September 13: Introduction

September 20: Creativity

• Hennessey, B.A., & T.M. Amabile. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-98.
• Turkle, S. (2008). Falling for science: Objects in mind (Steps, Venus Paradis Coloring Set). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Resnick, M. (2007). All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. ACM Creativity & Cognition conference, Washington DC, June 2007.
• (Optional) Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 60-67 (Nov. 2009)

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Create a Scratch project to introduce yourself. Add your project to the class gallery on the Scratch website

September 27: Objects

• Turkle, S. (2007). Evocative Objects: Things We Think With (Introduction, and selected essays - Cello, Knots, Stars). MIT Press.
• Turkle, S. (2008). Falling for science: Objects in mind (Blocks). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (Introduction: The Evocative Object and Chapter 1: Child Philosophers). Simon and Schuster.
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (Foreword: The Gears of My Childhood). New York: Basic Books.
• Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and reality (Chapter 1, Chapter 6). London: Tavistock Publications.
• (Optional) Turkle, S. (2008). Falling for science: Objects in mind (What we program). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• (Optional) Turkle, S. (2007). Evocative Objects: Things We Think With (Conclusion). MIT Press.

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Write about an object from your childhood, in the spirit of Papert’s gears.

October 4: Construction

• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (Introduction: Computers for Children, Chapter 1: Computers and Computer Culture, and Chapter 2: Mathophobia: The Fear of Learning). New York: Basic Books.
• Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer (Chapter 7: Instructionism versus Constructionism). New York: Basic Books.
• Resnick, M., and Silverman, B. (2005). Some Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children conference, Boulder, CO.
• (Optional) Singer, D., and Revenson, T. (1996). A Piaget Primer: How a Child Thinks (Chapters 1, 2). Plume Books.

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Create an interactive artifact with the PicoCricket kit.

October 11: No class

Activity (revisited): Submit the rewrite of the objects essay.

October 18: Identity

• Erikson, E. (1994). Identity and the Life Cycle (Chapter 2). W.W. Norton.
• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. (Introduction, Chapters 8-14). New York: Basic Books.
• Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (Chapter 7: Aspects of the Self and Chapter 10: Identity Crisis). Simon and Schuster.

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Explore the different ways you are represented online. Which representations are curated by you? Which are beyond your control?

October 25: Styles

• Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological Pluralism. Signs, vol. 16, no. 1
• Turkle, S. (2008). Falling for science: Objects in mind (What we build). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. (2003). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Chapter 1). MIT Press.
• (Optional) Gardner, H. (1998). A Multiplicity of Intelligences. Scientific American.
• (Optional) Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1) 59-69.

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Help two people learn Scratch, and reflect on the similarities and differences in their learning styles.

November 1: Engagement

• Dweck, C. (2000). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Chapters 1-3). Psychology Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (Chapter 4). Harpercollins.
• Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes (Chapter 1, Chapter 3). Mariner Books.
• (Optional) Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes (Chapter 4, Chapter 8, Chapter 11). Mariner Books.

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Read about the MacArthur Foundation badges competition. (See post for details.)

November 8: Participation

• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. (Conclusion, Epilogue). New York: Basic Books.
• Turkle, S., & Jenkins, H. (2011). "Does This Technology Serve Human Purposes?": A "Necessary Conversation" with Sherry Turkle. (Part One, Part Two, Part Three)
• Jenkins, H. et al. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation.

Writing: Respond to this week's blog prompt.
Activity: Project idea due.

A reading on the nature of fieldwork that might be helpful for your project: Turkle, S. (2008). The inner history of devices (Introduction). Cambridge: MIT Press.

November 15: Collaboration

• Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. interactions, 18(3), 42-53.
• Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing Understanding of the Idea of Communities of Learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity.
• Stahl, G. (1996). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Routledge.
• (Optional) Brennan, K., Resnick, M., & Monroy-Hernandez, A. (2010). Making Projects, Making Friends: Online Community as Catalyst for Interactive Media Creation. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(128), 75-83.

Writing: (Due Sunday by 5pm) Respond to this week's blog prompt about your experiences with collaboration.
Activity: (Due Monday evening) One-page project proposal due.

November 22: Community

• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (Chapter 8: Images of the Learning Society). New York: Basic Books.
• Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society (Chapter 6: Learning Webs). Calder and Boyars Publishers.
• Ito, M., et al. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media (excerpts). MIT Press.
• (Optional) Jenkins, H. (2011) What Samba Schools Can Teach Us About Participatory Culture.
• (Optional) Rusk, N., Resnick, M., & Cooke, S. (2009). Origins and Guiding Principles of the Computer Clubhouse. In Kafai, Y., Peppler, K., and Chapman, R. (eds.), The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and Creativity in Youth Communities. Teachers College Press.
• (Optional) Bruckman, A. (2006). Learning in Online Communities. In Sawyer, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 461-472). Cambridge University Press.

Writing: (Due Sunday by 5pm) Respond to this week's blog prompt about virtual samba schools.
Activity: (Due Sunday) Final project outline due.

November 29: Play

• Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children's learning in the age of digital culture (Chapter 6). Malden, MA: Polity.
• Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical play: Radical game design (Chapter 8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Gee, J.P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: New literacies and digital epistemologies (Chapter 10). New York: Peter Lang.
• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. (Chapter 11 [revisited]). New York: Basic Books.

Writing: (Due Sunday by 5pm) Respond to this week's blog prompt about the educational use of games.
Activity: (Due Monday) Feedback on others' outlines due.

December 6: Reflection

• Collins, A., & Brown, J.S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. Learning Issues for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer-Verlag: New York.
• Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing Design to Software, pp. 171-184 (an interview with Don Schön, by John Bennett)
• (Optional)Turkle, S. (2008). The inner history of devices (Introduction). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• (Optional) Schön, D. (1995). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate Publishing.

No blog prompt writing this week!

December 13: Final Project Presentations

Participation

Your participation in the class takes several forms: completing the weekly readings and activities, contributing to the class blog, actively participating in all class sessions, and facilitating discussion and activities during one class session.

Each week two or three students (to be determined in the second class) will serve as facilitators. The facilitators will coordinate group activity and discussion for the first hour of class. The facilitators could invite a provocative speaker, organize a debate, facilitate small group discussions, or introduce a game. What would make a compelling learning experience for class participants? What experiences would you want to have in the course? This is an opportunity to deepen understandings of the readings, while being playful and experimental with the design of a learning environment.

We’re happy to support facilitators in preparation for the class activities. Feel free to write to us with your facilitation ideas – or with requests for facilitation ideas. We’d like to get a draft of your plan no later than Monday at noon, so that we know that Tuesday’s class is ready and can provide you with some feedback.

Final Project

The final project is very open. You can design something. You can study how people create and learn with a particular technology. You can write a theoretical or critical paper. Whatever the format, please make sure that your project's core element is connected to the course's major theme of creative learning experiences.

You are welcome (in fact, encouraged) to work in groups. If possible, you should test your tool/materials/activities with sample users.

Grading

Grading will be based one-half on in-class and online participation and one-half on the final project.