// can be interpreted very broadly, this literature focuses largely on educational value in the classroom. Acknowledging that the value of any software depends as much on its features as on how it is used, and that there is only very limited research available about the use of collaborative animation software in an educational context, the main questions in this review are: > 1 - What is the theoretical basis for animation editing software in education? > 2 - What is an appropriate classroom environment for collaborative animation editing? > 3 - Which learning opportunities and learning benefits can be created? > 4 - What are the barriers to realising the educational benefits? To answer these questions, this review draws on a wide variety of research reports and studies ranging from a very close topic match (collaborative animation editing in education) to a fairly loose topic match covering only specific aspects in this context (e.g. the discussion of //literacy// in the new media age). The table below shows the broad range of topics covered in the reviewed literature: > || animation editing software || || new media education || || collaboration || > || || || || || || > || moving image software || || art education || || creativity || > || || || || || || > || multimedia software || || literacy (multi-literacy) || || motivation || > || || || || || || > || storytelling software || || storytelling || || cognition || > || || || || || || > || ICT || || cross-curricular || || constructivist learning ||

//Note: In some cases this review makes references to "multimedia projects" instead of "animation projects" or to "moving image software" instead of "animation software". When these alternative names are used, the argument refers to a common quality in the respective entities, e.g. animation software is a specialised kind of moving-image software, both can be used to construct a narrative.//


 * == || [of Contents|» TOC] ||


 * [[image:http://research.fluxtime.com/uv/y2/m5/pianos_stereos.gif width="320" height="230"]] || In order to stake out possible educational uses for collaborative animation editing software, it is necessary to first describe the fundamental ideas and learning theories that influenced its functionality and design. What kind of learning is the software meant to support?

Where does it fit into learning theory? Is it a Stereo or a Piano? (Resnick 1996) || "Long before the computer, the education world was divided into two camps. One emphasized the development of the child and the child's active construction of an understanding of the world ... [The other camp] believed in a more curriculum-centered approach ..." (Papert 1993b). These two approaches are commonly known as //Constructivism// and //Instructionism//, and the arrival of information and communication technologies in the education arena only "sharpens these existing cleavages in educational theory" (Papert 1993b). Transposed to educational software, the difference between these two approaches is brought to the point in Resnick's often cited paper "Pianos not stereos", in which he argues that "By learning to play the piano, you can become a creator (not just a consumer) of music, expressing yourself musically in ever-more complex ways. As a result, you can develop a much deeper relationship with (and deeper understanding of) music. In the field of educational technology, there has been too much emphasis on the equivalent of stereos and CDs, and not enough emphasis on computational pianos." (Resnick 1996) Collaborative animation software clearly is //constructional software//. It can be used in many different contexts and subjects and enables learners to externalise their imagination in ever-more complex artwork, which can be discussed and reviewed to facilitate reflection and understanding. Constructional software can be seen as an "open space for possible activities and experiences" (Resnick 1996), where students are in control of their learning and experiment with the tools available to express their ideas and emotions.
 * //Instructionism// views learning as passing on knowledge from one person to another, e.g. from teacher to student (Rieber 1998). It's view is that "To get better education, we must improve instruction. And if we're going to use computers, we'll make the computers do the instruction" (Papert 1993b). This view leads to the use of computers as instructional devices to provide information, optimise knowledge transfer, and monitor students' progression (Kafai 1996, Fusai 2003).
 * //Constructivism// denies the idea of knowledge being "transmitted like information in a pipeline" (Papert 1980), and refers to learning as "a process where individuals construct their own knowledge through meaningful interactions with the world" (Rieber 1998). The constructivist approach to learning emphasizes authentic, challenging projects for learners ( Hsiao 1996), and in this context computers can provide a "very, very rich" environment for learning (Papert 1980).
 * Instructional software, the equivalent of stereos and CDs, is seen by constructivists as "enhanced page turning devices" which offer "few opportunities for children to go beyond button-pushing and mouse-clicking in their interaction with technology" (Kafai 1996). This type of software usually is subject-bound and of a //closed nature//, i.e. one cannot create anything new with it.
 * Constructional software on the other hand, the equivalent of computational pianos, "enables people to express themselves in ever-more complex ways, deepening their relationships with new domains of knowledge" (Resnick 1996). This type of software usually is not subject-bound and of an //open nature//, i.e. one can use it to create new things that exist outside the software.


 * == || [of Contents|» TOC] ||


 * [[image:http://research.fluxtime.com/uv/y2/m5/classroom.gif width="341" height="191"]] || Just like any other tool, the value of a piece of software depends on how it is used:

"The classroom context is as important as the digital tool..." (Facer and Williamson 2004) To make meaningful references to the educational value of collaborative animation editing software, it is necessary to first describe how this kind of software can be used in an educational setting. || Constructivist and social learning ideas have changed our conceptions of effective learning, and one of the most consistent themes to emerge is that learning is an active process that greatly benefits from social interaction and communication. Literature about educational uses of multimedia and moving-image software usually describes constructivist classroom environments in which the software is used in collaborative project-based learning activities (Burn and Parker 2001, Cappelletti 2004, Fusai 2003, Grone 1999, Long 2001, Kent 2005, Kirschenmann 2001, Parker 2001, Rieber 1998, Ryokai 2002, Sefton-Green and Parker 2001, Vincent 2001, Wheeler 2003). These projects create opportunities for students to experiment with the software, develop and follow own ideas, collaborate in the production of artwork, peer tutor each other in small teams, share resources and critically review and evaluate each other's work. They put into practice core ideas of modern understandings of constructivist learning theory (Papert 1999, Rieber 1998) which can be traced back to Piaget's(1970) ideas of how individuals actively construct knowledge by interacting with their environment, Vygotsky's (1978) ideas of learning through social interaction and communication, and Dewey's (1916) ideas of learning through democratic and social means. Resnick (1998) reports a "growing recognition of the educational value of design projects", and emphasises the importance of trying to engage children in creating something that is "meaningful to themselves or to others around them". According to Kearsley's and Shneiderman's (1999) //Engagement Theory//, meaningful and authentic learning activities increase student's motivation and help them transfer their learning to real world contexts. This view is also supported by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) who points out that the chief impediments to learning are not cognitive, but a lack of motivation and a failure to make learning enjoyable. Sefton-Green and Parker (2000) suggest one way of making learning more enjoyable and relevant is to legitimise children's prior experience with moving image texts from popular culture by engaging them in multimedia projects where they can transfer their enthusiasm and experience in the production of their own moving image texts. There are several accounts in the literature of the positive impact of multimedia projects on students' engagement and motivation, e.g. Vincent (2001) observed positive changes in "behavioural attitudes and motivation" while Long (2001) observed "excellent participation and sudden development of a work ethic". Multimedia and moving-image software is typically used in the context of Art, Literacy, ICT or Media education (e.g. Burn and Parker 2001, Fusai 2003, Kent 2005, Sefton-Green and Parker 2000) with a strong cross-curricular outlook touching a variety of subjects. Long (2001) states "It is clear that the multi-modal work engaged in during this project allowed access to new forms of creativity but challenged where that creativity was placed in the curriculum" and calls for better integration with other departments like Music or English to support multimedia projects. Collaborative multimedia projects are constructivist in nature, and the teacher's role is primarily to create a culture of shared learning in the classroom where "all contributions are welcomed and constructively evaluated" (Facer and Williamson 2004). Supporting this view, Wheeler (2003) points out that "encouraging creativity in the classroom is primarily the task of the teacher" and by Cappellatti (2004) emphasises that cooperation between children " must be established and appropriately maintained". On a similar note, Vincent (2001) reports that he established a constructionist classroom environment "in which children were exhorted to dare to experiment, play and problem set". This underlines the emphasis on self-directed exploration and experimentation in constructivist learning theory, which enables students to construct their knowledge and find their own ways of approaching problems (Papert 1999, Piaget 1970, Resnick 1998, Vincent 2001). While constructivist in nature, collaborative multimedia projects also involve instructional teacher-led activities at key stages. Long (2001) describes how at the beginning of a project he gives a systematic introduction to the software's capabilities, demonstrating tools and techniques to accomplish common tasks. He also discusses background information when framing a topic for students to work on and an outline brief describing the expected outcome. Reflection, iteration and internalised thinking (Vigotsky 1990) are essential elements in constructivist collaborative projects and Maor (1999) explicitly calls on teachers to allow time for "reflection, debriefing sessions and whole-class sharing of ideas and experiences". In these whole-class sessions students can reflect on their learning (meta-cognition) by discussing the challenges and problems they encountered and the processes and techniques they used to solve them, and they can interpret and comment on each other's work to better understand their own and others' minds, feelings and emotions (Bruner 1996, Fusai 2003).


 * == || [of Contents|» TOC] ||

Identifying and unpacking these learning opportunities in the light of recent research can help to describe the educational benefits of collaborative animation software. ||
 * [[image:http://research.fluxtime.com/uv/y2/m5/learning.gif width="320" height="270"]] || Project-based collaborative digital animation editing in a constructivist classroom environment is a diverse, interdisciplinary and engaging activity that creates numerous learning opportunities for students.

**Resource Sharing**
Burn and Parker (2001) describe the dynamics of sharing resources that can be "altered, remade, remodelled, revised, re-edited by other children in the group" as a dynamic interplay between production and reception, in which children at one moment admire another’s design and in the next moment appropriate it as part of their own work. "It is a space governed by contradictory motivations of collaboration and competition: they save; they retrieve; they borrow; they steal" (Burn and Parker 2001). Sharing, editing and transforming resources for one's own purposes helps students to better understand the nature of digital media where everything can be copied and reproduced. It lets children experience firsthand the shift in balance between production and consumption currently underway in the new media environment (Bazalgette 2001), where published material is constantly re-worked, sub-versioned and personalised, blurring the boundaries between reception and production, and offering authentic discussion points about intellectual ownership, originality and plagiarism.

Peer Tutoring
Facer and Williamson (2004) suggest that "collaboration in its truest sense is to do with the joint development of understanding", and peer tutoring can play an important part in this. Ryokai (2003) points out that peer tutoring is not a one-way transmission of knowledge from an expert to a novice, but that children often take turns at being the more capable peer and help each other by " modeling, inviting, assisting, directing, tutoring, negotiating, affirming, and contradicting each other in literacy activities ". He argues that even if children lack the sophistication and knowledge of a teacher, and often "settle for an ungrammatical use of language or may not come to a solution", peer support offers unique learning opportunities for children and cites availability and co-equal status as the main benefits. Similar benefits are described by Wheeler (2003), who observed how in collaborative group activities "peer tutoring offers children the chance to develop their creative thinking as they attempt to explain a solution to a problem to another member of the group".

Critical Viewings
Sefton-Green and Parker (2001) point out the importance of "formal opportunities to show work to peers and respond to feedback" to help students see their work from a more objective viewpoint, which is further emphasised by Prentice (2000) who asserts that children "need to be taught how to reflect". In her discussion of //studio conversations//, Kent (2005) puts peer review in critical viewings in the context of postmodernism and emphasises their role in breaking down "perceived truths, agreed-upon styles and mono-culturalism". Taking a cognitive approach, Bruner (1996) points out that interpretative activities are a way for humans to know each other's minds and that through collaboration children can negotiate interpretations with others to achieve consciousness and understanding. Resnick (1996) adds another perspective by describing the products of design projects as "external shadows of the designer's internal mental models" and arguing that critical viewings provide an opportunity to "reflect upon then revise and extend their internal models of the world".

Experimentation
Collaborative multimedia projects give ample opportunity for self-directed exploration and experimentation, which in constructivist learning theory is seen as the means by which students actively construct their knowledge and find their own ways of approaching problems (Papert 1999, Piaget 1970, Resnick 1998). On a similar note, NACCCE (1999) mentions that freedom to experiment is essential for creativity and describes finding original ways of approaching and solving problems as a defining aspect of creativity. One of the main aspects of experimentation is the ability to revise and rework material, which is described by (Burn and Parker 2001) as "essential to the collaborative combinatorial processes of composition which mark this making of a moving image text." Software that allows children to "experiment and revise their work in a low-risk environment" (Facer and Williamson 2004) plays an important role in this context.

Media Production
Media literacy and the ability to use other communicative modes than language become increasingly important in out new media world. Sefton-Green and Parker (2001) argue that "making media is a crucial way of developing critical understanding about the media", while Bazalgette (2001) points out the shifting balance between media production and media consumption and the need to prepare children for an emancipated and active role in the new media world. Multimedia projects play an important role in this context as they offer students ample opportunities to express themselves in moving images and to learn about technologies and techniques in media production.

Storytelling
Storytelling lies at the heart of moving image media production. Children practice verbal storytelling when negotiating storylines in collaborative projects, multimodal storytelling when producing their story with using various media, and they re-tell, interpret and clarify stories in critical viewings, thereby learning "to express themselves and make sense of the external world" (Fusai 2003). Storytelling can be seen as the act of constructing narrative, which is seen by Bruner (1990) as a primitive function of human psychology fundamental to the construction of meaning. Sefton-Green and Parker (2001) relate the construction of moving image narratives to a broad-based literacy education and emphasise the importance of children being able to construct and deconstruct moving image texts. Yet another perspective is offered by Vincent (2001), who points at the new possibilities opened up by multi-modal storytelling for children with a strong visual learning preference.

ICT
While not aiming to teach discrete ICT skills, collaborative animation projects offer students plenty of opportunities to advance their computer skills in authentic and meaningful situations, which makes it easier to internalise these skills and transfer them to other situations (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, Kearsley and Shneiderman, 1999 ). In addition to the skills aspect, collaborative animation projects "give a cultural and expressive function to ICT activities, which is an important correction to the current emphasis on information retrieval and manipulation" (Sefton-Green and Parker 2001).

Creativity
Our understanding of creativity has changed over the past century (Loveless 2002), moving on from earlier conceptions of a special trait in exceptional individuals to a broader view of "little c creativity" (Craft 2000) supporting people in making choices in everyday life. Discussions about creativity in education usually assume this second more universal view and often cite a definition of creativity as "imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value" (NACCCE 1999). Collaborative animation projects address every single point in this definition. Creating animated stories is an imaginative activity bridging the gap between our internal models and the real world, thereby offering opportunities for meaning-making and interpreting reality. It produces outcomes as the result of externalising ideas and constantly switching between generative and evaluative modes. The outcomes are original in the context of a peer group and a value can be placed on them by relating them to the declared intention.


 * == || [of Contents|» TOC] ||

In the same way that the educational value of collaborative animation software largely depends it is used, the barriers to realising the potential benefits also depend largely on external factors. Loveless (2002) identifies the "creative ethos of schools and classrooms and the approaches to the uses of ICT " as the main barriers to realising the creative potential of new technologies, which is echoed by Wheeler (2003) who points out that "rather than using the tremendous potential of the divergent, lateral navigation associated with this medium, some ICT use in schools places creativity in a straitjacket." Looking for systemic reasons, Kimbell (2000) blames regulatory organisations like Ofsted that "value standards and management over creativity" while Loveless (2002) mentions the "focus upon school performance" with league tables, Standard Assessment Tests, and National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. On an individual level, Sefton-Green and Parker (2000) emphasise the role of the teacher and argue that " even if accessible and fun moving image software was readily available to all schools in the country, it would not make much of a difference unless teachers were motivated to use the packages in educationally dynamic ways which develop children’s learning". There is still some reluctance to accept computers as creative tools, and "art teachers are especially reserved when it comes to placing a computer next to their easel." (Kirschenmann 2001)


 * == || [of Contents|» TOC] ||

The aim of this literature review was to shed light on the educational value of collaborative animation software by grounding it in learning theory, identifying an appropriate classroom environment for its use, and looking at the learning opportunities this use creates. Only two research reports were found on the immediate topic of //collaborative digital animation editing// (Burn and Parker 2001, Sefton-Green and Parker 2002), but a wide range of literature was available on the many related aspects in the context of education. In answer to my first research question, collaborative animation editing software is constructional in nature and firmly grounded in modern conceptions of constructivist learning theory (Papert 1991, Resnick 1996). The literature is very clear about the fundamental differences between instructional and constructional software. Instructional software focuses on knowledge transfer and the provision of information, while constructional software supports the construction of knowledge through interaction, experimentation and //making things//. Constructional software is low in content and therefore has little to offer in an instructional teaching environment. It is however rich in tools and creative possibilities, which make it a useful platform for active experimentation and fashioning. This aptitude for constructivist learning answers my second research question and points to a classroom environment where the focus is on the student instead of the teacher (Hooper and Rieber 1995), leading to improved motivation (Vincent 2001) and better transferability of knowledge (Papert 1980) Collaborative animation projects in a constructivist classroom environment offer numerous learning opportunities in the contexts of collaboration, media production, literacy and creativity, with ICT skills being a by-product of using the software as a platform for creative learning. The literature describes a multitude of learning opportunities, often involving cross-platform knowledge and skills, which gives rich answers to my third research question, and describes educational value as a combination of software features that support certain activities and appropriate use that turns them into learning opportunities. The literature also describes barriers to realising the educational benefits of animation editing software, which can be identified on a policy and regulatory level (Kimbell 2000), on a school level (Loveless 2002) and on a teacher level (Sefton-Green and Parker 2000). This answers my fourth research question, and, considering the very positive findings mentioned before, poses a fifth question: What can be done to promote the appropriate use of collaborative animation software in education, so that more students can benefit from the learning opportunities it affords? Firstly, more research is needed that specifically addresses the unique characteristics of vector animation editing, which according to Sefton-Green and Parker (2000) "provides the film-maker with complete control over everything that is on the screen". From a constructivist learning point of view, this puts students even more in control and widens the scope for experimentation and active knowledge construction. Further research can help to identify appropriate uses and answer questions about educational value. Secondly, the reluctance of teachers to accept computers as empowering and creative tools beyond data retrieval and manipulation must be addressed. Action and research is needed to promote collaborative animation editing in constructivist classroom environments and to create teaching materials that support teachers in planning, managing and evaluating projects. Teachers are on the ground and their positive experiences can facilitate cultural and policy changes in schools and regulatory organisations. Thirdly, the software must be developed in ways that optimally support the creation of learning opportunities. The examples in the literature usually imply certain software features, e.g. sharing resources requires a common repository; creating multi-media narratives requires sound and text support; a low-risk environment to experiment and revise work requires undo/redo functionality. Involving teachers and students in a participatory design process can help to meet educational requirements and augment the software's value as a learning tool.

~ o ~


 * == || [of Contents|» TOC] ||

Ananny, M. (2002). //Supporting Children’s Collaborative Authoring: Practicing Written Literacy While Composing Oral Texts.// Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Boulder, CO. [online] Available from: http://tangible.media.mit.edu/content/papers/pdf/ananny_CSCL2002.pdf. [cited 23 December 2006]. Baynes, K. (2000). //Gallery of the Future: New Directions in Arts Education.// Journal of Art and Design Education, 19(1): 37-43. Bazalgette, C. (2001). //Making Movies Matter or Whatever Happened to the Sabre-Tooth Curriculum?// Journal of Art and Design Education, 20(3): 264-273. Bell, G. (2000). //Towards a New Art Curriculum: Reflections on Pot Fillers and Fire Lighters.// Journal of Art and Design Education, 19(1): 10-19. Bruner, J. S. (1990). //Acts of Meaning//. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1996). //The Culture of Education.// Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buckingham, D. (1993). //Changing Literacies: Media Education and////Modern Culture//. London: London Institute of Education. Buckingham, D. (1996). //Moving Images: Understanding Children’s Emotional Responses to Television//. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bullon, K. and Selwyn, N. (2000). //Primary school children’s use of ICT.// British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4): 321-332 Burn, A., and Parker, D. (2001) //Making your mark: digital inscription, animation, and a new visual semiotic//. Education, Communication and Information, 1 (2): 155-179 Burn, A. and Leach, J. (2004). //A systematic review of the impact of ICT on the learning of literacies associated with moving image texts in English, 5-16//. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. [online] Available from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel%5Creview_groups%5Cenglish%5Ceng_rv5/eng_rv5.pdf. [cited 23 December 2006]. Cappelletti, A. et al. (2004). //Enforcing Cooperative Storytelling: First Studies//. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Aug. 30-Sept. 1, 2004, Joensuu, Finland. [online] Available from: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357420. [cited 05 January 2007]. Cordes, C. and Miller, E. (2000). //Fool's Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in Childhood//. Maryland: Alliance for Childhood. [online] Available from: http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/computers_reports_fools_gold_download.htm. [cited 30 December 2006]. Craft, A. (1999). //Creative development in the early years: some implications of policy for practice//. The Curriculum Journal 10(1): 135-150. Craft, A. (2000). //Creativity across the primary curriculum: framing and developing practice.// London: Routledge. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). //Literacy and Intrinsic Motivation//. Deadalus 119(2): 115. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). //Thoughts About Education//. [online] Available from: http://www.newhorizons.org/future/Creating_the_Future/crfut_csikszent.html. [cited 05 January 2007]. Csikszentmihalyi, M (1996). //Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention//. New York: HarperCollins. Dewey, J. (1916). //Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education//. New York: Macmillan. Dyer J. and Johnson J. (2005) //User-defined content in a constructivist learning environment.// eLearning Papers eLearning Europa. [online] Available from: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11007.pdf. [cited 05 January 2007]. Fusai, C. et al (2003). //Media composition and narrative performance at school//. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2): 177 Gardner, H. (1983). //Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences//. London: William Heinemann. Gibson, H. (2005). //What creativity isn't: The presumptions of instrumental and individual justifications for creativity in education//. British Journal of Educational Studies 58(2): 147-167. Healy, J. (1998). //Failure to Connect: How computers affect children's minds for better and worse//. New York: Simon & Schuster. Holzinger, A. et al. (2005). //Multi Media e-Learning Software TRIANGLE//. [online] Available from: http://user.meduni-graz.at/andreas.holzinger/holzinger/papers%20en/A44%20MOTIVATION%20AND%20LEARNING.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2006 Hooper, S. (1992). //Cooperative Learning and Computer-Based Instruction//. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3): 21-38. Hooper, S., and Rieber, L. P. (1995). //Teaching with technology. In Ornstein A.C. (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice.// Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hsiao, L. D. (1996). //Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.// [online] Available from: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html. [cited 04 January 2007]. Kafai, Y. (1996). //Software by kids for kids//. Communication of the ACM, 39(4): 38–39. Kearsley, G. and Shneiderman, B. (1999). //Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning//. [online] Available from: http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm. [cited 10 January 2007]. Kimbell, R. (2000). //Creativity in Crisis.// The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(3): 206-211. Kirschenmann, J. (2001). //The Electronic Prometheus and its Consequences for Art Education.// Journal of Art and Design Education, 20(1): 11-18. Kress, G. (1997). // Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy //. London: Routledge. Long, S. (2001). //Multimedia in the Art Curriculum: Crossing Boundaries.// Journal of Art and Design Education, 20(3): 255-263. NACCCE (1999). //All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education.// Sudbury, National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education: DfEE and DCMS Papert, S. (1980). //Constructionism vs. Instructionism//. [online] Available from: http://www.papert.org/articles/const_inst/const_inst1.html. [cited 04 January 2007]. Papert, S. (1987). //Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking.// [online] Available from: http://www.papert.org/articles/ComputerCriticismVsTechnocentric.html. [cited 04 January 2007]. Papert, S. (1988). //Computer as Material: Messing About with Time.// Teachers College Record, 89(3): 408-417 Papert, S. (1991). //Situating Constructionism.// [online] Available from: http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html. [cited 04 January 2007]. Papert, S. (1993a). //Obsolete Skill Set: The 3 Rs.// Wired Magazine 1(2) May/June 1993. [online] Available from: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.02/1.2_papert.html. [cited 04 January 2007]. Papert, S. (1993b). //A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking About the School of the Future.// [online] Available from: http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html. [cited 04 January 2007]. Papert S. (1999). //Ghost in the Machine: Seymour Papert on How Computers Fundamentally Change the Way Kids Learn.// [online] Available from: http://www.papert.org/articles/GhostInTheMachine.html. [cited 23 December 2006]. Parker, D. (2001). //Moving Image Media and Future Literacies: the Role of Cineliteracy in Curriculum Development.// Journal of Art and Design Education, 20(3): 296-301. Piaget, J. (1970). //Genetic epistemology//. New York: Columbia University Press. Prentice, R. (2000). //Creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education.// The Curriculum Journal, 11(2): 145-156. Resnick, M., Bruckman, A. and Martin, F. (1996). //Pianos not stereos: creating computational construction kits//. Interactions, 3 (6) 64-71 Resnick, M., Bruckman, A. and Martin, F. (1996). //Technologies for Lifelong Kindergarten//. [online] Available from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/lifelongk/. [cited 04 January 2007]. Ryokai, K. and Cassell, J. (1999). //Computer Support for Children's Collaborative Fantasy Play and Storytelling.// Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Palo Alto, CA. [online] Available from: http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/justine/publications/CSCL99.pdf. [cited 23 December 2006]. Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C. and Cassell, J.(2002). //Literacy Learning by Storytelling with a Virtual Peer//. Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Boulder, CO. [online] Available from: http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/justine/publications/CSCL2002.pdf. [cited 23 December 2006]. Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C. and Cassell, J. (2003). //Virtual Peers as Partners in Storytelling and Literacy Learning//. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2): 195-208 Sefton-Green, J. and Parker, D. (2000). //EDIT-PLAY: How children use edutainment software to tell stories//. BFI Education Research Report. [online] Available from: http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/research/teachlearn/pdf/editplay.pdf. [cited 23 December 2006]. Stankiewicz M.A. (2003). //Between Technology and Literacy.// Journal of Art and Design Education, 22(3): 316-324. Vincent, J. (2001). //The role of visually rich technology in facilitating children’s writing//. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3): 242-251 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). //Mind in society: The development of psychological processes//. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). //Communities of Practice.// Cambridge University Press. New York. Wheller S. et al (2003). //Promoting creative thinking through the use of ICT//. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3): 367-378

Last modified: 12 January 2007 = =