Failing through Play: Integrating Iterative Design Methods to Foster Creativity in Primary Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity is one of the essential skills to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. In this exploratory research, we investigate how design can enhance current pedagogical methods in primary education to foster creativity in problem-solving activities. Using a case study method, we conduct semi-structured interviews with educators to understand their approaches, motivations, and the barriers they face when employing these activities in their classrooms. We also verify the iterative methods currently incorporated into these activities. Our analysis suggests that crucial elements of the design creative process, such as iteration and problem-finding, are often overlooked. Furthermore, the concept of “iteration” itself is not widely understood in the education field. These findings led us to propose a conceptual framework that integrates play and iterative design methods into primary education, making problem-solving and learning process more enjoyable and minimizing feelings of frustration that often arise from failure. Although the results are not conclusive, these finding suggests promising directions for further investigation and provide insights that can contribute to existing definitions of design and creativity in education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".