Developing Knowledge And Understanding

Introduction

Life routinely requires innovative, ingenuity and novel workaround acts that would subsequently make nurturing of creative impulses important to every individual. Many factors are associated with creativity, which include conducive environments, personality traits, as well as the serendipity and even the thirst for spiritual muses (Skinner, 2007). Notably, research shows that cultivation of divergent critical thinking skills, as well as deliberately exposing oneself to new experiences and new learning instances eventually leads to the making of new connections within different brain regions. While the tapping of innovative thinking skills is ultimately important to research psychologists, sometimes, clinical psychologists do encourage patients to use these artistic and innovative expressions as a means to confront different difficult feelings (Sternberg, 2011).

Creativity refers to an act, product, or idea, which changes a pre-existing domain, or which purposes to transform an already pre-existing domain to an entirely new one. What should matter is whether a novelty that an individual produces can be accepted for inclusion in a domain (Tim, 2007). By the express use of unusual interesting and stimulating thoughts, creativity is established. People experiencing the world in a peculiar novel and original way often employ creativity, and these constitute individuals who have fresh perceptions, and who make important discoveries that are only known to them, therefrom also having insightful judgements. Summarily, creativity is simply defined as novel production and useful products. In other words, it is the production of something that is regarded as original and also worthwhile (Wright, 2010).

Various scholars such as Wright (2010) have reached to a conclusion that creativity entails various factors, sometimes referred to as the systematic models of creativity. This is composed of the process, which is backed-up by the creative domain, the place or field and the person or individual. The creative domain is usually nested in culture, as well as symbolic knowledge that are shared by a specific society or entirely as a whole humanity. This process is usually depicted in significant cognitive approaches, which describe the thought mechanisms, and also the techniques involved in creative thinking. Theories that invoke divergent instead of convergent thinking or even those that describe the key staging of the entire creative process are the primary theories involved in the process (Tim, 2007). The place or field usually involves the domain goalkeepers, for instance the art critics and museum curators. The individual involves the person that uses a given domain symbols and sees or has a particularly new pattern or even idea attached to it, and includes it into the relevant domain.

In otherwise brief terms, it is clear that creativity can be defined as a tendency of generating or recognizing ideas, or even possibilities, which may be used in solving problems, also engaging in communicating with others, as well as entertainment. The need for having a novel, as well as complex stimulation, communication of ideas and natural values and the constant need towards solving problems often provide the basis for creative thinking (Bruce, 2011). In a bid to becoming creative, an individual requires to view various things in unique and different ways. Creative measure tests do one needs to be able to view things in unique and different ways and perspectives. Among other things, you need to be able to generate new alternatives and solutions. The test of creativity measure is the number one alternative, which people use in generating the uniqueness in various alternatives. The ability of generating the alternatives or seeing them uniquely often does not occur due to change, rather, it is linked to a variety of other fundamental qualities that are in line with thinking, including flexibility, ambiguity tolerance, or unpredictability (Griffiths, 2009). Moreover, it might also be linked to enjoyment of certain things that may be unknown.

Creativity has also been, in certain relationship models, associated with intelligence as a key component; intelligence often included as a subset for creativity. Three components within an individual are needed for creativity. They include the domain-relevant skills, task motivation, as well as creativity-relevant processes. One component that is external to an individual is the social environment surrounding, However, creativity requires an individual to have a confluence on all components (Hansel, 2017). Notably, high creativity results when someone is motivated in an intrinsical way, possesses the high levels of skills related to domain relevance, and also skills that are related to creative thinking whilst working in a highly-creative environment.

Mark making refers to creating different lines, patterns, as well as shapes. Different researches have shown that mark making is crucial to the child development and learning. Moreover, under physical development, mark making develops the children skills by improving their skills of fine motor, and as well helps them in developing the coordination of their hands and eyes (Mihaly, 2013). Notably, mark making is also connected to creativity as it helps develop the child's creative thinking skills. Mark making involves creative expressions and possible depiction of feelings and expressions. On the same note, mark making also helps in brain and language development as it provides children with the opportunity of exploring varied mediums that relate to mark making. Moreover, it purposes to involves them in sensory plays and often enables them in discovering new materials (Hansel, 2017).

Critical evaluation and analysis on mark making outlines further that mark making, on the same note, helps in enhancing the critical thinking of a child, his or her brain development, as well as language development, thus, providing them with the ability of building towards complex learning techniques in the future, hence improving their general learning skills (Hansel, 2017).

The article by Price et al. (2015)

The increasing observations on the use and acquisition of mobile devices by pre- school children has provided a basis of research by many critical analysis experts (Price et al., 2015). These observations have had and increased reports in the news, various known blogs, as well as other web based discussion forums, which also includes social media forums such as Facebook, Instagram and twitter. The research article has analyzed the use of iPad and other modern technology equipment via a number of legit research methods and has looked at the impacts and effects of such use in various aspects (Falloon, 2015).

A recent review has outlined a positive impact of this use on student engagement, thereby, purposing to increase motivation, enthusiasm, personal interest, creativity, and self-coordination, increasing motivation and improved productivity (Falloon, 2015). Debates as to the value of these touch devices have increased with the increase of these devices in both homes and schools. These debates are mainly based on attitudes; attitudes developed by these debaters; whether negative or positive, provide the foundations of respective arguments. Of course, these arguments may eventually lead to assumptions that may raise concerns on the extent to which young children utilize technology, especially touch screen devices that have become significantly integral in the present modern day homesteads, for instance, the use of iPad and mobile phones (Price et al., 2015). These devices have consequently been interactively accessible to young children.

This article used a unique quasi- experimental design, in examining the differences that arose in different mark making environments. The method of research looked at a number of aspects and results conclusively attained. Eleven children participated whilst conducting the research and were selected on parental and informed consent (Dezuanni et al., 2015; cited in Merchnt, 2015). The research entailed the differences in the touch interactions, usage of hands fingers, especially for touching, distribution of touch types, and also the sequences of touch, as well as continuous touch. Moreover, are the qualities of touch and painting products. These aspects helped arrive at a definite conclusion. Two distinct environments were used in the conduction of the research; the iPad and paint- paper environments (Price et al., 2015).

Under the overall touch interactions, it is evident that the iPad environment engages more touch episodes, rather than just the painting paper. On the use of hands and fingers for touching, different possibilities were available to the pre- schoolchildren (Price et al., 2015). The most used finger was the index finger, in both iPad and paint paper environments. However, when it came to paint paper, the palm of the hand was more commonly used.

Previous research that involved early mark making experiences has displayed visual feedback, whilst responding to children’s mark making, which is instrumental towards fostering drawing skill development. This is strongly the visual effect that is generated, as well as the high quality and quantity related to drawing behavior (Maich & Hall, 2016). These findings are usually based on study researches, which employ various writing instruments, like pens and crayons or painting sticks, but did these kinds of research did not look at the use of fingers or hands in general for drawing or mark making. Research on finger drawing, as well as general haptic exploration that happens in infants aged between 7 and 21 months has provided a depiction that the ‘likelihood of the child involved in any finger drawing type is maximized fully, when the kind of drawing results into discernable visual effects, which function as reinforcement (Price et al., 2015). This is in line with multiple opportunities that are led into engaging interactions with screens, and other digital touch screen devices.

Touch screen technologies offer various touch functions, including swiping, dragging or dropping (Xin & Leonard, 2015). Others may include link clicking or tapping, and also mark making in general; drawing. Research with young children significantly illustrates their difficulty in mastering these swipe, drag, or drop gestures, and this suggests that pointing gesture types are more significant and effective. Some researchers compare children (aged between 3 and 4 years) and as such, they use a relationship diamond touch interface in playing with real and virtual wooden-tree housing (Price et al., 2015). The analysis of the competence of children as well as the motor skills depicted a typical variation of use of the thumb or two fingers, rather than index finger touching the screen, unlike in the earliest stages of mark making. This brought forth the problematic nature of the ability of dropping and dragging objects.

Swiping actions are also noted to be problematic, as ironically, children often lift their touch in the course of the action and fail achieving the intended action as portrayed on the screen (Geer et al., 2017). However, these studies and research mostly engage children having a primary age going upwards, with the aim of achieving a design of touch-based interface, with only a few of those studies focusing on pre-school children and their interaction with these modern- based technologies. Under distributions of the kind of touches, a tap was found to be the most common touch form, and it was utilized in both environments. On the other hand, the straight stroke, as well as the circular stroke had similarities in both environments. However, they featured more on the iPad environment. An overall comparison implies that the primary difference whilst considering the amount of touch type is discovered in the press touch (Price et al., 2015).

The repeated and continuous touch sequences form a great aspect of this research, as its analysis help derive the importance and impact of mark marking in general interactions and development of digital literacy skills and improving learning. In this research method, repeated touch forms and the continuous touch differences were generally observed in all the environments (Price et al., 2015). A further analysis however reveals that continuous touch sequences were observed in the environments of using iPad, as compared to the paint paper environment.

Experiencing a variety of activities using different methods of research is regarded as significant towards fostering and also encouraging mark marking (Price et al., 2015). Notably, the early stages involved in mark marking take place through the sensitivity of either hands or touch. The interaction of touch contains specific, and also identifiable sensory functions that provide specific ways of experiencing weight, volume or texture, and also aids in contributing classified skills on an object or even a subject. Based on finger painting, or even drawing, it is clear that touch is linked with the learning of traditional form of writing and also drawing skills. Digital touch screes do provide specific tools used for mark making, thereby purposing to foundation modern research topic, for young children in the present generation (Rowe & Miller, 2016). Notably, this technological interaction is intuitive and forms the basis that computers can rely on keyboard, and also the mouse. This is owing to the fact that it exploits the natural sensorimotor form of the interaction. However, little research of the present date focuses on the physical interface nature, as well as the roles of mark making practices. Contrary, most scholars have laid the focus of mark making value towards supporting different skills development that include writing and drawing, using the old children, by use of traditional interaction that is mouse-based (Liu et al., 2016).

Based on the touches quality, it is evident that touch varied as per the pressure applied, size, as well as scale and this includes the dynamic size changes. Comparing the children’s touch scales with both the paper and the iPad does suggest that it was applied in both environments. Dynamic scale variation was rarely seen, whereas shape variation was conspicuously observed (Anthony et al., 2015). Children used the same ‘neutral’ level of pressure of touch that they used in both the iPad and the paint- paper. The interactions of children’s speed on touch remained constant throughout the whole interaction episodes.

The data analysis of the research article aimed at identifying the varied ways in which children purpose to make marks, and thus, it focuses on the touch types made on all the environments (Woodward et al., 2016). The data collection methods consisted of video data, and owing to the fact that it provided complexities and also limitations, it used various perspectives, for screen capture and on the iPad and this was used in recording changes that were made on the digital screens and also the external video recording, used in measuring children’s hand movements whilst interacting. The methods of research used have been clear and unambiguous and the conclusions arrived at proven subsequently substantial (Price et al., 2015).

There is a problematic access to the children’s facilities, and as such, participation identifies the need for better understanding how the present technology is beneficial to children. As such, parents, as well as educational institutions do make significant choices that are technology based, and those that have evidences and not entirely mere assumptions on the manner in which children use iPads (Price et al., 2015). The research outcome indicate that there are differences, as well as similarities in the interaction of children with the technology, which then draws attention on how they ought to use iPads. These differences and similarities are drawn whilst relating to hand, as well as finger use, and also the quantity of touch, touch type variations, and the repletion and continuous use of touches. These collectively aid in understanding how technology purposes to re-shaper interactions, and also their significant implications on the modern touch-screen technologies in educational institutions, as well as homes (Hussain et al., 2016).

Such concrete experiences by children agreeably bring forth significant foundations for thinking at conceptual levels. In order to learn from the experiences of hands and fingers, there needs to be the establishment of ‘schema’ that aids in facilitating conceptual development. The experiences aid in fostering the discovery of various connections between many things (Price et al., 2015). Based on this concept, these experiences contribute towards the understanding of children towards material affordances, and also the change concepts of physical materials. Notably, this highlights various loss opportunities for all children in experiencing different material textures, and also the messiness of the painting of fingers (Hiniker et al., 2015).

Mark making, and also drawing have over the years been acknowledged as to play a significant role in developing fine motor skills, and it also provides a foundational aspect towards writing and academic skill development. The early stages of mark making often evolves when imbues with signs, as well as symbols, experiences, as well as pictures, and these are regarded as essential in developing literary skills, including reading, writing and also speaking (Vatavu et al., 2015). Notably, mark making substantially contributes towards the development of a symbolic understanding process and also symbolic expressions, especially in instances when children make significant progress through making various scribble-like pictures and symbolic idea representation.

The drawings, as well as marks are regarded as creative expression forms with their meanings initially available to children, as they originate from the child’s ‘primitive’ or rather ‘young’ thoughts and imaginations (Price et al., 2015). As their symbolic understandings however progresses, they become recognizable to others. Notably, this understanding of symbolic potential enables the mind of children to use them in conveying how they think to other individuals. Thus, serving as a special for communicating socially, and also expressing words in writing and mathematically (Shaw et al., 2017). Recently, reports highlight the significant need for improving reading, as well as writing skills, especially for boys that are reluctant in engaging in drawing, as well as figure depictions as compared to girls. This is coupled with the need for the development of digital literacy skills. Notably, this paper contributes to the understanding of touch-screen technologies and their roles in enhancing mark making practices (Shaw, 2017).

Conclusion

From the above, it is evident that there were limitations in the number of fingers used during interaction with the iPads, the mark marking activity is not at all limited per sey. This kind of interaction in fact extends the activity of mark marking by enabling the continuous marking and dynamic changes in touch types, thereby increasing the amount of mark marking. Regarding the same impact, it purposes to limit the sensory experience, relating to physical paint and this results in a uniform, and also final composition. One of the key questions is a matter of the appropriate place and time of use of the technologies of digital touch screen and other physical materials, especially in early interaction years, as well as educational settings. The research from the article also identifies the significance of continuous drawing provision on a frequent basis and towards the development of educational skills, as well as literacy skills (Kennedy et al, 2012). Based on technology design, results do raise interesting contraventions, as well as challenges.

At a given level, the authors provide the need for designing varied applications, which enhance continuous touch screen play, and also mark making activities, which accommodate a wide touch type variation, and also the designs that foster multiple interaction of fingers. Factually, experiences encouraging multiple, and also simultaneous finger use are important towards fostering various skill development. At another level, significant findings raise challenges needed for systematic development, based on sensory perception. The key question risen is whether the design that is used would rise to the challenges, and aims for the achievement of digital skeuomorphism, for instance, creating a real relationship or connection between the technology and the real world. The creation of new experiences that are endangered by novel interface properties promotes creativity in itself as an important self- development skill. Such mark making affordances and improved experiences on technology conclusively contribute to fostering skills like continuous touch strokes, as well as pre-swipe-based skills that enhance additional experience that aid in further development.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Developing Diverse Reading Skills.

References

• Anthony, L., Brown, Q., Nias, J., & Tate, B. (2015). Children (and adults) benefit from visual feedback during gesture interaction on mobile touchscreen devices. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 6, 17-27.
• Bruce, T. (2011) Cultivating creativity in babies, toddlers and young children. 2nd edn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
• Dezuanni, M., Dooley, K., Gattenhof, S., & Knight, L. (2015). iPads in the early years: Developing literacy and creativity. Routledge.
• Falloon, G. (2015). What's the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Computers & Education, 84, 62-77.
• Geer, R., White, B., Zeegers, Y., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging pedagogies for the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 490-498.
• Griffiths, F (ed.). (2009) Supporting Children’s Creativity through Music, Dance, Drama and Art : Creative conversations in the Early Years. London: Taylor and Francis.
• Hansel, R. (2017) Creative Block Play: A Comprehensive Guide to Learning through Building. St Paul: Red Leaf Press.
• Hiniker, A., Sobel, K., Hong, S. R., Suh, H., Kim, D., & Kientz, J. A. (2015, June). Touchscreen prompts for preschoolers: designing developmentally appropriate techniques for teaching young children to perform gestures. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 109-118). ACM.
• Hussain, N. H., Wook, T. S. M. T., Noor, S. F. M., & Mohamed, H. (2016). Children’s interaction ability towards multi-touch gestures. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 6(6), 875-881.
• Liu, M., Navarrete, C. C., Scordino, R., Kang, J., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2016). Examining teachers' use of iPads: Comfort level, perception, and use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 159-180.
• Maich, K., & Hall, C. (2016). Implementing iPads in the inclusive classroom setting. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(3), 145-150.
• Matthews, J., & Seow, P. (2007). Electronic paint: understanding children's representation through their interactions with digital paint. Journal of Art Design, 26
• Merchant, G. (2015). Keep taking the tablets: iPads, story apps and early literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, The, 38(1), 3.
• Mihaly, C. (2013) Creativity: Flow and the psychology of Discovery and Invention : Paperback.
• Price, S., Jewitt, C., & Crescenzi, L. (2015). The role of iPads in pre-school children's mark making development. Computers & Education, 87, 131-141.
• Rowe, D. W., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Designing for diverse classrooms: Using iPads and digital cameras to compose eBooks with emergent bilingual/biliterate four-year-olds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(4), 425-472.
• Shaw, A. (2017, November). Human-centered recognition of children's touchscreen gestures. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 638-642). ACM.
• Shaw, A., Ruiz, J., & Anthony, L. (2017, November). Comparing human and machine recognition of children’s touchscreen stroke gestures. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 32-40). ACM.
• Skinner, S. (2007) Creative Activities for the Early Years. London: Sage
• Sternberg, Robert J. (2011). "Creativity". Cognitive Psychology (6 ed.). Cengage Learning Tim, H. (2007) Imagination is more important than knowledge. Fabricating & Metalworking, 6 (7), p. 8.
• Vatavu, R. D., Cramariuc, G., & Schipor, D. M. (2015). Touch interaction for children aged 3 to 6 years: Experimental findings and relationship to motor skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 54-76.
• Woodward, J., Shaw, A., Luc, A., Craig, B., Das, J., Hall Jr, P., & Anthony, L. (2016, May). Characterizing How Interface Complexity Affects Children's Touchscreen Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1921-1933). ACM.
• Wright, S (2010). Understanding Creativity in Early Childhood. London: Sage
• Xin, J. F., & Leonard, D. A. (2015). Using iPads to teach communication skills of students with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 45(12), 4154-4164.