124
Int. J. Arts and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2010
Designing digital objects for learning: lessons from Froebel and Montessori Oren Zuckerman Sammy Ofer School of Communications, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel E-mail:
[email protected] Abstract: Designers of interactive toys face many challenges when integrating digital technologies into the educational manipulatives they design. Drawing on the distinctive approaches of Friedrich Froebel and Maria Montessori – philosophers of education and pioneering toy designers – this paper proposes to qualify and distinguish between their unique design principles as manifested in traditional as well as digital learning objects and educational manipulatives. Application of these core design principles will enable modern day toy designers, particularly those operating in the interactive domain, to meet their educational objectives and maximise the learning potential in children’s interactive learning experiences. Keywords: design guidelines; toy design; digital manipulatives; educational technology; interactive learning experiences; education; play; tangible interfaces for learning; Friedrich Froebel; Maria Montessori; Interaction design; Arts; Technology. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Zuckerman, O. (2010) ‘Designing digital objects for learning: lessons from Froebel and Montessori’, Int. J. Arts and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.124–135. Biographical notes: Oren Zuckerman is an Assistant Professor in the Sammy Ofer School of Communications at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya. His research areas include digital/physical learning experiences, contextual media experiences and participation patterns in online communities. He earned his Masters and PhD from MIT’s Media Lab, and is currently the founder and director of the Media Innovation Lab at IDC Herzliya, Israel.
1
Introduction
Traditional scholarship has long been concerned with the learning potential constituted in the child’s physical interaction with tangible objects. Introduced by John Locke in his pioneering work ‘Some Thoughts Concerning Education’ (Locke, 1693, p.148), the conception of the learning process as grounded in interaction with the environment has since inspired generations of educators, epistemologists and designers of learning objects and instructional toys.
Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Designing digital objects for learning
125
Of these, Friedrich Froebel and Maria Montessori have been significantly instrumental in the development and implementation of contemporary approaches to education in general, and to the domain of toy design in particular (Brosterman, 2002; Montessori, 1916). This paper opts to compare learning objects designed by Froebel and Montessori to illuminate the similarities and differences in their designs. Froebel’s designs encourage the child to construct objects freely in open-ended designs, encouraging imitation of forms and mechanisms inherent in its natural as well as fabricated environments. Montessori’s designs, on the other hand, are constrained to better instil particular abstract concepts manifested in materials and objects, and stress the necessity for learning objects to accommodate cognitive development. Although reflecting different conceptions of interactive learning processes, both Froebel’s and Montessori’s approaches serve as conceptual underpinnings in a wide variety of both traditional and contemporary digital learning objects. This paper develops the distinction between their designs and presents a set of shared and distinctive design principles that are relevant to a range of contemporary manipulatives and thus serve as a guide for designers in their future design endeavours.
126
O. Zuckerman
1.1 Friedrich Froebel: learning and open-ended experimentation Drawing on the teachings of Jean-Jaques Rousseau (Rousseau, 1762) and the innovative schooling approach of Pestallozzi (1894), German educationalist Friedrich Froebel contended that early childhood learning was best facilitated in educational environments that encouraged autonomous learning. Froebel’s approach underscores interaction with designated play materials in activities that encourage children to imitate mechanisms involved in the construction of real-life objects. To accommodate these ideas, Froebel designed 20 learning materials, such as wooden blocks, wooden sticks and cardboard geometric shapes (‘Froebel gifts’) and corresponding activities (‘occupations’) geared towards the creation of two and three-dimensional models of natural and man-made forms. In addition, Froebel defined three main categories of activity – ‘forms of life’, ‘forms of knowledge’ and ‘forms of beauty’ – according to which the appropriate ‘occupations’ would be used (Brosterman, 2002).
1.2 Maria Montessori: learning and constrained sensorial designs Contrary to Froebel, Italian-born physician and educator, Maria Montessori believed that knowledge acquisition was best facilitated by isolated experimentation. Drawing on the groundbreaking works of Etienne Codillac, Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard and her mentor, Edward Seguin, Montessori maintained the notion that knowledge is obtained through the senses rather than through the recognition and conceptualisation of ideas. Working initially with mentally challenged children, Montessori devised a method whereby specific learning objects and techniques were used to develop particular types of knowledge.
Designing digital objects for learning
127
By dividing what she coined as ‘didactic materials’ (Montessori, 1916) into four primary categories: cultural, language, mathematics and sensorial, Montessori produced a range of constrained activities each designed to develop a particular form of knowledge. Abstract concepts were instilled in the child by providing her with a ‘prepared environment’ consisting of learning objects designed to encourage the recognition of a specific abstract property. Number rods, fraction circles and multiplication boards, for instance, were instrumental in teaching mathematics, while wooden cylinders, wooden ‘stairs’, colour tablets and various fabrics were used to impart sensorial information (Montessori, 1949; Muller and Schneider, 2002). As a result, Montessori’s objects and activities were to be developmentally appropriate, stimulating and aesthetically appealing to children while enabling gradual progress. As such, these objects would encourage what she called ‘Polarisation of Attention’ – learning through the unmediated (by teacher or instructor) repetition of the child’s action and reflection upon the action (Montessori, 1952).
2
Design principles in Froebel’s and Montessori’s learning objects
A comparison of learning objects designed by Froebel and Montessori illuminates the similarities and differences in their ‘design principles’ (Figure 1). Figure 1
Montessorian and Froebelian design principles: shared and distinctive (see online version for colours)
2.1 Shared design principles Sensory interaction: ensure that the learning process involves sensorial experience. Traced back to the ‘learning from experience’ movement led by John Locke in the late 17th century, this principle stresses the notion that knowledge is instilled through the child’s sensory interaction with objects and materials in her environment: ‘All these ideas from sensation or reflection’ (Locke, 1698, p.137). While the emphasis is primarily on tactile contact, Montessori’s designs, for instance the Montessori’s Sound Cylinders, address audible faculties (sound) as well.
128
O. Zuckerman
Modularity: create sets of modular artefacts that enable interaction, exploration and experimentation. By promoting independent or group interaction, the principle of modularity encourages independent problem solving and creative thinking. For example, Froebel’s modular set of 1 ‘wooden cubes’ (‘gift’ 3) enables the modelling and exploration of 3D spatial structures thereby enhancing the child’s ability to create complex structures from primary forms. Similarly, Montessori’s ‘long stairs’, a modular set of 10 wooden bars varying in length from 10 cm to 100 cm in 10 cm steps encourages the exploration of the ‘integer number’ concept. Isolation-of-properties: separate the ‘variables’ to promote interaction with a particular property or concept and its essential significance. Froebel’s wool balls (‘gift’ 1), a set of six soft balls of the same size distinguishable only by their colour, for instance, support a variety of learning opportunities, such as the exploration of movement, shape, manipulation and gravity while promoting both an appreciation for colour as an independent property and the language by which various colours are distinguishable (names of colours). Montessori’s Cylinder Toy – a set of four trays with a capacity of ten cylinders in a single row – produces a similar effect. By varying the cylinders’ heights and diameters in the first two trays, these concepts are communicated individually. Next, the combination of cylinders of various heights and diameters simultaneously in the third and fourth trays produces two sequences: a volume sequence (smallest-to-largest) and a sequence that differs in height and diameter but is equal in volume. The isolation of the different properties in each tray helps the child appreciate a specific abstract concept. Developmental-appropriateness and continuity: present the learning object to the child at the appropriate phase of her development. Do not introduce advanced concepts too early; allow the child to dictate her rate of progress. In addition, build upon the learning skills acquired from the interaction with a previous object thereby paralleling principles of knowledge accumulation in the learning process. Froebel’s gifts exemplify this principle as they were introduced in sequence to accommodate the child’s age starting with the introduction of wool balls to 3–6 month old infants (Brosterman, 2002). Simple aesthetics: use simple objects that are aesthetically appealing to the children. The visual design should be aligned with the conceptual design so that colour and shape support the communication of the concept. Avoid any unnecessary decorations that might contain properties other than those intended. Montessori’s pink tower illustrates this objective. While it is colourful and aesthetically pleasing to children, the consistency of colour does not compromise the ‘isolation of properties’ principle manifested in the various sizes of ten cubes from which the child forms the tower.
2.2 Froebel’s principles reflected in his designs Physical language, aimed at many configurations: Froebel’s learning objects constitute open-ended physical systems that enable the child to form many different configurations. While these designs encourage the formation of specific patterns, at the same time it supports the creation of innovative forms. Focus on construction and design: Froebel’s learning objects are aimed at spatial modelling, encouraging children to design 2D and 3D structures. The structures created with Froebel’s objects are usually visual models of real-life structures, such as trains, houses, flowers, or boats; or are aesthetically pleasing abstract patterns. Clearly,
Designing digital objects for learning
129
Froebel’s objects can support the learning of abstract concepts, such as arithmetic, counting, fractions and geometry, but this requires scaffolding by a specific activity or trained instructor. Bearing Froebel’s conception of the learning process in mind – as an open-ended and holistic experience whereby the child is motivated to explore and experience a variety of forms and natural phenomena – designers might maximise the efficacy of the learning object. In particular, for designers operating in the computational domain this practice promotes the Froebelian objective of creating an open-ended system while utilising integrated digital technologies to this end. Thus, I propose ‘Construction & Design’ as a categorical tag by which designers, educators and researchers might identify, qualify and utilise Froebel’s principles in their exploration and creation of learning objects.
2.2.1 The ‘Construction & Design’ category in contemporary learning objects Because Froebel’s design principles reflect an innate conception of learning as a process of imitation, one may identify them in a range of educational toys. Educational and developmental toy brands, such as LEGO, Tinker Toy and K'nex emulate aspects of Froebel’s design principles. As static/structural toys, they enable the imitative modelling of structures – houses, bridges, vehicles and human figures – encouraging in turn, recognition of forms and patterns inherent in life environments. Similarly, Froebel’s paradigm applies in the more complex domain of dynamic/temporal toys. In this category, mechanical construction sets, such as LEGO Technic Model Tractor or K’nex Simple Machine Bicycle Model enable the design and construction of dynamic mechanisms in models that simulate real machines. Such toys extend the interactive experience to include model building of forms or objects that incorporate motion. For example, a set of LEGO bricks and gears allows a child to construct a simulation of an elevator.
2.3
Montessori’s principles reflected in her designs
Physical ‘puzzle-like’, aimed at specific configurations: Montessori’s learning objects are designed to guide the child towards a specific ‘successful’ configuration (‘selfcorrecting’). Stressing the necessity to constrain activity so as to optimise the efficacy of the learning experience in terms of instilling a particular concept, these objects are grounded in a puzzle-like design principle. Focus on conceptual manipulation: Montessori’s learning objects are aimed at surfacing a specific abstract concept through hands-on manipulation. The design does not promote the visual reproduction of natural or fabricated forms (it will be counter-productive to use Montessori’s objects to create structures that visually resemble real-life structures), but rather serve a pre-defined purpose: to render a specific abstract concept more salient. In recent decades, Montessori’s educational philosophy has inspired educators and designers in the design, evaluation and use of instructive toys. However, the expanding demand for technologically innovative manipulatives warrants the distinction of the Montessorian principles in the design process so as to optimise the educational objective in play. Upon initiating the design of a manipulative for the development of abstract conceptual perception, designers will want to implement Montessori’s unique qualifications of constrained activity within a modular system aimed at promoting a
130
O. Zuckerman
specific concept. To distinguish these from Froebelian principles, I propose to classify such learning objects and manipulatives as ‘Conceptual Manipulation’.
2.3.1 The ‘Conceptual Manipulation’ category in contemporary learning objects Montessori’s design principles are reflected in a wide variety of toys and manipulatives. Beginning with the static/structural domain, one can identify in toys, such as the Shape Sorter or Shape Puzzle the distinctive Montessorian objective of the gradual assimilation of both the concept ‘geometrical shape’ and various shape types. Or the use of Russian Dolls to convey the concept of ‘volume’; stacking rings for ‘diameter’ and Cuisenaire rods for instilling the notion of ‘numbers’. Clearly, these toys do not promote the structural simulation of real-life forms, but rather focus on the gradual assimilation of the abstract concepts manifested in forms and objects. In the context of dynamic/temporal learning objects, Montessori’s principles are manifested in toys that enable the exploration of abstract concepts, such as motion, causeand-effect and dynamic mechanisms without employing a real-life analogy. The Beads Maze, for instance, enables the exploration of the notion of ‘directed movement’ without the mediation of a real-life analogy (e.g. a toy train manually pushed along a curved track – which is a Froebelian design).
3
Digital manipulatives: Froebel’s and Montessori’s principles
In 1998, Mitch Resnick laid the groundwork for the future of learning objects with the introduction of ‘Digital Manipulatives’, a new breed of manipulative materials with integrated computational power designed ‘to expand the range of concepts that children can explore through direct manipulation, enabling children to learn concepts that were previously considered ‘too advanced’ for children’ (Resnick et al., 1998). Ever since researchers, educators and designers face unique challenges in conceptualising manipulatives that involve digital interactive experiences. I strongly believe that Froebel’s and Montessori’s design principles are relevant to the design of Digital Manipulatives, and urge toy designers to draw on research and prototyping efforts conducted within the academic domain. In the following section, I review a limited selection of such Digital Manipulative prototypes while emphasising how Froebelian and Montessorian design principles apply in each.
3.1 Programmable bricks/crickets: Lifelong Kindergarten group, MIT Media Lab The Programmable Brick (Resnick et al., 1996) and its predecessor the Cricket (Resnick et al., 1998) are tiny computers that control motors, lights and sounds, while receiving information from sensors. With the Cricket system, children use a special visual programming language to create electro-mechanical creations, such as robotic creatures, kinetic sculptures, simple scientific instruments and custom-made toys. Programmable Bricks and Crickets thus develop design, scientific and artistic abilities. As an open-ended system designed to create an unlimited number of configurations which in turn contribute
Designing digital objects for learning
131
to the development of the child’s creative thinking capabilities, Cricket clearly fosters Froebelian design criteria.
3.2 BitBall: Lifelong Kindergarten group, MIT Media Lab The BitBall (Resnick et al., 1998), a programmable ball, utilises an internal acceleration sensor to map acceleration in real-time within different mediums, such as sound and light. Children independently change the BitBall programmes and customise its mapping. In the process of play and programming, children learn about the abstract concept of acceleration in a playful manner. Resnick reports that a group of university students could not apply their physics classroom knowledge to a real-world context: they tried to find the top of a ball’s trajectory based on its acceleration data. Using the BitBall they learned that it is impossible to locate the trajectory from acceleration data alone. The BitBall is designed for a limited range of activities. Children can play with the ball in different ways, but the internal sensors measure acceleration only, promoting in turn a limited, pre-defined singular activity in a puzzle-like format. Thus, the BitBall incorporates Monessorian principles as it surfaces one specific abstract concept – acceleration, and promotes conceptual manipulation related to this concept.
3.3 Programmable Beads: Lifelong Kindergarten group, MIT Media Lab By controlling dynamic light patterns in electronic bead units, Programmable Beads (Resnick et al., 1998) help children learn abstract concepts, such as emergence. Programmable Beads encourage children to form different light patterns by changing the beads’ configurations. While encouraging construction, the activity is limited to a fixed set of configurations, stressing exploration of the abstract notions of patterns and emergence. The Beads format of a puzzle-like, constrained activity that involves design and construction reflects both Froebelian and Montessorian principles.
3.4 Electronic Duplo Blocks: University of Queensland, Australia Aimed at pre-schoolers, Electronic Blocks (Wyeth and purchase, 2002) are tangible programming elements mounted in LEGO Duplo blocks. Using sensor, logic and action blocks, young children create interactive devices, such as a light block activated by clapping or a motion block that moves when light is detected. This manipulative’s unique advantage is its simplicity that enables pre-schoolers to create different devices independently and explore core concepts of logic and programming. Wyeth reports that older children (elementary and middle school students) could build more sophisticated creations, such as towers of blocks that ‘talk’ to one another or alarm clocks and cars that promote counting capabilities. Electronic Duplo Blocks is a relatively open-ended system that encourages several configurations while focusing on the design and simulation of behavioural patterns (such as generating movement by clapping). By promoting conceptual manipulation within a defined interactive context, Electronic Blocks incorporate both Froebelian and Montessorian design principles.
132
O. Zuckerman
3.5 Smart Tiles: The Craft Technology Group, University of Colorado at Boulder Smart Tiles (Elumeze and Eisenberg, 2005) are small, computationally controlled forms that can be assembled to create an array of complex and beautiful dynamical patterns. Using a programming language typically applied in cellular automata (such as Conway’s ‘Game of Life’ system), the end-user manipulates the Tiles – tiny LED-equipped ‘boxes’ – into slots within a larger virtual construct. As Smart Tiles also include piezoelectric disks, they are interactive thereby enabling activities such as the programming of a tile to change colour when gently tapped by the user. SmartTiles are a puzzle-like system encouraging the creation of ‘programmable configurations’ within a complex but confined paradigm. As SmartTiles do not promote visual imitation of natural or fabricated forms, but rather conceptual manipulation of Cellular Automata behaviour through careful interaction they accommodate Montessori’s design principles.
3.6 Boda Blocks: The Craft Technology Group, University of Colorado at Boulder The Boda Blocks (Buechley and Eisenberg, 2007) kit consists of a set of blocks that can be linked together to create three-dimensional structures capable of displaying dynamic patterns. Currently, a desktop application enables users to programme the blocks in accordance with Cellular Automata rules, thereby providing the opportunity to build a variety of three-dimensional Cellular Automata. Users can build structures with the blocks and connectors, set an initial configuration on the construction by turning the blocks on or off, and watch the resulting light pattern. Boda Blocks encourage construction and design within a limited set of configurations, while stimulating the Conceptual Manipulation of three-dimensional Cellular Automata behaviour. Therefore, Boda Blocks incorporate principles from both Froebel’s ‘Construction and Design’ and Montessori’s ‘Conceptual Manipulation’ approaches.
3.7 Block Jam: Sony Interaction Lab BlockJam (Newton-Dunn et al., 2003) is a block interface for the interactive production of music. Block Jam developers define it as a Modular Tangible Interface that is ‘Functionally Homogeneous’ , that is, a single physical objects with a single function as opposed to ‘Functionally Heterogeneous’ interfaces that involving various physical objects performing numerous functions. Block Jam was not designed to familiarise children with the notion of a musical sequence, but rather to simplify the construction of a musical sequence in an expressive process. BlockJam encourages the design of expressive music constructs an open-ended fashion hereby following Froebel’s ‘Construction & Design’ principles.
3.8 Curlybot: Tangible Media group, MIT Media Lab Curlybot (Frei et al., 2000) is designed to record every aspect of a child’s hand motion – gestures, pauses, accelerated movement, etc. – while translating the data visually. By
Designing digital objects for learning
133
repeating the pattern indefinitely, Curlybot creates beautiful and expressive patterns. Using Curlybot, children can explore mathematical concepts such as differential geometry as well as computational concepts such as programming by example. Curlybot is designed to repeat a human 2D gesture or movement and has very limited ‘configurations’ or operations. Curlybot can promote expressive pattern creation, however its main activity is exploration of the ‘gesture repetition’ concept, therefore it accommodates Montessori’s ‘Conceptual Manipulation’ principles.
3.9 Topobo: Tangible Media group, MIT Media Lab Topobo (Raffle et al., 2004) is a 3D constructive assembly system, enabling children to record and playback the physical motion of independently devised biomorphic images, such as animals and skeletons, animated 3D patterns and dynamic surfaces. Motion is generated by pulling, twisting and stretching motions. Topobo is designed to promote the construction and design of unlimited configurations of biomorphic forms in an open-ended system. At the same time, Topobo enhances conceptual manipulation through advanced playback options. Thus, while reflecting both Froebel’s ‘Construction and Design’ and Montessori’s ‘Conceptual Manipulation’ categories, Topobo bears a stronger affiliation with Froebelian principles.
3.10
TICLE: Brooklyn College
TICLE (Scarlatos, 2002) is a computer-vision system that tracks children’s play with the Chinese geometry puzzle Tangram. TICLE focuses on scaffolding the play process with the Tangram puzzle by providing hints in real-time. Similarly, TICLE supports children’s play with other manipulatives. TICLE is a puzzle-like system, with intentional constraints, aimed at specific configurations. As such, it is categorised as a Montessorian ‘Conceptual Manipulation’ manipulative.
3.11
ActiveCube: Osaka University
ActiveCubes (Ichida et al., 2004) is a cube-based interface allowing users to build 3D structures in the real world while computer software automatically generates a corresponding 3D virtual model that is displayed on the computer screen. In addition, the programme retrieves similar shapes from its 3D models database, such as airplanes, houses and cars. ActiveCube encourages design and construction of real-world objects of unlimited configurations with minimal intentional constraints; hence, it adheres to Froebel’s design principles.
3.12
System Blocks and Flow Blocks: Lifelong Kindergarten group, MIT Media Lab
System Blocks (Zuckerman and Resnick, 2003) are a set of physical blocks that simulate the System Dynamics ‘Stocks and Flows’ modelling language. FlowBlocks (Zuckerman et al., 2005) are a set of wooden blocks with embedded electronics and magnetic connections that snap together to form a range of configurations. FlowBlocks use light patterns to simulate the behaviour of complex systems thereby enabling children to
134
O. Zuckerman
intuitively understand System Thinking concepts. Applying the FlowBlocks’s tangible simulation properties, children can generate analogies to complex behavioural patterns manifested in the world around them (Zuckerman et al., 2006). SystemBlocks and FlowBlocks are construction kits that enable the creation of many configurations, however with intentional constraints. In an effort to promote construction of specific configurations, the blocks promote construction activity while aiming to develop conceptual manipulation abilities in the process. Therefore, SystemBlocks and FlowBlocks are designed along both Froebel’s and Montessori’s principles, but bears a stronger affiliation with Montessorian principles.
4
Conclusions
While de facto, educators, designers and researchers may be aware of the commonalities and differences in Froebel’s and Montessori’s educational outlooks and design criteria, there has so far been no attempt to isolate these distinctions. Recognising that while both approaches emphasise sensory interaction, modularity, isolation of properties, developmental appropriateness and simple aesthetics, designers will be able to focus more intently on what distinguishes Froebelian and Montessorian design principles and thereby achieve more fully the specific educational goals at hand. The distinction between Froebel’s ‘Construction and Design’ principles underlining open-ended learning objects that facilitate the simulation of natural and man-made forms and Montessori’s ‘Conceptual Manipulation’ principles implemented in constrained, puzzle-like designs that encourage the acquisition of abstract concepts will enable researchers, practitioners and developers of learning systems to optimise their designs.There is much we can learn from the history of toy design and from the experience of innovators in education. Looking forward into the future of learning experiences, there is no doubt that technology will play a substantial role in our children’s education. With the proliferation of personal computers, we must not only appreciate the significance of physical forms, material and multi-sensory interaction in the learning process, but also facilitate these needs by the ongoing development of appropriate learning objects. With the inspiration of the design principles that guided pioneers in this field, researchers and toy developers face unlimited opportunities for the creation of innovative educational toys and interactive learning experiences.
References Brosterman, N. (2002) Inventing Kindergarten. New York: Harry N Abrams. Buechley, L. and Eisenberg, M. (2007) ‘Boda Blocks: a collaborative tool for tangible threedimensional cellular automata’, Upcoming in Proceedings of Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Rutgers, NJ, USA, July 2007. Elumeze, N. and Eisenberg, M. (2005) ‘SmartTiles: designing interactive ‘room-sized’ artifacts for educational computing children’, Youth and Environments, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.54–66. Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B. and Ishii, H. (2000) ‘Curlybot: designing a new class of computational toys’, in Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’00), ACM Press, pp.129–136. Ichida, H., Itoh, Y., Kitamura, Y. and Kishino, F. (2004) ActiveCube and its 3D Applications, IEEE VR 2004, Chicago, IL, USA.
Designing digital objects for learning
135
Locke, J. (1693) Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Black Swan: London. Locke, J. (1698) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chapter I. New York: Prometheus Books, Great books in Philosophy (1995 edition). Rousseau, J-J. (1762) Émile. London: Dent (1911 ed.). Montessori, M. (1916) The Montessori Method. New York: Schocken Books (1964 edition). Montessori, M. (1949) The Absorbent Mind. New York: Dell (1967 edn.). Montessori, M. (1952) Kinder Sind Anders, Klett-Cotter, Stuttgart 1952. Available at: http://www.media-versand.de/forum/mmo-neu.html, ‘Polarisierung der Aufmerksamkeit zur Normalisierung des individuellen’. Muller, T. and Schneider, R. (2002) Montessori: Educational Material for Early Childhood and Schools. Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers. Newton-Dunn H., Nakano, H. and Gibson, J. (2003) ‘Block Jam: a tangible interface for interactive music’, Proceeding of the 2003 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME03), Montreal, Canada. Pestalozzi, J.H. (1894) How Gertrude Teaches her Children translated by Lucy, E. Holland and Frances C. Turner, Edited with an introduction by E. Cooke. London: Swan Sonnenschein. Raffle, H., Parkes, A. and Ishii, H. (2004) ‘Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory’, Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2004), Vienna, Austria. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K. and Silverman, B. (1998) ‘Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with’, In CHI ’98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems, New York: NY, USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, pp.281–287. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R. and Silverman, B. (1996) ‘Programmable bricks: toys to think with’, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.443–452. Scarlatos, L.L. (2002) ‘An application of tangible interfaces in collaborative learning environments’, SIGGRAPH 2002 Conference Abstracts and Applications, pp.125–126. Wyeth, P. and Purchase, H. (2002) ‘Tangible programming elements for young children’, Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp.774–775. Zuckerman, O., Arida, S. and Resnick, M. (2005) ‘Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives’, In Proceedings of CHI ’05, ACM Press. Zuckerman, O., Grotzer, T. and Leahy, K. (2006) ‘Flow blocks as a conceptual bridge between understanding the structure and behaviour of a complex causal system’, In the Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, pp.880–886. Zuckerman, O. and Resnick, M. (2003) ‘System Blocks: a physical interface for system dynamics simulation’, In Proceedings of CHI ’03, ACM Press, pp.810–811.
