Priciples in Lego
Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative Thinking Mitchel Resnick, MIT Media Lab
Brad Myers, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Kumiyo Nakakoji, Univ. of Tokyo, Japan
Ben Shneiderman, Univ. of Maryland
Randy Pausch, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Ted Selker, MIT Media Lab
Mike Eisenberg, Univ. Of Colorado Revised October 30, 2005
Introduction We have developed a set of “design principles” to guide the development of new creativity support tools – that is, tools that enable people to express themselves creatively and to develop as creative thinkers. Our goal is to develop improved software and user interfaces that empower users to be not only more productive, but more innovative. Potential users of these interfaces include software and other engineers, diverse scientists, product and graphic designers, architects, educators, students, and many others. Enhanced interfaces could enable more effective searching of intellectual resources, improved collaboration among teams, and more rapid discovery processes. These advanced interfaces should also provide potent support in hypothesis formation, speedier evaluation of alternatives, improved understanding through visualization, and better dissemination of results. For creative endeavors that require composition of novel artifacts (e.g., computer programs, scientific papers, engineering diagrams, symphonies, artwork), enhanced interfaces could facilitate exploration of alternatives, prevent unproductive choices, and enable easy backtracking. Some of these design principles have appeared previously [Myers 2000][Shneiderman 2000][Resnick 2005][Yamamoto 2005][Hewett 2005][Selker 2005]. These principles have emerged through collaborations with a large number of colleagues, in the development of many different creativity support tools, both for children and adults. Some of the principles are also relevant to tools for creating software in general, often called “User Interface Software Tools,” but targeting
Brad Myers, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Kumiyo Nakakoji, Univ. of Tokyo, Japan
Ben Shneiderman, Univ. of Maryland
Randy Pausch, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Ted Selker, MIT Media Lab
Mike Eisenberg, Univ. Of Colorado Revised October 30, 2005
Introduction We have developed a set of “design principles” to guide the development of new creativity support tools – that is, tools that enable people to express themselves creatively and to develop as creative thinkers. Our goal is to develop improved software and user interfaces that empower users to be not only more productive, but more innovative. Potential users of these interfaces include software and other engineers, diverse scientists, product and graphic designers, architects, educators, students, and many others. Enhanced interfaces could enable more effective searching of intellectual resources, improved collaboration among teams, and more rapid discovery processes. These advanced interfaces should also provide potent support in hypothesis formation, speedier evaluation of alternatives, improved understanding through visualization, and better dissemination of results. For creative endeavors that require composition of novel artifacts (e.g., computer programs, scientific papers, engineering diagrams, symphonies, artwork), enhanced interfaces could facilitate exploration of alternatives, prevent unproductive choices, and enable easy backtracking. Some of these design principles have appeared previously [Myers 2000][Shneiderman 2000][Resnick 2005][Yamamoto 2005][Hewett 2005][Selker 2005]. These principles have emerged through collaborations with a large number of colleagues, in the development of many different creativity support tools, both for children and adults. Some of the principles are also relevant to tools for creating software in general, often called “User Interface Software Tools,” but targeting
References: Bergen, D. (2001). Learning in the robotic world: Active or reactive? Childhood Education, 77(4), 249-250. Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). Backing Australia 's ability: An innovation action plan for the future. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Education Queensland (2001). New Basics Project; Technical Paper. Retrieved July 1 2003. From: http://www.education.qut.edu.au/nortonsj/Curriculum/New-Basics-paper.rtf Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In Handbook of qualitative research. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), (pp. 567-606). Thousand Oaks, Sage. Lego Educational Division. (2003). Simple and powered mechanisms; Teacher’s guide. UK. Levien, K Malcolm, C. (2002). Science and technology education in the smart state: But what is smart? (Science works for the smart state). Brisbane, Qld: Education Queensland. Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem-solving skills of middle school students: Educators ' experiences with the LEGO mindstorms robotic invention system. Clearing House, 74(4), 211-214. McRobbie, C., Stein, C., & Ginns, I. (2001). Exploring designelly thinking of students as novice designers. Research in Science Education, 31, 91-116. McRobbie, C. J., Norton, S. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2003, April). Student designing in a robotics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situated constructivism. Retrieved February 21, 2002. From: http://www.papert.com/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html. Queensland School Curriculum Council. (QSCC). (2002). Technology: Years 1-10 syllabus. Brisbane, Qld: The State of Queensland (Queensland School Curriculum Council). Queensland School Curriculum Council. (1999). Science Years 1 to 10 Syllabus. Brisbane, QLD: The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council. Queensland Studies Authority Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.