International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcci

Research paper

Young children’s design thinking skills in makerspaces

∗
Maria Hatzigianni a , , Michael Stevenson b , Garry Falloon b , Matt Bower b , Anne Forbes b
a
University of Melbourne, Australia
b
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The maker movement, expansion of makerspaces in schools and design activities utilising 3D apps
Received 15 September 2019 and 3D printing technologies, allow educators to foster creativity through play and experimentation.
Received in revised form 7 October 2020 However, little research exists to inform practice in makerspaces, particularly with young children,
Accepted 17 October 2020
under eight years of age. This study adopted constructivist-referred methodology and examined
Available online 28 November 2020
how thirty-four children from Kindergarten to Grade 2 classrooms (5–8 year olds, three classrooms)
Keywords: designed and printed 3D objects using tablet devices, 3D printers, physical materials and IDEO’s five-
Makerspaces stage design thinking model. Primary data comprised video screen recordings from separate episodes
Maker movement of pairs of children working together. Across the 16 h of analysed video, different manifestations of
Design thinking design thinking were observed. A range of makerspaces activities invoked creative, critical thinking,
IDEO
problem solving and decision-making skills, aligning with the IDEO design process. This study opens a
3D design
powerful new door to rich learning potential for young children engaging in maker activities, and paves
3D printing
Creativity the way for teachers of young children to explore innovative approaches such as a design thinking, in
Problem-solving their everyday practice.
Early childhood © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and widely-accepted learning theory that considers how learners

The maker movement and makerspaces in schools have be-
come increasingly prevalent in recent years. The authors of the
2017 Horizon Report K-12 [1] observe that makerspaces have been
included in the annual report since 2015, signalling the expansion
of the development globally. Definitions of makerspaces tend
to focus on the role of the space and open-ended resources as
an enabler of learning [2] and also on the elements of design,
creation and innovation [3]. For example, Sheridan et al. [4] define
makerspaces as ‘‘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’’ (p. 505). Makerspaces and the maker
movement are, by virtue of their informal nature and public
accessibility, inclusive of all ages, and arguably position young
children as equally capable makers with rights to participate
in, and contribute to, the making movement [5]. The maker
mindset is conceptualised through the theory of Constructionism,
which emphasises child-led activities, where thinking processes
are more valuable than end-products, and exploration and ex-
perimentation are positioned as core to the learning process
[6]. Constructionist thinking draws on constructivism, an older
∗ Correspondence to: 37 Orthodoxou Christianikis Enoseos, 12134, Peristeri,
Athens, Greece.
E-mail address: maria.hatzigianni@unimelb.edu.au (M. Hatzigianni).
construct knowledge through the interaction with experience and
ideas.
In recent times, maker-based design has involved the inte-
gration of digital technologies into practices of designing and
constructing physical, and sometimes virtual, objects [7]. These
activities can be distinguished from traditional arts-and-crafts
by the way in which digital technologies are used to plan and
produce artefacts and facilitate an ethos of open-source sharing
[8].
1.1. Makerspaces and 3D design and printing
The integration of digital technologies in makerspaces can be
expected as new technologies are dynamic and evolve all the
time. Additionally, the worldwide emphasis on developing and
expanding digital skills for young people is growing. In the report
from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment (OECD) in 2016, the importance of universal digital tools
for work readiness is underlined, warning that ‘‘the ‘digital divide’
has become a skills gap between the haves and the have-nots...
digital skills generate a significant return in terms of employ-
ment, income and other social outcomes for those who have
them, but set up barriers to better life opportunities for those
without’’ (OECD [9], p. 9). 3D design and printing are two new
technologies which have gained popularity in the educational
sector and commonly intersect with makerspaces. With the help

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100216
2212-8689/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al.
of these technologies the ability to design and print objects using
affordable software and hardware has facilitated more authen-
tic and situated learning [10]. Others regard the combination
of 3D design and printing tools as an opportunity to draw on
design principles and ideas for inspiration, and create artefacts
that potentially solve larger problems [11]. Elsewhere, there is
substantial focus on the real-world applicability of 3D-printed ob-
jects. For example, in a study by Jafri et al. [12], 3D-printing was
used to support tactile shape perception and spatial awareness
for visually impaired students, while a similar study by Kostakis
et al. [11] showed that students could learn about and design ob-
jects that supported braille for visually impaired students. While
focusing on education, these two studies draw attention to the
expanding body of research on the use of 3D printing in the
medical community, where it is used in many areas such as drug
delivery, insulin level recording, and simulated organs. In other
social contexts, there is attention on using 3D printing to tackle
perennial problems such as homelessness by providing a vehicle
for affordable housing, or production issues like making cheap
clothing at a local level. Popular 3D printing websites and videos
reveal how students are tapping into these real world uses, such
as the story of Will, a primary-aged student who successfully
designed and brought to market a diabetes test strip remover and
disposal unit (HACT Live [13]).
However, despite their growing popularity, literature on the
use of makerspaces and digital technologies by young children
is limited, prompting further investigation in this area. Papavla-
sopoulou et al. [14] systematically reviewed recent empirical
research on the use of makerspaces, noting a lack of attention
to children younger than eight years, with most of the stud-
ies focusing on upper-primary, secondary and tertiary contexts.
One of the few studies that has recently started to investigate
the possibilities of makerspaces in advancing digital literacies
and creativity is a large European study involving eight coun-
tries — the ‘‘Makerspaces in the Early Years’’ (MakEY) project in
the European Union (see: https://makeyproject.eu/projects/). The
study also highlights the glaring gap in early childhood education
research in this field.
1.2. Makerspaces, design thinking and young children
A component of learning in makerspaces is design think-
ing, which can scaffold children’s experimentation and problem-
solving skills. Compatible with constructionist tenets, design think-
ing skills help children explore and build contextual knowledge,
which is then applied in creating useful, practical objects directly
connected to their everyday world.
Design thinking is a process where a need or opportunity is
identified, and a design solution is developed. The considera-
tion of economic, environmental and social impacts that result
from designed solutions are core to design thinking. Design
thinking methods can be used when trying to understand a
problem, generate ideas and refine a design based on eval-
uation and testing (New South Wales Educational Standards
Authority [NESA] [15], p. 35).
Design thinking finds support in past and present studies
[1,16–18], and the small but significant body of design think-
ing research highlights the significance of the maker mindset,
tolerance for failure, and iterative cycles of creativity. These
characteristics of the maker movement and the design process are
also consistent with the early childhood philosophy and eminent
theories in the field. The Reggio Emilia approach underpinned
by a constructivistic framework strongly supports creativity and
alternative ways of thinking, underlines the role of the envi-
ronment as the ‘third teacher’ and values the learning process
2
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216
over the end-result/product [19,20]. The seminal work of Maria
Montessori [21] and her emphasis on autonomy, self-direction
and problem solving skills are also consistent with contemporary
trends in education, such as the emphasis on design thinking.
Studies on the design process for children have also estab-
lished connections between design thinking skills, creative and
critical thinking skills , signalling the importance of those skills
for future generations [22]. 3D design and 3D printing are also
two areas that commonly intersect with makerspaces, often fea-
turing as the primary areas of focus in empirical studies. The
National syllabus in Australia [23] includes a specific focus on
the early years and emphasises engineering principles, com-
plex design solutions, two- and three-dimensional modelling
and graphical representation. Internationally, the Common Core
movement in the United States stipulates similar curriculum
content, which some believe is prompting the adoption of mak-
erspaces (e.g., [24]). Others see the knowledge and skills involved
in design-based learning as applicable to localised curricular areas
of need, such as Citizen Science initiatives in the UK and Europe
[25], understanding first peoples in Canada [26], or as a vehicle
for future-focused learning in New Zealand. Despite the current
emphasis on expanding makerspaces and the recognition of early
developing design thinking skills, a research gap is evident. Most
empirical studies investigate older children and not enough at-
tention has been paid to the foundational years of primary school.
In an effort to address this gap and provide a fertile ground for
more future research with young children, this paper will con-
centrate on the design thinking skills observed in, and discussed
by, young children (5–8 years old) participating in a makerspaces
project using 3D design and printing technology. The study pro-
vides useful insights into an emerging area of enquiry, but is also
one of the very few studies that has comprehensively explored
children’s voice and perspectives by investigating what they were
saying and doing while they were making their designs and 3D
printed artefacts.
The research question guiding data collection and analysis
was:
What evidence exists indicating that makerspaces activities with
digital technologies (3D app and 3D printers) support the develop-
ment of design thinking skills in young children?
1.3. Design thinking models
Several prominent design thinking instructional models exist,
each with slightly different emphasis and design stages. Most
models follow a sequential design that reflects early, mid and late
stages in a ‘Design Process’. Common themes that run through the
models include exploration and interpretation in the early stages,
generation of ideas in the mid stages, and testing, evaluating and
evolving in the latter stages (Fierst, Diefenthaler, & Diefenthaler,
2017); [1].
Of the models available, IDEO [27] was examined in this study
because it was used in an accompanying teacher professional
learning program provided by a national 3D printing equipment
vendor, and teachers were encouraged to use it in the imple-
mentation of their makerspace units of work. The IDEO model
proposes a five-stage approach to design: Discovery, Interpreta-
tion, Ideation, Experimentation and Evolution (Table A.3). Although
the model and accompanying resources do not make substantive
reference to young children using the five-stage approach in
classroom settings, teachers are free to adopt the process when
they teach design thinking skills in maker-based activities. The
IDEO process was followed in this study, and teachers were
trained and explored the model before starting their unit design
and learning and teaching activities.
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al.
Table 1
Participating schools.
School Student Teaching Socio-Economic
population staff (FTE) Status – ICSEA value
A 1200 66.1 1144
B 503 27.4 1083
C 204 15.3 1083
2. Research design
The makerspaces in Primary School Settings project was a re-
search collaboration that examined children’s use of 3D tech-
nologies and design thinking skills during maker activities in
Kindergarten to Grade 2 classrooms. Representing a partnership
between industry, university and a network of three metropolitan
primary schools, the study introduced twenty-seven teachers to
the Makers Empire 3D app – an app used to design and print
3D objects – and IDEO’s Design Thinking for Educators [27]. The
app connected to newly-installed 3D printers in each school, and
enabled the children and teachers to ideate 3D designs that could
then be 3D-printed. These were all new tools and concepts for
both teachers and children, who reported no prior knowledge or
experience with makerspaces, or 3D printing.
2.1. Participants
Three Australian Government primary schools were involved
in the whole project, 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 20–24 children. A total of 24
classrooms participated in the large project, 500 students and 27
teachers. 31 lessons were observed taught by the 24 teachers in
teaching roles. 24 episodes of pairs of students working together
on the 3D app were video recorded during three visits to each
class (start, middle, end of the making activity).
To characterise each school context data from relevant school
reports were used, including the Australian Index of Commu-
nity Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), to show each school’s
socio-economic status (see [28]). This index provides a point of
comparison against the national average ICSEA value of 1000.
Schools varied considerably in size, number of teaching staff
and percentage of children with a language background other
than English (LBOTE), while showing limited variation in socio-
economic status. Schools were all geographically located within
a five-kilometre radius in a large metropolitan area (see Table 1).
Three classes were purposively selected for screen recordings
from one of the three primary schools. Class selection for screen
recordings was based on the teacher’s willingness to be involved
in the study, and the inclusion of one class from every year
level (Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2). During the recordings
inside the classroom was one teacher and one or two researcher
visitors. Children were working on their maker unit on pre-
determined hour of the day/week. Children worked in pairs and
used tablets to access the 3D app. Each teacher co-designed units
of work with their colleagues in the same school and grade,
and each unit of work had a different focus. Three maker units
were observed: building boats (kindergarten); shadow puppets
(year 1) and spinning toys/playground sculptures (year 2). All
units involved tasks where students had to iteratively design
3D objects, often through a combination of offline (e.g., going
outdoors and exploring objects which sink or float and why)
and online activities (the 3D app, internet etc.). Each maker unit
culminated in the 3D objects being designed to solve a specific
problem (e.g., testing scientific principles such as floating, using
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216
shadow puppets to present a story etc.). Children’s objects were
3D printed — often more than once, and they were able to
LBOTE evaluate the end result and re-design it in order to reprint it if
(%)
their ‘problem’ was not solved (e.g., if the parts of the object were
94
too small or not connected). This printing process was particularly
81
62
helpful for young children and made them feel very proud of their
designs (for more details on children’s views on the whole study
see Hatzigianni et al. [29])
2.2. Ethics
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the uni-
versity’s Human Research Ethics Committee and the New South
Wales Department of Education State Education Research Ap-
provals Process. In accordance with ethical protocols, all data
were de-identified, and pseudonyms used in reference to indi-
viduals. Children were also asked to give their oral consent prior
to screen recordings.
2.3. Data collection method: Screen recordings
Screen recordings of children’s engagement with the 3D app
were used to identify their skills related to design thinking.
Within each of the three classes, teachers randomly selected six
children in pairs to use iPads provided by the research team
with the video recording iPad application AirShou installed . Three
recordings were taken from the pairs in each class — one at the
beginning, one at the middle, and one at the end of the units. The
AirShou application runs in the background on each device and,
once activated, records all screen activity and audio from the mi-
crophone. Selected children’s parents provided consent for data
collection, and children were aware that their screen was being
recorded. The children worked in pairs, where they usually shared
an iPad while collaborating on one or more designs during the
lesson. Twenty-four separate episodes of pairs of students work-
ing together were successfully recorded (approximately sixteen
hours of video).
2.4. Data analysis
Analysis of the iPad screen recordings occurred in two stages.
Stage 1 involved logging each action, sequence, or piece of di-
alogue as an episode. Stage 2 involved importing these logs into
QSR NVivo (Version 11) for inductive coding. All data was analysed
inductively, a process whereby category systems and codes are
generated by directly examining each dataset, rather than gen-
erated a priori (prior to examining each dataset). This procedure
is considered ‘‘the most common approach used by qualitative
researchers. . . because of the inductive nature of most qualitative
research’’ ([25, p. 781].
When preparing video logs for Stage 1, the entire video was
viewed and broken up into episodes (an action or piece of dia-
logue). Time stamps were used as a reference point, and episodes/
dialogues were described in shorthand as single lines in a Mi-
crosoft Word document. Timesheets (word documents) with all
actions/pieces of dialogue were created and then coded in NVivo.
To determine the start and end points of each episode, the re-
search team examined individual actions, sequences of actions,
and pieces of dialogue to establish the main intention of the user
at that time. Pauses in the videos were also closely examined,
since they often indicated the end of one episode and starting
point of another. Some episodes contained one action or piece of
dialogue, whereas other episodes contained more than one action
sequenced together and/or more than one piece of dialogue. In
some cases, actions and dialogue co-occurred and were therefore
captured as the same episode. In total, the research team logged
3
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al.
1208 episodes across the twenty-four videos analysed (see a
detailed table of all the coding in Table C.5).
Logged actions often involved the use of verbs that illustrated
how the children were interacting with the Makers Empire 3D
app. For example, if a child was moving an object around the
canvas, the action was logged (and later coded) as ‘‘positioning’’,
whereas if a child was adjusting the size of an object, it was
logged (and later coded) as ‘‘resizing’’. The main purpose in this
initial stage was to succinctly capture all actions taking place
on the screen and to categorise them in terms of the observed
uses of the application. Dialogue was logged where it could be
clearly heard, and where it had some recognisable relationship to
the actions taking place on the screen. Representative and perti-
nent dialogue was often typed out verbatim, to provide accurate
representation of student discussion. Later, the ‘‘student-student’’
code was inductively determined for children’s dialogue, while
the ‘‘teacher-student’’ code was determined for dialogue between
the teacher and individual child.
In Stage 2, the research team analysed video logs inductively
through segmenting, coding and the creation of a category sys-
tem of first- and second-order themes. Although each episode
was coded separately, multiple codes were most often used to
describe the episode. For example, the episode ‘‘Draws base of
boat, deletes, draws wall, deletes’’ broadly described attempts to
build the initial frame of a 3D boat, and was coded with the NVivo
nodes ‘‘object creation’’, ‘‘ideation’’ and ‘‘deletion’’ respectively.
The use of multiple codes thus reflected the different perspec-
tives of each episode and ensured that the data could later be
viewed through each perspective as needed. The research team
developed five first-order themes, including: (1) App Feature; (2)
Design Thinking; (3) Dialogue; (4) Engagement; and (5) Interface
Interaction. In this paper we focus on ‘Design Thinking’ first-order
theme (Table 2).
2.5. The IDEO model as an analytical framework
During this study, teachers received two days of face-to-face
training interspersed with accompanying online support, during
which they explored and discussed constructionism, makerspaces
and the IDEO model, learned the basics of 3D design and 3D
printing with the app and printers, and were provided with some
time to plan the maker units of work to be delivered (for more
information on teachers’ training in this project see report from
authors and paper from Stevenson et al. [35]).
Given the focus on the IDEO model in teacher training and
its wide adoption and positive feedback [36], the research team
utilised the model as an analytical framework to conceptualise
the development of design thinking skills of the children. The
model was used as part of the coding framework and then a
close examination of the maker activities looking for the evidence
of design thinking skills as embodied in the children’s activi-
ties. This part of the analysis concentrated on the five stages
(see Table A.3 Discovery, Interpretation, Ideation, Experimentation,
Evolution) of the model. Interpretations were carefully based on
descriptions/definitions of the five stages provided in the free
access toolkit for educators (https://designthinkingforeducators.
com/). The use of this toolkit was also consistent with the training
teachers received before the study. By incorporating the frame-
work into the coding, we were able see how the teachers’ under-
standing of design thinking - and the training they had received,
translated into students’ design activities. Researchers coded the
recordings separately and then examined the extent of fidelity
with the IDEO stages.
4
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216
3. Results
3.1. Design thinking actions and dialogues
With a focus on individual actions within the Makers Empire
3D App, actions in many of the screen recordings were associated
with individual stages from the IDEO model. Therefore, each stage
was used as a separate code to describe and analyse some of
the ways that children interacted with the app throughout the
design-based units. The first four stages reflected strongly in
data, while the final stage (Evolution), though less evident, was
also present. Table 2 shows these alongside common actions and
dialogue that were coded for each stage.
The Discovery stage strongly reflected in the exploratory na-
ture of children’s engagement with different parts of the Makers
Empire 3D app. Actions commonly included rotating, panning
and zooming to gain different viewpoints of designs, browsing
and searching the gallery to examine other children’s designs.
Other parts of the app platform were also explored, such as
avatar customisation options, or the buying and selling of designs,
with the two latter activities constituting part of the suite of
app functionality. Dialogues often included questions posed to
the teacher and peers, with occasional statements about things
that children were looking for and hoping to find, or trying the
functions of which they were trying to understand.
The Interpretation stage reflected children’s reasoning as they
worked, through actions such as: rotating, panning, and zooming
on the canvas. However, in this stage these actions generally
focused on improving their design, and not on technical consider-
ations. These actions helped them to understand their design-in-
progress. They discussed object representation with peers, recog-
nised and named objects, identified and solved problems, and
determined next steps in the design process. Key pieces of dia-
logue at this stage typically included questions and statements
about what was happening on-screen as designs evolved.
The Ideation stage reflected children’s interest in creating
and imagining (ideating) different aspects of their designs-in-
progress. Key pieces of dialogue that reflected ideation included
suggestions about what to do next, statements about what indi-
vidual children were doing, and suggestions about which objects
to delete. Building on Ideation, the Experimentation stage in-
volved manipulating embodied and established ideas through
prototyping. Key pieces of dialogue typically included children’s
descriptions of their prototypes and how they had to manipulate
and refine them. Finally, the Evolution stage reflected children’s
arrival at a semi-complete or fully-complete object, and involved
saving and naming these objects in the application gallery, as well
as presenting them to peers. Dialogue at this stage was often
declarative in nature, such as when children stated a name for
their design or declared to their teacher that they had finished.
According to the IDEO model, the Experimentation stage —
often referred to as prototyping, involves children selecting one
idea from the ideation stage and developing it further into a
working model alongside other representations such as story-
boards, diagrams, mock-ups and/or role-plays. This stage also
often involves the presentation of a working model for peer feed-
back, and the collation of feedback that children can use to refine
the model. In the experimentation phase, children appeared to
focus mainly on discovering and generating new prototypes (see
Table 2). It is interesting that children found it easier to start over
on new prototypes than on refining an existing one.
In the Evolution stage, model refinement typically occurs along-
side the initial evaluation of the design’s impact on the com-
munity. Unfortunately, model refinement relating to broader
community impact was not evident in the videos. The fifteen
coded instances of Evolution (Table 2) related to sharing their
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216

Table 2
Design thinking Coding — Actions and example dialogue for all children.
Design thinking No. coded Refs/ Common actions: Example dialogue:
stage % of total
Discovery N = 52, • Rotating canvas • ‘‘How do you press these buttons?’’
9.7% • Panning/zooming canvas • ‘‘Glasses. . . where are the glasses?’’
• Browsing available objects • ‘‘How do you make a boat?’’
• Browsing other students’ designs in • ‘‘How do you make it big?’’
the gallery • ‘‘Oh – how much is that diamond
• Searching for specific designs in the wand?’’
gallery • ‘‘Where is my design [in the gallery]?
• Copying other students’ designs from I can’t find it!’’
the gallery • ‘‘What do you want? Tell me and I’ll
• Buying and selling designs get it for you’’
• Exploring the app platform • ‘‘How do you spin it?’’
• ‘‘How do you change the background?
Interpretation N = 147, 27.5% • Rotating canvas • ‘‘What just happened?’’
• Panning/zooming canvas • ‘‘Now it’s working again’’
• Discussing representation • ‘‘That’s a body. . . we need a head’’
• Recognising and naming objects • ‘‘That’s your boat, isn’t it?
and/or components of objects • ‘‘That looks like a. . . ’’
• Identifying and solving problems • ‘‘You put the face all green!’’
encountered • ‘‘I need to try to work out how to
• Identifying next steps, such as needed turn around the wings’’
components, or design decisions • ‘‘You got the measurement!’’
• ‘‘The wing keeps moving!’’
• ‘‘I need to minus this one so I can do
that one, ok?’’
Ideation N = 219, • Object creation • ‘‘Let’s do your one’’
41.0% • Project deletion and/or restart • ‘‘Make it bigger’’
• Object positioning • ‘‘Turn it round’’
• Object resizing • ‘‘Make it green’’
• Object attachment • ‘‘I’m going to double this’’
• Object colouring • ‘‘Let’s do a potato head’’
• ‘‘Make it a different colour so it stands
out’’
• ‘‘I have a better idea, but we’ll have to
delete this one [and start again]’’
Experimentation N = 101, • Object deletion • ‘‘This shape is better than that one
18.9% • Object re-creation –switch them’’
• Object repositioning • ‘‘Maybe I’ll make it a bit smaller so it
• Object resizing can fit’’
• Object attachment • ‘‘Press the bomb and make it again!’’
• Object colouring • ‘‘I will turn the crown like this. . . ’’
Evolution N = 15, • Saving objects • ‘‘Call it Shiny Eel Rainbow Racing
2.8% • Naming objects Track!’’
• Presenting objects to peers • ‘‘Miss A, I’m finished!’’
• ‘‘It’s called Soccer Playground, and my
friend bought it’’.

Table A.3
Popular design thinking models used in education.
Model/Stage Early Mid Late
Cooper Hewitt Identify Investigate Frame/ Generate Develop Evaluate Re-
[30] reframe evaluate
D.School Empathise Define Ideate Prototype Test
[31]
Design minds Enquire Reflect Ideate Reflect Implement Reflect
(State library of
Queensland, 2017)
IDEO Discovery Interpretation Ideation Experimenta- Evolution
[27] tion
IDESiGN Intending Defining Exploring Suggesting Innovating Goal- setting Knowing
[32]
NoTosh Immersion Synthesis Ideation Prototyping Feedback
[33]
Open Colleges [34] Define the Consider Refine selected Execute the
Problem multiple direction best plan of
options action

completed 3D designs with the class via the online gallery, or impact of their design in their own microsystem, that is, in their
occasionally in a face-to-face presentation session. However, it class with their peers and their teachers. Some children later
could reasonably be argued that children were measuring the commented that they had shared designs with their parents, thus
5
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216

Table B.4
Three screen recordings and alignment with the IDEO model for each grade.
Project’s Kindergarten children Grade 1 children Grade 2 children
Early (5-6 years old) (6-7 years old) (7-8 years old)
Stage App Feature: Toy Designer App Feature: Shaper Experimenting with App Feature: Toy Designer
Building a Simple Toy Character Shapes Building a Spinning Character
(Approx. 50 min) (Approx. 17 min) (Approx. 70 min)

Observation: Following the teacher’s
model and instructions, children began
building their toy characters by adding a
blob, followed by other objects that
included a moustache, glasses and a
crown. The children experimented with
objects other than those initially
specified by the teacher, deleting and
recreating these objects as they worked.
One student in the group was unsure of
how to add and position extra objects,
requiring the teacher’s intervention and
guidance roughly a quarter of the way
into the lesson. Once shown, children
then added several objects at a time and
positioned these objects accordingly. The
teacher demonstrated ‘attaching’ at
around 40:00.
IDEO stages observed: Overall, the
children spent the lesson exploring,
ideating, deleting and restarting their
design [Discovery; Interpretation;
Ideation], and seemed comfortable with
the idea that they were building skills
they could use in subsequent lessons.
[Discovery/ Interpretation/ Ideation]
Observation: During this short
introductory lesson with the Shaper
tool, children experimented with
creating and manipulating shapes that
included rectangles, circles, triangles and
other shapes of different colours and
dimensions. Following the teacher’s
explicit demonstration, children then
used the height adjustment toggle to
turn each drawn 2D shape into 3D
objects such as the towers of different
heights shown in the image.
IDEO stages observed: As an introductory
lesson, children spent time discovering
and interpreting the Shaper tool
interface [Discovery; Interpretation].
Children appeared to quickly reach
general mastery with this tool and
enjoyed using it [Ideation]. The main
problems experienced were
inadvertently deleting work (not using
redo to retrieve) and, at two points,
receiving the intersecting lines error
message for drawn shapes.
[Discovery/ Interpretation/ Ideation]
Observation: In the teacher’s introduction to
the lesson, she demonstrated a spinning toy –
‘‘Mr Spinny’’ that she had created with the
Toy Designer feature. Children were then
challenged to ‘‘out-spin Mr Spinny’’ – to
design another toy that could spin faster.
Following the teacher’s demonstration of
positioning, resizing, rotating and attaching,
children proceeded to design their toy,
working together in pairs. Early in the lesson,
they examined the range of objects that could
be added in Toy Designer, then adding several
of these, including a spinning propeller (as the
base), a drainpipe (as the body) and crown (as
the head). The teacher intervened at several
places in the lesson – 25:00, 36:00 and 59:00
– and this was mainly to demonstrate further
and ask other children to demonstrate to the
class. By 27:00, all children had created a
spinning character with all the parts correctly
aligned.
IDEO stages observed: children seemed to have
a clear idea of what they wanted to create and
do [Interpretation; Ideation]. They coped well
with resizing but struggled with positioning
and attaching [Experimentation]. After the
teacher’s intervention at the 27th minute,
children seemed to experiment more
[experimentation]. They kept on deleting,
re-positioning, re-creating and re-attaching
objects.

[Interpretation/Ideation/ Experimentation]

(continued on next page)

showing an interest in the evolution of their work beyond the
classroom.
3.2. Design thinking, screen recordings, and IDEO alignment
A summary of three screen recordings for each grade in each
of the three project stages (beginning, middle, and end) and
comparisons across the three stages/classes, revealed that even
the youngest children engaged with processes from the first four
stages of the IDEO model (Table B.4, Table A.3). Several stages
were observed even in the early encounters with the 3D design
app, but overall, Experimentation seemed to be the stage where
more time was spent and more engagement was observed. How-
ever, as indicated in the analysis, most children in this study did
not fully reach IDEO’s Evolution stage.
6
The length of the IDEO stages as evidenced in the maker
activities was determined by each class teacher and frequently
followed an iterative rather than a linear path. The IDEO stages
might not have a definite start or end, (e.g., children might go
through the two or three initial stages as one activity) simi-
lar to children’s developmental pathways. The learning situa-
tion (e.g., teacher’s teaching technique, teachers’ scaffolding; time
constraints; students’ responses etc.) influenced the way children
engaged with their designs and the sequence and duration of the
different design stages they went through, suggesting that young
children’s designing is an iterative as opposed to a linear process.
A detailed table with the observation notes, alignments with
the IDEO model and relevant screenshots from children’s designs,
is included in Table B.4. The summary provides three different
examples of maker activities with children engaging with dif-
ferent features (toy designer; shaper; blocker) from the 3D app.
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216

Table B.4 (continued).

Observation: Working from scratch and
with minimal teacher guidance, children
attempted to design a cube-shaped boat
(with this requirement being based on
the ability to 3D-print multiple
cube-shaped objects at a time). The
children panned and zoomed their
designs to display a 2D aerial view of
the boat’s base and, at 17:00, started
drawing the boat frame as a square
perimeter and fill the area to form a
base. By playing with rotation and
vertical drawing of blocks, these
children created four walls (37:00), but
the walls had numerous holes.
IDEO stages observed: children found it
difficult to build a wall, the first main
element of working with the design in
3D. Mid-lesson, children received input
from others in the class through a
sharing session. There was also
intervention from the teacher to help
them understand the 3D design, but
overall, children did not manage to
create a boat with no holes.
Observation: Following the teacher’s
explicit instructions and example,
children used the Shaper tool to
construct a simple 2D character by
drawing, positioning and attaching
several shapes. They experimented
further with resizing, colouring, deleting
and recreating objects. There was some
evidence of off-task behaviour (23:00),
when children exited the design and
engaged in off-task dialogue and
browsed other features of the app.
IDEO stages observed: Children appeared
to achieve this 2D task relatively easily,
and mid-way into the lesson their
designs were mostly complete. Children
shared the iPad and were happy to
contribute ideas together as they
worked.
[Experimentation]
Observation: With minimal teacher guidance,
children built a house with four walls,
partitioned rooms and furniture. Children
completed Level 1 of the house before adding
a further level. As they began to add the base
of Level 2, they explored elements of the
application’s ‘‘online shop’’, where other
designed objects may be bought and sold.
After 35:00, children spent the remaining time
browsing the gallery, searching for objects and
other children’ designs, and further exploring
the shop.
IDEO stages observed: Children attempted to
problem-solve (for example, considering how
to add a further level to their house). Rather
than deleting and restarting their design, these
children kept on working on the same design
and appeared to have made considerable
progress with their model house. Children
appeared to understand the complexities of
working with 3D objects through creating,
positioning, resizing, and rotating these
objects. Using the app feature selected for the
lesson, they were able to create a simple
one-level house with furniture.

[Experimentation] [Experimentation]

(continued on next page)

Observation notes explain what occurred and provide details on
teacher’s approach to ‘teaching’, and finally, data alignment with
the IDEO stages.
4. Discussion
To investigate whether engagement with digitally-supported
makerspaces provides opportunities for design thinking skills of
young children to be developed, this study delved into children’s
dialogues and products around their making endeavours. Noting
the dearth of research on makerspaces and design thinking for
young children, and also the demands for more innovative ap-
proaches in education in order to promote 21st century skills,
there was arguably a strong case for this study. Using screen
recorded data, the IDEO model stages were utilised as an ana-
lytical framework to identify the exercise of the five different
stages of the design process (Discovery, Interpretation, Ideation,
Experimentation, Evolution) in children’s making. The study found
that in makerspaces using 3D printing, even very young children
were capable of fully participating, engaging and contributing
to the whole making process and also developing their design
thinking skills by going through the different stages of the design
process. More specifically, they discovered, interpreted, ideated,
7
and experimented on their designs. Young children are highly ca-
pable in adopting a complex design model and thinking through
at least the first four stages when using tools for 3D design
and printing. The findings of this study support the inclusion of
makerspaces in early years’ education, but also provide evidence
for further exploring the learning potential of design thinking in
these spaces.
In relation to children’s use of design thinking skills across
all stages of the IDEO model, screen data provided substantial
evidence on how children’s designs could be successfully sus-
tained, iterated, and improved over the course of each unit of
work. These findings are in line with Vygotsky’s theory (2004)
on what emerging creativity entails: ‘‘. . . a person imagines, com-
bines, alters and creates something new no matter how small. . . ’’
(p. 10). Designing and making their products assisted children’s
imagination, synthesis and reconfiguration as per Vygotsky’s def-
inition, and all these actions can influence children’s creativity
as a whole. Vygotsky [37] further postulated that this process of
gathering, isolating and eliminating traits (e.g., through the design
and redesign of the boats) is fundamental for human mental
development, enhancing abstract thinking and building scientific
concepts (p. 26). Design thinking activities support these cre-
ative processes so teachers could use them to enhance children’s
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216

Table B.4 (continued).

Project’s App Feature: Blocker App Feature: Shaper App Feature: Blocker
Late Building a Boat (Continued) Creating Shadow Puppets Building a House (Continued)
stage (Approx. 18 min) (Approx. 40 min) (Approx. 69 min)

Observation: After some initial
exploration of the gallery and other
features such as their avatar, children
opened and continued a boat design
from a previous lesson. At the point
they opened it, the design was a solid
series of coloured blocks that had been
layered but did not resemble a boat.
Children added more layers and colours
before the teacher reviewed the design
(11:55) and questioned whether the
design would be fit for purpose in its
current form. At 13:00, children went
back to their design. They had five
minutes to improve their design acting
on the teacher’s suggestions
IDEO stages observed: Children spent
most of the time re-experimenting.
Teacher’s intervention/scaffolding was
minimal, and the time seemed to be
inadequate. Children did not appear to
understand the need to abide by design
requirements and create a hollow, 3D
boat-like structure that could be printed
successfully.
[Experimentation]
Total 116
Min.:
Observation: Reflecting a character from
the popular children’s story The Gruffalo,
children proceeded to design a 2D
representation of the owl character
using the Shaper feature. They created
two circles for the body, a ‘‘U’’ shape for
holding the character at the top, arms,
legs and a tail. Children finished the owl
(approximately 20:00), then proceeded
to randomly reorder parts of the owl.
Appearing to become disengaged
(32:00), they exited the design and
started exploring the online gallery of
other children’ shared designs.
IDEO stages observed: Children appeared
to understand the need to create shapes
without intersecting lines. Working well
in pairs, they could determine the most
appropriate shapes to represent their
character (collaboration). The task was
easily accomplished, and when
completed it (20:00), there appeared to
be no further developments for the
remainder of the lesson.
[Experimentation]
86
Observation: In this lesson, the children worked
on further developing the model house they
had built in previous lessons, considering and
designing several objects to add to the interior
of this house. During this lesson, they built a
tree, oven and bed – all completed within the
first half of the lesson. Then they spent
approximately twenty-five minutes browsing
the online gallery, buying and selling objects
in the online shop, and taking photos of each
other that were ‘‘blockified’’ using the Blocker
feature of the app. In the last ten minutes of
the lesson, they went back working on their
task, designing and adding a swimming pool.
IDEO stages observed: Children were successful
in adding elements to their house design.
Children also spent time discussing how their
objects might be organised when they are
3D-printed, and what other objects could be
designed to add to their house.
[Experimentation]
194

conceptual development at a stage when cognitive flexibility is
optimal ([38]; Mellhuish et al. 2015; Mellhuish et al., 2017).
Analysis of actions via the recordings suggested that children
spent more time on the first four stages of the IDEO model (Dis-
covery, Interpretation, Ideation, Experimentation), with less time
on the final stage (Evolution). In trying to explain this finding,
methodological limitations might be relevant such as that the
screen recordings only revealed aspects of the design process,
and not the breadth or depth of children end-products (i.e., the
3D printed artefacts), which would have naturally better aligned
with the Evolution stage, but would also have required expanded
periods of time to capture what was happening outside the class-
room. The lack of previous experience with 3D apps or designs
might also be considered here together with other pedagogical
factors, such as the role of the teacher, differences in teacher
scaffolding, need for more time to refine ideas and to collaborate
with peers, specific learners’ needs, and so on. This finding is
important and worth further investigation from future research.
Using innovative and creative approaches from an early age
(makerspaces, 3D Design and 3D printing) provides opportunities
to broaden children’s future aspirations and confidence as de-
signers and makers. Higher confidence and strong motives might
8
make science, technology and engineering more appealing to
children, promoting scientific and digital literacy skills [39], and
inspiring them to become ‘’designers in the future and for the
future’’ [18, p. 16]. Working on design challenges inside school
can inspire children to consider out-of-school challenges, and
therefore contribute to their development as informed citizens
and producers, not just consumers, while strengthening their
creative, problem-solving, and decision-making skills to solve
challenging social problems [40]. The children in this study were
not required to ‘measure the impact’ of their designs or ‘identify
indicators of success’ as suggested by the Evolution stage of the
IDEO model. They nonetheless understood the importance of
designs in the microsystem of their class when they were asked
to test the effectiveness of their designs, for example, whether
their 3D printed boats were floating or not. Children’s conceptual
thinking was enriched via their engagement in making. This
finding is consistent with previous studies on young children and
innovative methods (e.g., [41,42] and the tenets of constructivist
theory, where providing rich opportunities for exploration, ex-
perimentation, creativity and metacognition are pivotal (Sheer,
Noweski, & Meinel, 2012, p. 11).
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216

Table C.5
Coding of screen recordings.
Code Number of coding Number of
references words coded
1. App Feature 28 139
App Feature\Blocker 9 28
App Feature\Shaper 13 52
App Feature\Toy Designer 6 59
2. Design Thinking 534 5,449
Design Thinking\01 Discovery 52 531
Design Thinking\02 Interpretation 147 1,624
Design Thinking\03 Ideation 219 1,893
Design Thinking\04 Experimentation 101 1,235
Design Thinking\05 Evolution 15 1,660
3. Dialogue 339 3,868
Dialogue\Student-Student 240 2,531
Dialogue\Teacher-Class 43 619
Dialogue\Teacher-Student 56 718
4. Engagement 150 2,004
Engagement\Excitement 83 694
Engagement\Off-Task 40 1,091
Engagement\Problems 27 219
5. Interface Interaction 602 5,049
Interface Interaction\Aesthetics 60 584
Interface Interaction\Attachment 6 37
Interface Interaction\Deletion 69 436
Interface Interaction\Exploration of Platform 39 833
Interface Interaction\iPad Keyboard Login 15 170
Interface Interaction\Level Up Notification 26 117
Interface Interaction\Object Creation 193 1,610
Interface Interaction\Positioning 60 416
Interface Interaction\QR Code Login 6 32
Interface Interaction\Resizing 34 254
Interface Interaction\Restart 51 329
Interface Interaction\Rotation 43 231

4.1. Limitations
Although the videos accurately captured the actions children
took when engaging with the app, they did not objectively cap-
ture the breadth and depth of children’s learning or what was
taking place in the whole class, since only a short time frame and
paired user data were recorded. Another issue to consider is that
observable behaviours are not consistently an accurate proxy for
participants’ thinking.
Finally, the participants were young children doing
makerspaces activities for the first time, led by teachers who
were completely new to makerspaces. We feel reporting this
kind of research is valuable because of the gaps in the existing
literature and the critical contribution to early childhood research
overall, but we acknowledge that young children under eight
years of age are, according to developmental theories (see for
example [43] still at the stage of building and expanding their
abstract thinking skills and therefore the challenge of designing,
hypothesising and understanding 3D dimensions was especially
demanding for them. Further research in this field could shed
some light on whether makerspaces activities incorporating 3D
aspects could potentially enhance young children’s operational
and abstract thinking.
4.2. Implications
Design thinking originated from the corporate world and has
‘invaded’ education as a modern, innovative, future focused, cut-
ting edge approach which has rich potential in enhancing stu-
dents’ problem solving, critical and creative skills, aligned with
the ideologies of transforming school curricula for the needs of
the 21st century [44–46]. However, teachers and education policy
9
makers could argue that other types of thinking are equally es-
sential for 21st century, such as algorithmic, computational, sys-
tems thinking or art thinking which are not focused so much on
products/improvement of products or solutions, but on more con-
ceptual/abstract and higher order thinking skills [47,48]. More re-
search is required in this area to further support (or not) the use-
fulness of design thinking in education and possible connections
with other types of thinking and doing.
The IDEO model proved to be a useful framework through
which to analyse and understand ‘the design process’. Having
been presented to them during the training, the model was ef-
fectively translated by the teachers into classroom practice and
subsequently adopted and practiced by students. However, a
recommendation arising from this study would be to elaborate
on the descriptions of the model’s stages to support both teachers
and students by including examples for teaching young children.
It was challenging for teachers and researchers to adapt adult
examples provided with the IDEO support materials to children’s
work, particularly for the final stage (Evolution). Some practical
examples in the model’s handbook would certainly enhance the
validity and reliability of these interpretations. Regardless, most
stages of the IDEO model are clearly evidenced in this study.
This finding is important, as it is imperative to examine how
design thinking skills can be developed from a young age and
under which conditions this development can be sustained and
enhanced.
Further exploration is needed to explicitly examine the neces-
sary conditions for high quality designs; explore the associations
between design thinking and reflective thinking; recommend
different levels of scaffolding needed; compare different contexts
and models where design skills can be supported from a young
age and understand the role of the teacher as a ‘mediator’ of the
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al.
design process. Design thinking models, like IDEO, could recon-
sider the adoption of specific stages and of a linear approach.
Instead, a more dynamic, flexible, adaptable and essentially non-
linear approach would be more consistent with what a complex,
messy process design really is.
5. Conclusion
We have come a long way since the beginning of the journey
for design thinking from Nobel Laureate Herbert A. Simon [49],
who initiated the discussion about design being a way of thinking
and not just an outcome, but we still have ‘‘wicked problems’’
[17] to solve in Education. Research on effective ways to integrate
design thinking into mainstream education starting from a young
age, is required if we are to fully explore the potential of this
creative, multidisciplinary and innovative approach for children’s
authentic, future-oriented learning. Makerspaces, 3D printing and
design thinking are promising educational innovations and teach-
ers are already familiar with their core principles through sim-
ilarities with mainstream educational theories (e.g., the Reggio
Emilia approach; Montessorian self-directed resources etc.). In
this study, a detailed framework was examined and discussed,
which demonstrated that design thinking approaches are suitable
and beneficial for young children and can enhance open-ended,
flexible and transferable skills, such as creativity and critical
thinking skills. Consistent with expectations of learning for the
future, nurturing the development of design thinking capabili-
ties in young children could potentially contribute to equipping
children with the right skills to ‘‘strategically manage challenges
themselves’’ in our digital era (50, p. 11).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Funding
This project was funded by Makers Empire, the New South
Wales Department of Education, and an Australian Government
AusIndustry Innovation Connections grant.
Appendix A
See Table A.3.
Appendix B
See Table B.4.
Appendix C
See Table C.5.
10
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216
References
[1] A. Freeman, S.A. Becker, M. Cummins, NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2017
K-12 edition. The new media consortium, 2017, https://www.learntechlib.
org/p/182003/.
[2] R.S. Kurti, D.L. Kurti, L. Fleming, The philosophy of educational makerspaces
part 1 of making an educational makerspace, Teach. Libr. 41 (5) (2014)
8–11.
[3] K. Peppler, S. Bender, Maker movement spreads innovation one project at
a time, Phi Delta Kappan 95 (3) (2013) 22–27.
[4] K. Sheridan, E.R. Halverson, B. Litts, L. Brahms, L. Jacobs-Priebe, T. Owens,
Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces,
Harvard Educ. Rev. 84 (4) (2014) 505–531.
[5] T.A. Dousay, Defining and differentiating the makerspace, Educ. Technol.
(2017) 69–74.
[6] S. Papert, Constructionism: A new Opportunity for Elementary Sci-
ence Education, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory,
Epistemology and Learning Group, 1986.
[7] K. Peppler, E. Halverson, Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as
Learning Environments, vol. 1, Routledge, 2016.
[8] L. Martin, The promise of the maker movement for education, J. Pre-
Coll. Eng. Educ. Res. (J-PEER) 5 (1) (2015) 29–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/
2157-9288.1099.
[9] OECD, Educational Research and Innovation Innovating Education and
Educating for Innovation The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills: The
Power of Digital Technologies and Skills, 2016, OECD Publishing.
[10] E. Canessa, C. Fonda, M. Zennaro, N. Deadline, Low–cost 3D printing for sci-
ence, education and sustainable development, 2013, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.410.790&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=13.
[11] V. Kostakis, V. Niaros, C. Giotitsas, Open source 3D printing as a means
of learning: An educational experiment in two high schools in Greece,
Telemat. Inform. 32 (1) (2015) 118–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.
2014.05.001.
[12] R. Jafri, A.M. Aljuhani, S.A. Ali, A tangible user interface-based application
utilizing 3D-printed manipulatives for teaching tactual shape perception
and spatial awareness sub-concepts to visually impaired children, Int. J.
Child-Comput. Interact. 11 (2017) 3–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.
2016.12.001.
[13] HACT Live, Will - Diabetes Test Strip Remover &
Disposal Unit, 2015, Retrieved June 8, 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOHBFn6BvWI.
[14] S. Papavlasopoulou, M.N. Giannakos, L. Jaccheri, Empirical studies on the
maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review,
Entertain. Comput. 18 (2017) 57–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.
2016.09.002.
[15] New South Wales Educational Standards Authority [NESA], Science and
technology syllabus K–6, 2018, http://educationst{and}ards.nsw.edu.au/
wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/science/science-and-technology-k-6-
new-syllabus.
[16] T. Bekker, S. Bakker, I. Douma, J. Van Der Poel, K. Scheltenaar, Teaching
children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits
in schools, Int. J. Child-Computer Interact. 5 (2015) 29–38.
[17] R. Buchanan, Wicked problems in design thinking, Des. Issues 8 (2) (1992)
5–21.
[18] D. Grammenos, M. Antona, Future designers: Introducing creativity, design
thinking & design to children, Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 16 (2018)
16–24.
[19] L.M. Mitchell, Using technology in reggio emilia-inspired programs,
Theory Into Pract. 46 (1) (2007) 32–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00405840709336546.
[20] C. Rinaldi, In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and
Learning, Psychology Press, 2006.
[21] M. Montessori, The Montessori Method, Transaction publishers, 2013.
[22] K. Shively, K. Stith, Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity, criti-
cal thinking, and the design process, Gifted Child Today 41 (3) (2018)
149–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361.
[23] Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority [ACARA], Design and
technologies F-10 syllabus, 2014, Retrieved February 23, 2018, from
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/
design-and-technologies/.
[24] M. Del Guidice, R. Luna, Cut to the core, Publ. Wkly. 260 (36) (2013) 22–23.
[25] B. Johnson, L. Christensen, Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative,
and Mixed Approaches, fifth ed., Sage Publications, 2014.
[26] J.R. Harron, J.E. Hughes, Spacemakers: A leadership perspective on cur-
riculum and the purpose of K–12 educational makerspaces, J. Res.
Technol. Educ. 0 (0) (2018) 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.
1461038.
[27] K. Fierst, A. Diefenthaler, G. Diefenthaler, Design Thinking for Educators,
IDEO, 2011.
M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon et al.
[28] G. Barnes, Report on The Generation of the 2010 Index of Community
Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), ACARA, 2011, Available at: http:
//docs.acara.edu.au/resources/ICSEA_Generation_Report.pdf.
[29] M. Hatzigianni, M. Stevenson, G. Falloon, M. Bower, A. Forbes, Children’s
views on making and designing, in: Technology Integrated Pedagogical
Practices: A look into Evidence-based Teaching and Coherent Learning for
Young Children (Special Issue), Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 28 (2) (2020)
286–300.
[30] C. Hewitt, Ready, set, design! 2011, https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2011/
09/09/ready-set-design/.
[31] Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, A virtual crash course in de-
sign thinking, 2017, https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources-collections/a-
virtual-crash-course-in-design-thinking.
[32] C. Burnette, IDESiGN, 2005, Retrieved May 29, 2018, from http://www.
idesignthinking.com/main.html.
[33] E. McIntosh, Think differently and change the way you choose
to work [text/html], 2018, Retrieved May 29, 2018, from
https://notosh.com/design-thinking.
[34] S. Briggs, 45 design thinking resources for educators, 2013, Retrieved
May 29, 2018, from https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/
45-design-thinking-resources-for-educators/.
[35] M. Stevenson, M. Bower, G. Falloon, A. Forbes, M. Hatzigianni, By de-
sign: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’
makerspaces pedagogical capabilities, Br. J. Educ. Technol. (2019) http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12743.
[36] A. Irbīte, A. Strode, Design thinking models in design research and educa-
tion, in: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume IV,
vol. 488, 500, 2016, http://journals.ru.lv/index.php/SIE/article/view/1584/
1819.
[37] L.S. Vygotsky, Imagination and creativity in childhood, J. Russ. East
Eur. Psychol. 42 (1) (2004) 7–97, http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-
0405280184.
11
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021) 100216
[38] A. Mechelli, J.T. Crinion, U. Noppeney, J. O’Doherty, J. Ashburner, R.S.
Frackowiak, C.J. Price, Neurolinguistics: Structural plasticity in the bilin-
gual brain, Nature 431 (7010) (2004) 757, http://www.nature.com/nature/
journal/v431/n7010/suppinfo/431757a_S1.html.
[39] K. Dreessen, S. Schepers, Foregrounding backstage activities for engaging
children in a FabLab for STEM education, Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 20
(2019) 35–42.
[40] R.C. Smith, O.S. Iversen, M. Hjorth, Design thinking for digital fabrication
in education, Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 5 (2015) 20–28.
[41] L. Plowman, Learning technology at home and preschool, in: N. Rusby, D.
Surry (Eds.), Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology, Wiley & Sons, 2016,
pp. 96–112, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118736494.
[42] N. Yelland, C. Gilbert, I-possibilities: Tablets in early childhood contexts,
Hong Kong J. Early Childh. 12 (1) (2013) 5–14.
[43] J. Piaget, Part I: Cognitive development in children–piaget development
and learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40 (2003) 8–18.
[44] Deloitte Access Economics, Australia’s STEM Workforce: A Survey of
Employers, Office of the Chief Scientist, Canberra, Australia, 2014.
[45] J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, B. Wong, H.Y. Hong, Design Thinking for Education:
Conceptions and Applications in Teaching and Learning, Springer, 2015.
[46] A. Scheer, C. Noweski, C. Meinel, Transforming constructivist learning into
action: Design thinking in education, Des. Technol. Educ.: Int. J. 17 (3)
(2012) 8–19.
[47] A.D. Knochel, R.M. Patton, If art education then critical digital making:
Computational thinking and creative code, Stud. Art Educ. 57 (1) (2015)
21–38.
[48] G. Falloon, M. Hatzigianni, M. Bower, A. Forbes, M. Stevenson, Understand-
ing K-12 STEM education: a framework for developing STEM literacy, J.
Sci. Educ. Tech. (online first) (2020) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-
09823.
[49] H.A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, third ed., MIT Press, 1996.
[50] S. Danby, M. Fleer, C. Davidson, M. Hatzigianni (Eds.), Digital Childhoods.
Technology in Children’s Everyday Lives, Springer publications, 2018.