Invention Pedagogy – The Finnish

Approach to Maker Education

This collection, edited and written by the leading scholars and experts of innova-
tion and maker education in Finland, introduces invention pedagogy, a research-
based Finnish approach for teaching and learning through multidisciplinary,
creative design and making processes in formal school settings.
The book outlines the background of, and need for, invention pedagogy, provid-
ing various perspectives for designing and orchestrating the invention process
while discussing what can be learned and how learning happens through inventing.
In addition, the book introduces the transformative, school-level innovator agency
needed for developing whole schools as innovative communities. Featuring infor-
mative case study examples, the volume explores the theoretical, pedagogical, and
methodological implications for the research and practice of invention pedagogy
in order to further the field and bring new perspectives, providing a new vision for
schools for decades to come.
Intermixing the results of cutting-edge research and best practice within
STEAM-education and invention pedagogy, this book will be essential reading for
researchers, students, and scholars of design and technology education, STEM edu-
cation, teacher education, and learning sciences more broadly.

Tiina Korhonen is Learning Innovations in Digital Society lecturer and Head of

Innokas Network, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Kaiju Kangas is Assistant Professor of Technology Education, Faculty of

Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Laura Salo works as a Project Manager at Innokas Network, Faculty of Educational

Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Routledge Research in STEM Education

The Routledge Research in STEM Education series is home to cutting-edge, upper-level

scholarly studies and edited collections covering STEM Education.
Considering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, texts address a
broad range of topics including pedagogy, curriculum, policy, teacher education,
and the promotion of diversity within STEM programmes.
Titles offer dynamic interventions into established subjects and innovative stud-
ies on emerging topics.

Mathematics Education for Sustainable Economic Growth and Job

Creation
Edited by David Burghes and Jodie Hunter

Queering STEM Culture in US Higher Education

Navigating Experiences of Exclusion in the Academy
Edited by Kelly J. Cross, Stephanie Farrell, and Bryce Hughes

Science and Technology Teacher Education in the Anthropocene

Addressing Challenges in the South and North
Edited by Miranda Rocksén, Elaosi Vhurumuku, Maria Svensson, Emmanuel
Mushayikwa and Audrey Msimanga

Perspectives in Contemporary STEM Education Research

Research Methodology and Design
Edited by Thomas Delahunty and Máire Ní Ríordáin

Teaching Assistants, Inclusion and Special Educational Needs:

International Perspectives on the Role of Paraprofessionals in Schools
Edited by Rob Webster and Anke A. de Boer

Invention Pedagogy – The Finnish Approach to Maker Education

Edited by Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas and Laura Salo

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-

Research-in-STEM-Education/book-series/RRSTEM
Invention Pedagogy – The
Finnish Approach to Maker
Education

Edited by Tiina Korhonen,

Kaiju Kangas and Laura Salo
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas and
Laura Salo; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas and Laura Salo to be identified
as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and
78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com,
has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Korhonen, Tiina (Learning innovations lecturer) editor. | Kangas,
Kaiju, editor. | Salo, Laura, editor.
Title: Invention pedagogy : the Finnish approach to maker education /
Edited by Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas and Laura Salo.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Series:
Routledge research in STEM education | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022029384 (print) | LCCN 2022029385 (ebook) | ISBN
9781032251974 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032262505 (paperback) | ISBN
9781003287360 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Maker movement in education--Finland. | Critical
pedagogy--Finland. | Science--Study and teaching--Finland. |
Technology--Study and teaching--Finland.
Classification: LCC LB1029.M35 I58 2023 (print) | LCC LB1029.M35 (ebook)
| DDC 371.39094897--dc23/eng/20220713
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022029384
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022029385
ISBN: 978-1-032-25197-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-26250-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-28736-0 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360
Typeset in Bembo
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Contents

List of Figures vii

List of Tables ix
Acknowledgments x
Foreword xi
List of Contributors xviii

1 Introduction: Roots and Key Elements of Invention Pedagogy 1

TIINA KORHONEN, KAIJU KANGAS, AND LAURA SALO

PART I
Learning by Inventing 13

2 Learning by Inventing: Theoretical Foundations 15

KAI HAKKARAINEN AND PIRITA SEITAMAA-HAKKARAINEN

3 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation in

Invention Projects 28
SINI DAVIES

4 Collaboration and Co-regulation in Invention Projects 40

PIRITA SEITAMAA-HAKKARAINEN, KATI SORMUNEN, SINI DAVIES,
JENNI MATILAINEN, AND KAI HAKKARAINEN

5 Learning to Create: Creating to Learn 56

NOORA BOSCH, JARI LAVONEN, AND KAIJU KANGAS

6 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy 70

VARPU MEHTO AND KAIJU KANGAS

7 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle by Means of Invention 80

ANNI LOUKOMIES, SANNA PATRIKAINEN, AND KALLE JUUTI
vi Contents
8 Framework for Technological Competence in Invention Projects 95
TIINA KORHONEN, KAIJU KANGAS, SINI DAVIES, KATI SORMUNEN, LAURA SALO,
AND MARKUS PACKALÉN

PART II
Facilitating the Invention Process 115

9 Designing and Structuring the Invention Process 117

KATI SORMUNEN, KAIJU KANGAS, TIINA KORHONEN, AND
PIRITA SEITAMAA-HAKKARAINEN

10 Orchestrating Invention Activities through Teacher’s

Multilayered Work 132
KATI SORMUNEN AND MARJUT VIILO

11 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 148

TELLERVO HÄRKKI, TIINA KORHONEN, AND SORELLA KARME

12 Fostering Invention Projects through Cross-Age Peer Tutoring 162

SINI DAVIES

13 Approaches to Student Evaluation in Invention Pedagogy 173

AULI SAARINEN AND JARI LAVONEN

PART III
Co-developing Inventive School Culture 185

14 Learning Environments for Invention Pedagogy 187

LEENU JUUROLA, KAIJU KANGAS, LAURA SALO, AND TIINA KORHONEN

15 Developing Teachers’ Transformative Digital Agency through

Invention Pedagogy In-Service Training 202
TIINA KORHONEN, LAURA SALO, AND MARKUS PACKALÉN

16 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 219

TIINA KORHONEN, LEENU JUUROLA, AND LAURA SALO

17 Conclusions: The Cornerstones and Future Directions

of Invention Pedagogy 236
KAIJU KANGAS, TIINA KORHONEN, AND LAURA SALO

Index 244
Figures

3.1 Prototype of the Banana Light 32

3.2 Model of the knowledge dimensions and themes of the Banana Light
team’s epistemic object 33
3.3 Early prototype of the Banana Light 35
4.1 Making-Process Rugs of the Gel Comb and Key Rack teams 45
5.1 The creative process in the We Design & Make invention project 58
5.2 Competencies for creativity applied and developed in the
We Design & Make invention project 66
6.1 Haley using the abrasive belt grinder 76
7.1 Example of the application prototype, Garbage Swipe 90
7.2 Examples of the application prototype, DFC 91
8.1 The framework for technological competence in invention projects 98
9.1 The project-based engineering process modified from Krajcik and
Delen (2017) and Krajcik and Shin (2019), and the LCD model
modified from Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al. (2010) 120
9.2 The invention pedagogy process model 122
9.3 A student teacher team’s idea sketch and technical drawing of their
invention idea 126
9.4 The prototype of sixth graders’ invention solution: The zero waste
composting machine 128
10.1 Model for orchestrating invention project 144
11.1 Beneficial support structures and skills for team teaching 159
12.1 Cross-age peer tutoring cycle model 166
12.2 The time line of the first cohort of peer tutors 167
13.1 An extract of ePortfolio in an invention project: Everyday
Assistive (Arjen apu; sixth grade). A burglar alarm that reacts
to movement and protects your property and works as a mirror 181
13.2 The elements of ePortfolio process and the development levels 181
14.1 Examples of technical and textile craft classrooms 188
14.2 FabLearn Lab Vuores 195
14.3 Mobile solution of FabLearn Lab Lohja 195
15.1 The innovation process in basic education 206
16.1 The Innovative School Model 220
16.2 First graders’ digital passport (school 5) 225
viii Figures
16.3 The task of the STEAM team members (school 3, STEAM team)
and process model for purchase (school 7) 227
17.1 The four cornerstones of invention pedagogy across the levels
of learning by inventing, the facilitation of the invention process,
and the co-development of inventive school culture 237
Tables

4.1 Primary school student teams and their inventions 46

4.2 Secondary school student teams and their inventions 49
7.1 Outcomes of the invention process 87
10.1 Background information and data collection of participating classes 137
10.2 Elements of orchestration design in four different invention projects 139
10.3 Elements of dynamic orchestration in four invention projects 141
13.1 Example of self-evaluation form of students’ activities 179
14.1 Pedagogical infrastructures in the co-development of learning
environments for invention pedagogy 193
15.1 Participant summary (n = 71) 205
15.2 Teachers’ academic, artistic, and computational competencies before
and after training on a proficiency scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all;
5 = very fluently) 209
15.3 Teachers’ invention-pedagogy-related adaptive teaching practices
before and after training on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = less than monthly;
5 = several times a day) 212
15.4 The implementation and perceived importance of transformative
digital agency during the course 212
16.1 Schools and development projects of the Innovative School project 223
Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the teachers, students, parents, principals, school stake-
holders, and researchers who have been a part of developing the ideas and practices
presented in this book. We express warm gratitude to all people and organizations
that have supported both our practical and research efforts throughout the years.
The research and development work presented in this book has been supported by
the Academy of Finland (Project Co4-Lab, grant number #286837 and Project
MakerStudioPeda, #331763), the Strategic Research Council of the Academy
of Finland (Project Growing Mind, #312527 and #336064), the Ministry of
Education and Culture (Project Innokomp and Innoplay), the National Agency
of Education (various projects), and the Technology Industries of Finland
Centennial Foundation (various projects). We also wish to thank graphic designer
Ville Karppanen from Parvs Publishing for the perfection of the line art included
in the book.
Foreword
Invention Pedagogy: Bringing Equal Access to
Progressive Pedagogies for All Children
Paulo Blikstein

Picture two groups of students. One is sitting stiffly in rows, memorizing equations.
The second group is standing with its teacher on the roof of a tall building. Below,
they see the pattern made by the business and industrial zones, surrounded by the
greener residential districts. They go down to the street. Explore their city at close
range. Then they go back to their classrooms, compare notes, and discuss what’s
right and wrong with the city and what to do about it. The first group, meantime,
is still memorizing equations. This is the difference between old and progressive
education. It is based on the theory that schools should be adapted to the needs of
children and of the increasingly complex society in which they are being trained
to live. And this theory is not brand-new: it has been practiced for more than 20
years, but mostly in exclusive private schools.
These opening lines were shamelessly lifted, almost verbatim, from a Life maga-
zine article published in the United States. They sound remarkably familiar, almost
as if they could have come from the latest issue—after all, at the time of publication,
“progressive schooling” had been practiced for two decades already. And yet, stun-
ningly, the article is dated 5 June 1939 (for the full piece see “Young Americans
Study America”, 1939).
That must give researchers and policymakers some pause and cause for humility.
We have been trying to reform schools for 100 years, but is it working? Common
sense appears to suggest that schools never change. This “standard critique of edu-
cation” asserts that schools are the same as they were a century ago, with their focus
on memorization, control, and standardization. I used to be a firm believer in this
critique, but a few years ago, I started to realize that the full story is more nuanced
and layered.
My doubts about the “standard critique of education” began when I started
detecting, in multiple press pieces about new “edtech” companies and their CEOs,
a common thread: the idea that we need to upend the “one-size-fits-all”, “passive”
model. For example, in 2012, the CEO of Khan Academy said, “The old classroom
model simply doesn’t fit our changing needs. […] It’s a fundamentally passive way
of learning, while the world requires more and more active processing of informa-
tion” (compare that to “schools should be adapted to the needs of children and of
the increasingly complex society” from 1939!). He was not alone. For most of the
2010s, the CEOs of the largest edtech companies such as Knewton and alt.school
xii Foreword
have claimed that “schools never change”, condemned their standardized “soul-
killing” lectures, and prescribed data-driven, personalized learning (for extensive
documentation, see Blikstein & Blikstein, 2021; Reich, 2020; Watters, 2021).
As the son of a semioticist, I grew up overhearing weirdly sounding names such
as Greimas, Foucault, and Bakhtin, so the claims of the CEOs sounded suspicious.
Semiotics is a science of “detectives”: it puts discourse under a microscope, looking
for patterns or unintentional fragments to reveal larger overarching themes and
intentions. When venture-capital-fueled companies and entrepreneurs offer cri-
tiques that resemble those of luminaries of (true) progressive education such as
John Dewey, Cynthia Solomon, and Paulo Freire, something might be amiss. And
indeed, even though at first glance the words read similarly, one key element was
missing: politics.
Freire’s or Papert’s critiques were not merely a commentary on “soul-killing”
classroom pedagogy but on the politics of education and its societal goals. Far
beyond being simply concerned with making classrooms more engaging or resus-
citating the soul destroyed in the lecture hall, they had developed a pedagogical
project that was enmeshed in a political one. Instead of compliance, tracking, and
labor market preparation, they advocated for emancipation, youth empowerment,
and knowledge-driven agency—not for a privileged few, but for all. And this cru-
cial element was right there in the 1939 Life magazine article: “[Progressive educa-
tion] has been practiced for more than 20 years. But mostly in exclusive private
schools.” In other words, it is not that we have not known what emancipatory education
looks like. We have for at least a hundred years: in one of Life magazine’s photos
from 1939,1 students are learning math by building their own train tracks, in a
room without desks and chairs, sitting on the floors, and working in groups. In
another set of photos, they are actively investigating their own city, interviewing
residents, and collecting data in the stockyards, the sewage plant, the local court-
room, and the low-income areas. With all this information, they go back to the
classroom to design solutions to fix different urban problems. Thus, this type of
work has been going on in schools for a century: the point is not that we do not
know what to do. It is about who we allow to participate in these kinds of learning
experiences.
Thus, when corporations and entrepreneurs advocate for “personalization” and
“free-spirited” education, we should take a moment to consider their motivations.
Personalization for what, and for whom? How far will those free-spirited students be
allowed to go in corporate-driven “personalized” education? And what compro-
mises, hidden curricula, underlying assumptions, power dynamics, and ethical prin-
ciples lie behind these new visions?
There is no better example or explanation than the trajectory of one of the most
well-known video-based learning platforms, Khan Academy. First, it got famous by
proposing that its vast library of online videos would break the one-size-fits-all
model of schools, bringing free, high-quality education to the masses and leading
to a revolution in how the world learns. Anyone with basic training in education
could recognize this as a 21st-century instantiation of Skinner’s “miraculous”
teaching machines: not only a long-disproven but also a hardly novel solution for
education (for an extensive historical account of the 100-year-old history of
 Foreword xiii
“teaching machines”, see Watters, 2021; for empirical studies of these types of
environments, see Reich, 2020). Khan Academy was not all bad: it did become a
valuable resource for many students, especially as supplementary material, but it
never achieved the overnight disruptive revolution it (very strongly and intention-
ally) promised. Realizing that the video library would not do the trick, and eager
to keep its centrality in the education reform conversation, Khan Academy
announced in 2014 the “Khan Lab School”—a school for a few dozen students, in
which pupils would be able to follow their intellectual passions with a flexible
curriculum and lots of contact time with human teachers—just like in the 1910s.
This astonishing move, rather than an exception, became the rule. When faced
with the harsh realities of “revolutionizing education” with a glorified video library,
and realizing that their solutions were utterly unscalable, Knewton, alt.school, and
others either closed down or pivoted to serving corporations or affluent customers.
Unencumbered by weighty theoretical or political commitments, they were free to
leave behind their educational saviorism and quickly embrace the business-as-usual
corporate modus operandi. By the 2020s, the Silicon Valley–inspired promise of
free, high-quality education for the masses, driven by miraculous AI-powered sys-
tems, was all but history. But it left behind a narrative that might still ring true for
many: schools never change, teachers are unprepared, the system is beyond repair,
and education reformers are touchy-feely hippies who do not know how to get
things done. And, crucially, to change education, we need to bring in entrepreneurs
who know how to “move fast” and deliver reform “at scale.”
Yet there is a competing, more subtle narrative that counters the “schools never
change” story: the ecosystem of education has in fact been changing, albeit slowly,
for well over 100 years.The theoretical musings of Dewey did not stay only within
academic debates: they were applied in his Lab School at the University of Chicago
(founded in 1896), which inspired numerous other experiences, including the con-
sequential “Escola Nova” movement in Brazil. Democratic, Freire-inspired schools
and projects have existed in the hundreds, and Papert’s and Ackermann’s construc-
tionism has impacted public policy in tens of countries. All these initially academic
ideas filtered through into K–12 schools through teacher professional development
programs, partner lab schools, and many other mechanisms. But since education is
a politically contested territory, it is always subject to the push and pull of larger
ideological and policy conversations: reforms are implemented when the environ-
ment is favorable, rolled back when the opposition gets into power, and then
implemented again (case in point: recent conservative back slash in the United
States on teaching about racism, the Holocaust, or evolution). And yet there is
change—not a sprint, but a marathon. As a result of decades of research, activism,
design, and experimentation led by intrepid innovators in schools around the
world, change has happened. These long-game innovators are not, for the most
part, technology entrepreneurs, and you do not often see them delivering TED
Talks. They are educators, principals, cognitive scientists, educational researchers,
computer scientists, and young students, who relentlessly experimented with new
ideas for education, despite stern resistance.
In this new narrative, it is not that “schools never change” but that even though
multiple stakeholders have been working tirelessly, public education reform is hard
xiv Foreword
and time-consuming. It requires complex consensus-building, risk-minimization,
and other structural changes that take decades to become firmly established.
Additionally, most progressive education scholars have always made it clear that
their reforms were indissociable from a political agenda, so it is no surprise that
there was enormous resistance.2 Conservative groups thus are not simply willing to
let things “change”.3
This unfair competition—between simple and complex change—is no more
visible than in the current discussion on the implementation of computer pro-
gramming in school curricula. In 1967, while technologists were envisioning a
future in which robot teachers would be taking over, the Solomon-Papert team
counterproposed the revolutionary idea that children should program computers,
not be programmed by them. They were not concerned with feeding the job
market with more coders but giving all children powerful ways of self-expression.
They refused the idea of canned computer curricula and instead advocated for
children to engage in building projects of their interest, proposing radically new
ways to organize schooling. In the 2010s, however, a new incarnation of computer
programming in schools came to be, this time sprouting from tech companies or
nonprofits led by industry tycoons. Even though they seemed to advocate for the
same ideas, there was a fundamental difference: programming was a tool to get the
“jobs of the future”, canned curricula were the rule, and the entire enterprise was
sanitized to appear as just a “neutral” educational reform. Evidently, these latecom-
ers got the reputation of being the people who “really did it”, leaving behind the
disheveled constructionist hippies advocating for their complicated reforms. The
constructionists wanted a lifetime of different learning experiences for kids—we
got an hour of code.
The same happened with the idea of a dialogical education that brings students’
lives and cultures to the classroom.The Freirean version talked about changing the
enterprise of designing curricula by making it more personally relevant, thus
changing power relations in classrooms. Too complicated. Does not scale. Too
political. Instead, in the 2010s, the idea of “personalizing” education was appropri-
ated by a plethora of institutions that offered a sanitized, easy-to-scale version in
which students are bestowed the amazing power to choose which prerecorded
videos to watch, and—drumroll—even to watch them twice!
The absence of politics is significant because it turns the affair into very unfair
competition. The “neutral”, sanitized version of the reforms is much easier to
implement and publicize, while the nuanced, complex ones take much more time
and effort. But the original, powerful, and deep versions of those ideas have often
found a safe home. Over the last 100 years, each time a progressive idea failed to
take root in public education, it would end up spirited away into private schools,
where—given a fighting chance—it sometimes blossomed. As a result, today we
have a number of private schools around the world offering 21st-century learning
in a wide array of ways, while most public systems struggle to leave the now-distant
20th century.This was as true in 1939 as it is today.We imagined that the big factor
of 21st-century educational inequity would be the “digital divide” (unequal access
to the internet), but it ended up being about the “pedagogy divide”: unequal access
to progressive pedagogies.
 Foreword xv
But there is hope. What if instead of embracing the discourse of “schools never
change and we need outsiders to show us the way”, we start to adopt a new nar-
rative? It would start with the recognition that there are three levels for systemic
school change: (1) generating new ideas, (2) piloting projects or experimenting
with new ideas, and (3) transforming entire public systems. We have plenty for the
first two levels: educators, researchers, communities, and students have been push-
ing schools to do different things for decades. We should acknowledge, embrace,
and elevate those efforts. The fact that transformations of public systems are so rare
should not be attributed to a lack of ideas or willingness to change. They are just
extremely hard to pull off and require sophisticated theorization, strong empirical
evidence, and buy-in from multiple stakeholders. And that is where this book
comes in.
Throughout the last decades, whenever we needed an example of a country that
had successfully implemented student-centered, progressive, advanced educational
innovation, we would look to Finland. It became a new paradigm in education by
achieving the best results in international rankings while having a progressive sys-
tem. This was revolutionary because, before Finland’s success, it was believed that
to do well on international tests, you had to “teach to the test.” Finland showed the
world that it was, in fact, possible to top every international ranking and yet also be
profoundly innovative. It showed that it was possible to change a system without
completely breaking it. Disrupting and breaking systems might work for private
schools, which can afford the risk—but a public system cannot.
This requires scalable, research-based, empirically tested models that could make
those new ideas a reality for all children. Finland is, again, showing that not only is
it possible to have advanced models, but it is possible to keep iterating and improv-
ing them to make those models scalable.
It’s not hard to say that schools need to change—the difficult part today is to do
it systemically, at scale, and with a sound theoretical basis. And this is exactly where
invention pedagogy comes in. The three perspectives of invention pedagogy—learn-
ing to invent projects, facilitation of fitting the invention process, and co-develop-
ment of an invention school culture—address the pillars of a sustainable and
comprehensive way of bringing this kind of work into schools at scale. Invention
pedagogy explicitly asserts that this requires a new type of classroom orchestration,
on teachers designing, implementing, and evaluating projects, and on breaking
peer-learning barriers by enabling students to learn from each other, even across
age groups.
By tackling systemic issues, this book also addresses some of the thorny ques-
tions that have plagued progressive education, such as the incentive systems and
promotion mechanisms in our schools. Students love doing projects in maker-
spaces, but that does not get them, in most countries, to the next grade or into the
best universities. Publishers have no way of producing hundreds of versions of a
textbook; national tests or teacher preparation programs cannot change every year.
Accommodating new ideas into existing systems is a monumental task, but it is
work that needs to be done. Doing it “halfway” will increase inequality: if we create
systems in which we have solutions, curricula, and technologies that work only at
a small scale, they will stay in private schools. We need to go “all in.” That means
xvi Foreword
having the courage to deeply change national standards, transform how pupils are
assessed in schools, redesign university admission processes, rethink how children
might show their expertise and talents far beyond school grades, and update teacher
preparation programs. And on top of all that, we should reward schools that imple-
ment those changes and create campaigns to communicate to families what it is all
about.
Finland is uniquely positioned to put forward these ideas because it has shown,
over decades, that it can create innovative but sustainable public policies. And these
reforms came from teachers, researchers, scientists, and educators who built them
over decades, not outside “miracle workers” with their gadgets and sanitized
reforms. Finland engaged with the difficult politics of education, tackling challeng-
ing consensus-building, long-term, invisible reforms; creating new metrics; valuing
the teaching profession; and respecting students’ brilliance.
Our educational systems should forever be a work in progress.There will never be
a perfect system that we can replicate and be done with. School systems are always a
moving target because they should reflect how we want to live as a society. Instead
of being a force for keeping things as they are, pushing societies back to the past, they
should always be a force pushing us into the future. This book, with its razor-sharp
vision of where we should be, deeply rigorous theoretical work, and careful data
analysis, is likely the most advanced attempt at systematizing a new vision for schools
for decades to come. Instead of just repeating the same old critique of school, the
same old clichés and platitudes about the need to change education, it courageously
faces the unimaginable complexity of the task head-on, examining the architecture
of the problem and designing realistic, yet innovative solutions.
Ultimately, the point is not that we do not know how to truly improve our
educational systems. The point is how to build robust systems to enable everyone to partici-
pate in new forms of learning. Finland, and invention pedagogy, might just be the key
that unlocks the gates that have been closed for a century.

Notes
1 We could not reproduce these for copyright issues, but they are available online at
https://books.google.com/books?id=fkkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40).
2 Ackermann was a student activist in Switzerland in the 1960s; Papert fought apartheid
in his youth in South Africa; Freire was jailed by the Brazilian military dictatorship.
3 For example, in the 1950s, in the United States, there was a concerted effort by right-
wing political groups to sideline progressive education, undoing much of the progress
that had happened in the three previous decades.

References
Blikstein, P., & Blikstein, I. (2021). Do educational technologies have politics? A semiotic
analysis of the discourse of educational technologies and artificial intelligence in education.
In Algorithmic Rights and Protections for Children.https://doi.org/10.1162/ba67f642.646d0673
Khan, S. (2012, October 1). Teaching for the new millennium. McKinsey & Company. https://
www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/teaching-for-the-
new-millennium
 Foreword xvii
Reich, J. (2020). Two stances, three genres, and four intractable dilemmas for the future of
learning at scale. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 3–
13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386527.3405929
Watters, A. (2021). Teaching machines:The history of personalized learning. MIT Press.
Young Americans Study America. (1939, June 5). LIFE Magazine, 6(23), 40–42. https://
books.google.com/books?id=fkkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40
Contributors

Noora Bosch, M.Ed., is a doctoral researcher in the Faculty of Educational

Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Her study focuses on participa-
tory design and maker pedagogy in lower-secondary education as a way to
develop several future competencies, such as empathy, creativity, and collabora-
tion. She is also interested in design-based research, design thinking, and mean-
ingful learning experiences.
Sini Davies, M.Ed., works as a doctoral researcher in the Faculty of Educational
Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. In her research, she focuses on
knowledge creation, maker-centered learning, and design processes, as well as
development of systematic, visual analysis methods for classroom video data.
Kai Hakkarainen is professor of education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences
at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He has developed internationally recog-
nized theoretical frameworks and models of technology-mediated collaborative
learning and knowledge creation and carried associated pioneering design
experiments at several levels of education. He has also studied expertise and
expert networks across many domains, such as teachers, engineers, designers,
energy-efficiency experts, fingerprint examiners, and magicians.
Tellervo Härkki, Ph.D., is a university lecturer in crafts pedagogy in the Faculty
of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She has many
years of experience in organizational change management, competence devel-
opment, and training. Her research interests include adults’ creative collabora-
tion and learning, as well as team teaching. Her current research focuses on
development of professional expertise during teacher education.
Leenu Juurola, M.Ed., works as a project manager in the Innokas Network in the
Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She
manages projects focused on the Innovative School model and teacher profes-
sional development. Her research interests include studying co-creation meth-
ods in professional networks and research-practice partnerships in school
development projects.
Kalle Juuti is an associate professor of digital learning at school in the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He chairs a doctoral
 Contributors xix
program in school, education, society, and culture. His research interests focus
on learning digital environments, education for sustainability, and science
education.
Kaiju Kangas is an assistant professor of technology education in the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She has been
researching and developing design and technology education and invention
pedagogy for almost 20 years, from the preprimary and comprehensive levels of
education to pre- and in-service teacher education.
Sorella Karme, M.Ed., works as a project manager in the Innokas Network in the
Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She
coordinates the Learning and Teaching in Digital Environments postgraduate
specialization studies program and its national network. Karme’s research inter-
ests stem from her professional experience and are focused on work and work-
ing life, professional learning and development, competence development,
employee-driven transformative agency, and comprehensive development of
work communities.
Tiina Korhonen, Ph.D., is a university lecturer (Learning Innovations in Digital
Society) and head of Innokas Network in the Faculty of Educational Sciences
at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She is leading the Learning and Teaching
in Digital Environments postgraduate specialization studies program at the
University of Helsinki. Her professional interests lie in the wide landscape of
21st-century learning and development of innovative educational practices in
the context of the digital society.
Jari Lavonen is a professor of physics and chemistry education in the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He is currently a
Director of the National Teacher Education Forum and Chair of the Finnish
Matriculation Examination Board. He has been researching science and teacher
education for the last 34 years and is active in the development of teacher edu-
cation, for example, in Norway, Peru, and South Africa.
Anni Loukomies, Ph.D., is a lecturer and teacher educator in the Faculty of
Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland, and a visiting researcher
in the Department of Childhood Education, University of Johannesburg, South
Africa. Her research interests are inclusive school culture, primary and second-
ary school students’ engagement and interest in science learning, coherence of
teacher education, sustainability education, and teacher turnover intentions. She
has 20 years’ experience as a primary school teacher.
Jenni Matilainen, M.Ed., studied the matters relevant to agency in a collaborative
invention process of elementary school students in her master’s thesis in the
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Currently, she
works in the field of human resources and is mostly interested in people and
their behavior, the motivation behind people’s actions, and lifelong learning in
the context of meaningful working life.
xx Contributors
Varpu Mehto, M.Ed., is a doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Educational
Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Currently, she studies the dynamic
role of materiality in learning-by-making. Her work aims to foster embedded,
embodied, and relational learning through practices of craft, design, and tech-
nology education.
Markus Packalén, M.Ed., is a professional educator specializing in technology
education, STEAM, and curriculum development in a comprehensive school in
Finland. Markus has strong experience in delivering teacher professional devel-
opment training, developing learning materials, and designing educational
games. In addition, he has worked on several international pedagogical design
projects. His sole interest is to figure out how to build meaningful and future-
proof education for all.
Sanna Patrikainen, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Viikki Teacher Training school of
the University of Helsinki, Finland. She has more than 20 years’ experience as a
class teacher, teacher educator, and researcher. She has also written mathematics
textbooks. Her main research interests are teachers’ pedagogical thinking and
action, mathematics education, and qualitative research methods. She is also
interested in pedagogical school development and co-teaching.
Auli Saarinen, Ph.D., is a craft and Swedish language teacher and works at
Aurinkolahti Comprehensive School in Helsinki, Finland. Her research inter-
ests are ePortfolios, technology-enhanced learning, and developing assessment
methods. Her dissertation researched the usage of ePortfolio in craft education
as a support and assessment for learning. Alongside teaching, she works as a
developer teacher in the city of Helsinki and lectures as a supplementary trainer
nationwide.
Laura Salo, M.Ed., works as a project manager at the Faculty of Educational
Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. She manages projects for the nation-
wide Innokas Network organizing Innovation Education activities in Finnish
schools. Her research interests are centered on digitalization in education,
teacher professional learning, the creative use of technology in education, and
21st-century competence development in schools.
Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen is a professor of craft science in the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland, and a docent at
Aalto University, Finland. The focus of her research is the nature of the design
process and the role of the external representations, embodiment, and material-
ity in design learning. She has analyzed collaboration and embodiment in vari-
ous settings and at different levels of education, focusing especially on design
studio pedagogy in the digital age.
Kati Sormunen, Ph.D., is a university lecturer in early childhood education in
the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Her
professional interests lie in future-oriented inclusive pedagogies, digitally sup-
ported learning, and methodological issues of learning future-oriented knowl-
edge and skills. Currently, she researches inclusive and pedagogical approaches
 Contributors xxi
that support sustainable development in early childhood education and care
from both children’s, teachers’, and leaders’ perspectives.
Marjut Viilo, Ph.D., is a craft teacher in a comprehensive school in Espoo, Finland.
She has extensive work experience as an elementary school teacher, teacher
educator, and researcher in several research projects concentrating on inquiry
learning, collaborative designing, and social creativity. She made her dissertation
at the University of Helsinki, concentrating on the teacher’s orchestration dur-
ing the longitudinal technology-supported collaborative inquiry process.
1 Introduction
Roots and Key Elements of Invention
Pedagogy
Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo

Introduction
The focal questions for scholars, professionals, and policymakers in the field of
education have been the same for a long time: How do we cultivate learners’
capacity to meet future challenges? What skills do children and adolescents need to
become active, responsible, and happy citizens? What competencies will they
require to make an impact in the future societies of the planet? How can we ensure
that subsequent generations are more capable of solving the increasingly complex
problems of our society than we have been, which include enormous cultural,
societal, and environmental challenges, economic inequalities, and pandemic out-
breaks? In invention pedagogy, we approach these questions through fostering the
innovative and creative capabilities of school communities that will be needed in
the rapidly digitalizing innovation society.
The United Nations’ (UN) Sustainability Goal 4 states that by 2030, all learn-
ers need to have acquired the knowledge and competencies needed to promote
sustainable development (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization [UNESCO], 2016). Further, the UN’s sustainability goals require
that schools make the necessary changes to address marginalization so that all
students are able to learn. Polarization is a concern, especially in relation to inven-
tion opportunities, digital technologies, access to technology, and the ability to
develop the skills needed to use technology in creative ways (e.g., Blikstein, 2013).
To address these challenges, school reforms have been pursued to enhance cre-
ativity, innovation, and educational practices that facilitate 21st-century compe-
tencies, creative learning outcomes, and deeper learning that are critical in today’s
digital society (Binkley et al., 2012; Dede, 2009).
In recent years, maker education has been brought to the forefront both in
learning sciences research and in public discussions, as it has been recognized as a
strategic component of future-oriented education (e.g., Bransford et al., 2006).
Maker education and maker-centered learning practices provide ample opportunities
for bridging digital divides, overcoming creative participation gaps, and connecting
informal and formal learning activities (e.g., Clapp et al., 2016). Maker education
encourages students to develop a growth mindset (Dweck, 2017) through hands-
on project-based learning and to engage in the creative practices of inventing and
making artifacts (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hsu et al., 2017). Such practices are

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-1
2 Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo
often strongly associated with science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathe-
matics (STEAM) learning (Bevan et al., 2014). It has been argued that, through
maker education, we can prepare new generations of students for our rapidly
changing society as well as capitalize on the novel pedagogical opportunities for
digitalization.
In this book, we will introduce invention pedagogy, which is a distinctive Finnish
research-based approach to maker education. This approach focuses on teaching
and learning 21st-century competencies through nonlinear, multidisciplinary,
creative technology-enhanced design and making processes in formal educational
settings and expands the principles of invention pedagogy to the systemic develop-
ment of schools. The origins of invention pedagogy date back to the beginning of
the current century when the researchers and practitioners behind this book
started to collaborate with each other. Back then, Finnish education was interna-
tionally renowned, but we began to notice that there were students who were not
motivated by externally driven and repetitive ways of teaching and learning.
Further, many students were proficient technology users, but instead of using tech-
nology creatively for educational purposes, they used it mainly for entertainment
and social activity. The ‘creative participation gap’ (Jenkins et al., 2009) or innova-
tion inequality was increasing; some students received support from their homes
and social networks to develop their creative and technological competencies,
while others did not. This gap expanded even further during the COVID-19 pan-
demic (Korhonen et al., forthcoming). Invention pedagogy has grown due to the
joint efforts of researchers and teachers to develop accessible educational practices
that help mitigate such inequalities in formal education and support students in
cultivating the competencies that they need today and will need in the future.
In the following sections, we first explore the underlying needs of future-
oriented education, that is, the competencies and skills that students should acquire
through formal education. Next, we present the key elements of invention peda-
gogy and related approaches, such as maker education. Finally, we discuss school-
level development by highlighting the joint efforts by researchers and practitioners
that are needed to invent and innovate in education.

21st-Century Transformative Competencies

Various researchers and organizations have outlined frameworks for defining and
describing 21st-century skills (e.g., Binkley et al., 2012; van Laar et al., 2017), that
is, the competencies needed for a successful life and a well-functioning society.
These frameworks share many elements but differ to a certain extent in terms of
their terminology and connotations. For example, the universal learning frame-
work by UNESCO (2013) defines the type of learning that is necessary for all
children and youths to have a good life in the 21st century. In turn, the eight key
competencies for lifelong learning proposed by the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union (2006) (also see European Commission, 2019)
underline the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for personal fulfillment, a
healthy and sustainable lifestyle, employability, active citizenship, and social inclu-
sion. The most recent framework is the Learning Compass 2030 published by the
 Introduction 3
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which
emphasizes transformative competencies and “the need for students to learn to
navigate through unfamiliar contexts and find their direction in a meaningful and
responsible way, instead of simply receiving fixed instructions or directions from
their teachers” (OECD, 2019, p. 20).
In the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Finnish National
Agency of Education [FNAE], 2016), 21st-century competencies are referred to as
transversal competencies, which are defined as an entity that consists of knowledge,
skills, values, attitudes, and will. In the core curriculum, transversal competencies
are classified into seven competence areas: thinking and learning-to-learn; cultural
competence, interaction, and expression; taking care of oneself and managing daily
life; multiliteracy; digital competence; working life competence and entrepreneur-
ship; participation, involvement, and building a sustainable future. The transversal
competencies have a cross-curricular nature, and each school subject has objectives
related to them along with subject-specific aims. Furthermore, multidisciplinary
learning is emphasized in the curriculum. Each school is expected to ensure that
all students’ studies include at least one multidisciplinary module (i.e., a project or
unit) every school year. The objectives, contents, and implementation of the mod-
ules are defined and specified in local curricula and schools’ annual plans. The
modules provide opportunities to teach and learn both interdisciplinary and disci-
plinary knowledge and skills, as well as transversal competencies.
The Learning Compass 2030 by the OECD (2019) also identifies the types of
knowledge and skills that students require to contribute to and flourish in the
world. Disciplinary, interdisciplinary, epistemic, and procedural knowledge include
both theoretical concepts and ideas, as well as practical understanding based on
experience. Skills refer to one’s capacity to perform processes and the ability to use
knowledge to achieve goals and include cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, socio-
emotional skills, as well as practical and physical skills. An important challenge is to
learn creative thinking and develop innovative abilities (Rotherham, 2009). To
become productive contributors in the 21st-century society, students need to be
able to master a broad portfolio of essentials in learning, innovation, technology,
and careers skills that are needed for their career and life while simultaneously
learning the core content of a specific field of knowledge (Trilling & Fadel, 2009;
also see Binkley et al., 2012).
The OECD has further specified skills related to innovation (Vincent-Lancrin
et al., 2019), which are especially interesting for pedagogical approaches, such as
invention pedagogy, that aim to nurture students’ innovative and creative capabili-
ties. Similar to the Learning Compass, the “skills for innovation” framework
includes three overlapping categories that need to be developed in parallel: (1)
domain-specific skills, (2) creativity and critical thinking skills, and (3) socio-emo-
tional skills. Domain-specific skills refer to the know-what and know-how of a
certain subject or field of study, while socio-emotional skills include self-regulative,
behavioral, and social skills, such as self-confidence, perseverance, passion, com-
munication, and collaboration. Creative and critical thinking skills are necessary for
inquiring, imagining, doing, and reflecting on activities where ideas and solutions
are created and evaluated.
4 Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo
Key Elements of Invention Pedagogy
The various frameworks described in the previous section characterize the com-
petencies, skills, and knowledge needed in the 21st century. Invention pedagogy
addresses the question of how these could be cultivated in formal education
through rigorous research and development work carried out in Finnish schools.
The research foundations of invention pedagogy projects are based on knowledge
creation (Hakkarainen et al., 2004; Paavola et al., 2004), learning by collaborative
design (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010), creative problem-solving in science
and technology education (Lavonen et al., 2004), and inclusive education
(Sormunen et al., 2020). A distinctive feature of invention pedagogy is that it has
been developed through the sustained, joint partnership efforts of researchers and
practitioners. Cross-fertilizing academic research and extensive experience from
the field have enabled us to create novel, yet accessible educational practices
together with new scientific knowledge.
Invention pedagogy is anchored in formal education contexts and the aims and
objectives defined in the core curriculum. It shares many similarities with other
educational approaches, such as maker education, STEAM, and Design and
Technology education, which emphasize creativity, innovation, interdisciplinarity,
learning by doing, collaboration, and the use of technology. In addition to the
STEAM subjects, invention pedagogy is combined with other subjects such as
language (e.g., storytelling) or physical education (e.g., dancing with robot inven-
tions) in a multidisciplinary way. Moreover, the school subject ‘crafts’ plays an
essential role in invention pedagogy. In Finland, crafts has been a part of formal
education since 1866 and remain a mandatory subject for all students in grades 1–7
(see Porko-Hudd et al., 2018). Crafts is a multi-material subject that includes the
materials and methods of both textile and technical work, such as sewing, knitting,
wood-, and metalwork, and digital fabrication (Pöllänen, 2020). This subject pro-
vides the means for creative ideation and experimentation with activities based on
craft expression, design, and technology (FNAE, 2016). In addition, the concept of
holistic craft is emphasized, i.e., a student or group is responsible for the entire craft
process, from ideation and design to making and evaluation (Pöllänen, 2009).
Embedded with the versatile use of creative technologies, multidisciplinary inven-
tion pedagogy projects provide students with the possibilities to acquire transfor-
mative 21st-century competencies in an inspiring and future-oriented way.
Through the invention process, students learn how to deal with challenging
scientific, technological, and design problems and collaboratively develop creative
solutions (inventions) using various digital and traditional technologies. Every stu-
dent is an inventor – a maker – who is encouraged to share their knowledge when
constructing a shared artifact (Riikonen et al., 2020). Organizing an invention
pedagogy project requires close cooperation between different subjects and teach-
ers. Two or more teachers with different perspectives and varying expertise come
together to plan and implement the project. During a project, the presence of
several teachers enables the implementation of flexible and creative teaching
arrangements and solutions. The curriculum also requires teachers to include stu-
dents in planning multidisciplinary entities and the choice of the theme, taking
 Introduction 5
into account the students’ interests and experiences that motivate and engage them
to study. However, it is the teachers who are responsible for maintaining students’
motivation and engagement, meeting the objectives of the curriculum, and fitting
the whole project into restricted time, space, and material resources. Invention
projects may vary significantly in their contents and implementation, but they all
share certain key elements.These include (1) students’ and teachers’ inclusive inno-
vator mindset, (2) multifaceted real-world phenomenon as a starting point for a
project, (3) co-creation of knowledge and artifacts, and (4) technology-enriched
tools and materials.

Inclusive Innovator Mindset

Invention projects require and develop a certain type of mindset for the students
and teachers.The inclusive innovator mindset is closely related to the maker mind-
set (Dougherty, 2013), that is, it involves a can-do attitude that includes elements
such as resilience, creativity, willingness to tinker, and collaboration orientation
(also see Cohen et al., 2018), which enables students to see themselves as the mak-
ers and shapers of the future. Further, a sense of curiosity (Regalla, 2016), playful-
ness (Honey & Kanter, 2013), and grit (Clapp et al., 2016) are also included in this
kind of mindset. In addition, the inclusive innovator mindset is closely related to
the growth mindset, which refers to an outlook that involves tolerating risk and
failure and believing that all capabilities can be developed, improved, and expanded
(Dweck, 2017). Invention pedagogy is also an inclusive pedagogy, as it relies on the
assumption that the potential and abilities of every student are acknowledged and
accepted (Spratt & Florian, 2015).This type of inclusive innovator mindset is com-
mitted to co-developing creative new ways of working with others and modeling
and testing new ways to develop learning and teaching in practice (Sormunen et
al., 2020). In invention pedagogy, students, teachers, and other actors in the school
community continuously improve their thinking and understanding of themselves
as the makers of their own and others’ future.

Multifaceted Real-World Phenomena

The starting point of any invention project is a real-world phenomenon, which is
studied from various points of view, crossing the boundaries between school sub-
jects. Students are encouraged to pose their own questions and challenges, which
they approach by co-creating inventions that address these challenges (Silander et
al., 2022). Such learning increases students’ motivation, their readiness to solve
complex problems, their ability to combine school and everyday knowledge, and
the competencies associated with applying, evaluating, and creating new knowl-
edge (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). In invention projects, the work is carried
out cyclically by experimenting, receiving feedback, reflecting on the progress of
the process, and changing the operation based on the same. The teachers link the
phenomenon under study flexibly to the aims and objectives of the curriculum,
loosely, as the learning goals, practices, information required, and outputs only
become apparent during the process.
6 Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo
Thinking of the interests and abilities of all students is imperative when design-
ing the invention process and framing the underlying phenomenon. Previous stud-
ies indicate that active construction, maker activities, collaborative learning tasks,
and an opportunity to influence the selection of the learning task engage students
to learn, for example, science in more depth (Martinez & Stager, 2019; Sormunen
et al., 2020). Invention pedagogy enables the teacher to add more variety to the
activities related to students’ abilities, strengths, and interests, which helps engage
students to learn (see Krajick & Merritt, 2012; Sormunen et al., 2020). Such co-
creation also enhances a student’s sense of being a full-fledged member of the
learning community (see Laurell et al., 2021).

Co-creation of Knowledge and Artifacts

Invention pedagogy leans on sociocultural theories of learning, that is, learners are
regarded as active creators of knowledge, and knowledge is seen to be formed in
settings mediated by social interactions and materials and tool use. Students work
together to create a shared understanding of the challenge to be solved, to deter-
mine the constraints outlining the possible solutions, and to co-construct ideas and
solutions for an invention. As each team has its own approach to the objectives of
an invention project, the students also need to share knowledge and experience
between teams to create a comprehensive perception of the underlying phenom-
enon. Co-creation skills are developed when students discuss and evaluate their
own responsibilities and tasks.They learn to evaluate and justify their own and each
other’s ideas and reflect on the possible bias in their own perspective compared to
other perspectives (see Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019). Invention pedagogy also
involves the concept of cross-age peer tutoring, which means that older students
with technological expertise systematically support their younger peers in inven-
tion projects (Tenhovirta et al., 2021).
An essential aspect in invention pedagogy is working with shared intangible and
tangible artifacts through visual representations, conceptual models, tools, and
materials. Collaboration in invention projects is intrinsically material; the students
interact not only with each other verbally but also have conversations with and
through materials as they contribute to shared goals with direct material manipula-
tions (Mehto et al., 2020a). The sociomaterial theories enable the consideration of
materials and tangible objects as active agents that constrain and enable the inven-
tion process. The meaning of materials emerges in action through relationships
(Orlikowski, 2007); it is the entanglements of social and material that determine
the nature of collaboration and knowledge creation in invention projects (Mehto
et al., 2020a; Mehto et al., 2020b).

Technology-Enriched Tools and Materials

Invention projects require high-tech tools such as programmable microcon-
trollers and 3D printers, and low-tech tools and materials, such as arts and crafts
tools and traditional craft machinery. Technologies are regarded as both the
objects and the tools of learning. Students’ ideas determine which technologies
 Introduction 7
are to be used in an invention project, although teachers can also constrain the
objectives of the project by providing certain technologies to the students. One
of the primary aims in invention pedagogy is to provide students with support
and models of how technologies can be used for creative and academic pur-
poses. Although many children and adolescents use technologies fluently for
social and recreational purposes, there are serious concerns related to a widen-
ing “digital divide” or “creative participation gap” (Jenkins et al., 2009), that is,
unequal access to learning opportunities owing to, for example, different socio-
economic backgrounds. Further, although technologies are fundamentally trans-
forming everyday life and interactions, their applications in schools are largely
limited to consolidating existing educational practices instead of creating new
ones (Hakkarainen et al., 2015). Invention projects provide students, and teach-
ers, with the ability to use technologies in a sophisticated and creative manner,
thus facilitating their understanding of and participation in the ever-changing
technological world.

Joint Development of Teachers and Researchers

Invention pedagogy has grown from a joint and intertwined effort by teachers and
researchers that brings forth the persistent and long-term work of the authors,
which aims to develop 21st-century competences and innovation. The teachers in
our partner schools have developed invention pedagogy and innovation education
teaching practices in their own schools and networks. At the very heart of these
practices is the 20-year-old Innokas Network (www.innokas.fi/en). The nation-
wide network works in close collaboration with teachers, researchers, and interna-
tional partners.The researchers in our author team have studied design, technology,
craft, and science education within basic education through various research proj-
ects since the turn of the century.They are especially interested in multidisciplinary
and collaborative innovation and knowledge building through hands-on activities.
Through research-practice partnerships (RPPs) (Coburn & Penuel, 2016), we have
created accessible educational practices and enabled the ongoing co-development
of invention pedagogy.
At the heart of RPP is the assumption that the “socially sustainable knowledge”
required for school development (Nowotny, 2003) can only be created through
interactions with researchers and practitioners such as principals, teachers, and stu-
dents. Finnish primary and secondary teachers are educated at the university level
through a five-year master’s program and are responsible for participating in the
local curriculum design, designing learning environments and courses, and assess-
ing both their own teaching and their students’ learning outcomes (Lavonen,
2020). This research-oriented professional background represents a good founda-
tion for RPP. The starting point for an RPP is the practical problems experienced
in the field (Coburn & Penuel, 2016) instead of the researchers’ own academic and
scientific interests. The purpose of RRPs is to combine relevant research informa-
tion with the relevant practical knowledge of the professionals working in the field.
This requires mutual learning between researchers and practitioners; both must
work in the zone of proximal development to learn new ways of working and
8 Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo
build a shared understanding (Juuti et al., 2016) to develop schools. Ideally, an RPP
involves the joint development of solutions for the practice-based problems of
pedagogical innovations. Ultimately, this is tied up in the holistic development of
the whole school. A successful RPP generates both new educational practices and
new academic knowledge.
The RPP and co-creation between teachers and researchers that has been going
on for over 15 years, and our joint drive to develop schools and to teach holistically,
have made possible the creation of this book, which encompasses both the grass-
roots level of teaching and research-based knowledge. RPPs and persistent net-
work-based development work have been the prerequisites for any new practice
for change.This change extends beyond individual pilot projects to established and
continuously developed practices and ways of working at schools. RPPs, network-
based development, and dissemination work have enabled the pedagogical innova-
tions presented in this book to make their way into hundreds of Finnish schools,
forming functional everyday practices.
This book introduces the ongoing journey in the development work of inven-
tion pedagogy as well as the results obtained thus far. Part I lays the foundation for
invention pedagogy by describing the emergent and nonlinear nature of knowl-
edge-creating learning in invention projects.The chapters in this part present vari-
ous perspectives regarding learning through invention pedagogy related to
epistemic objects and knowledge creation, collaboration and co-regulation, cre-
ativity, materiality, sustainability, and technological competences. Part II examines
the facilitation of invention projects, depicting the designing, structuring and
orchestration of innovation projects. In addition, it highlights the importance of
team teaching and students’ peer tutoring in the designing and implementation of
invention projects. The part ends with a discussion of the evaluation of innovation
projects. Part III discusses the co-development of the inventive school culture by
analyzing the learning environments of invention pedagogy as well as teachers’
transformative digital agency. The last chapter considers a school as an innovative
community and expands invention pedagogy to the systemic development of
schools.
The invention projects discussed in this book have been inspiring experiences
for students, teachers, and researchers alike. They have challenged us to think and
act in new ways and have encouraged us to take a leap into the unknown without
knowing the product of the project or how we will reach the finish line. Invention
projects have allowed the achievement of competencies that have rarely been
attained through traditional teaching. Through this book, we want to share these
experiences and research results with those academics and educators who are inter-
ested in developing future-oriented education. At the same time, we want to
encourage every educator to consider their own role and practices. Can you
become an innovation educator? Can you guide invention projects? Can you cre-
ate innovations that support schoolwork with students and colleagues? As is gener-
ally the case with creating new things, the path to completing this book has been
multifaceted and winding. It has also been an extremely rewarding process of
learning together, which is still ongoing. We hope to have many new innovators
and inventors join us on this journey!
 Introduction 9
References
Bevan, B., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational
Leadership, 72(4), 28–33. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/tinkering-is-serious-play
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In T. P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 33–66). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of
invention. In J. Walter-Hermann, & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and
inventors (pp. 203–222). Transcript. https://doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839423820
Bransford, J., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D., Meltzoff, A., Pea, R., Roschelle, J., Vye, N., Kuhl,
P, Bell, P., Barron, B., Reeves, B., & Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education:
Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander, & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 209–244). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688244
Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-centered learning: Empowering
young people to shape their worlds. Jossey-Bass.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnership in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45, 48–54. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Cohen, J., Margulieux, L. E., Renken, M., Smith, S. F., & Jones, W. M. (2018). Measuring
maker mindset: Establishing content validity with card sorting. In J. Kay, & R. Luckin
(Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th International
Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018,Vol. 3. International Society of the Learning
Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/703
Dede, C. (2009). Comparing frameworks for “21st century skills”. In J. Bellance, & R. Brands
(Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Solution Tree Press.
Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey, & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design make
play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 25–29). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203108352
Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset:The new psychology of success (2nd ed.). Random House.
European Commission. (2019). Key competencies for lifelong learning. Education and training,
European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/297a
33c8-a1f3-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2006). Recommendations of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for
Lifelong Learning. 2006/962/EC, Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Hakkarainen, K., Hietajärvi, L., Alho, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2015). Socio-digital
revolution: Digital natives vs digital immigrants. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclo-
pedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 918–923). Elsevier.
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked
expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Elsevier.
Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014).The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational
Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://www.hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-
review-volume-84-number-4/herarticle/the-maker-movement-in-education
Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (Eds.) (2013). Design make play: Growing the next generation of STEM
innovators. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108352
10 Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo
Hsu, Y., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. (2017). Learning through making and maker education.
TechTrends, 61(6), 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Wiegel, M. (2009). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation.
https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/jenkins_white_paper.pdf
Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo,V. (2016). Pragmatic design-based research—Designing as a
shared activity of teachers and researches. In D. Psillos, & P. Kariotoglou (Eds.), Iterative
design of teaching-learning sequences (pp. 35–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-7808-5_3
Korhonen,T., Seitamaa, A., Salonen,V.,Tiippana, N., Laakso, N., Lavonen, J., & Hakkarainen,
K. (forthcoming). Sociodigital practices, competence, mindset and profiles of Finnish
students before and after Covid 19 distance learning period.
Krajick, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does con-
structing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Understanding a
framework for K–12 science education. Science Teacher, 79(3), 38–41. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/43557386
Laurell, J., Seitamaa, A., Sormunen, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Korhonen, T., &
Hakkarainen, K. (2021). A socio-cultural approach to growth-mindset pedagogy:
Maker-pedagogy as a tool for developing the next-generation growth mindset. In E.
Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A. Toom (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools
(pp. 296–312). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465008_016
Lavonen, J. (2020). Curriculum and teacher education reforms in Finland that support the
development of competences for the twenty-first century. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.),
Audacious education purposes: How governments transform the goals of education systems (pp.
65–80). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3_3
Lavonen, J., Autio, O., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Creative and collaborative problem solving in
technology education: A case study in primary school teacher education. Journal of
Technology Studies, 30(2), 107–115. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43604650
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation,
knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-4369-4
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2019). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the
classroom (2nd ed.). Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020a).
Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary
school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12942
Mehto,V., Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Kangas, K. (2020b). Sociomateriality of
collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker centered learning.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 26, 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2020.100209
Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratizing expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and
Public Policy, 39(3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). OECD Learning
Compass 2030: A series of concept notes. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-
project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
Orlikowski,W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization
Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
 Introduction 11
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen K. (2004). Modeling innovative knowledge com-
munities: A knowledge-creation approach to learning. Review of Educational Research,
74(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557
Pöllänen, S. (2009). Contextualising craft: Pedagogical models for craft education. International
Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.
2009.01619.x
Pöllänen, S. (2020). Perspectives on multi-material craft in basic education. International
Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(1), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12263
Porko-Hudd, M., Pöllänen, S., & Lindfors, E. (2018). Common and holistic crafts education
in Finland. Techne Series—Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science, 25(3), 26–38.
https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/3025
Regalla, L. 2016. Developing a maker mindset. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai
(Eds.), Makeology, makerspaces as learning environments (pp. 257–272). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726519
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Bringing maker prac-
tices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’
collaborative making processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 15(3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6
Rotherham, A. J. (2009). 21st century: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership, 67(1),
16–21. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/21st-century-skills-the-challenges-ahead
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative
designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9066-4
Silander, P., Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022). Learning com-
putational thinking in phenomenon-based co-creation projects—Perspectives from Finland.
In S. C. Kong, & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education in K-12: Artificial intel-
ligence literacy and physical computing (pp. 103–120). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/
mitpress/13375.003.0008
Sormunen, K., Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2020). Maker-centered project-based learning in
inclusive classes: Supporting students’ active participation with teacher-directed reflective
discussions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 691–712.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9
Spratt, J., & Florian, L. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy: From learning to action: Supporting each
individual in the context of ‘everybody’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 89–96. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006
Tenhovirta, S., Korhonen,T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Cross-age peer
tutoring in a technology-enhanced STEAM project at a lower secondary school. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09674-6
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2013).
Toward universal learning: A global framework for measuring learning. UNESCO Institute for
Statistics, Brookings Institution: Center for Universal Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000225225?2=null&queryId=ec45fcaf-4d85-4792-9e0f-
1e98fc929cac
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2016).
Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable
Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learn-
ing opportunities for all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
12 Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, and Laura Salo
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017).The relation
between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in
Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra,
M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking:
What it means in school. Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en
Part I

Learning by Inventing

Invention pedagogy guides students in learning transversal, cross-disciplinary, and

disciplinary competencies through nonlinear, open-ended, and creative design pro-
cesses that deviate from traditional ways of teaching and learning. Rather than
assimilating predetermined knowledge and skills, students engage in finding, defining,
and solving authentic and challenging scientific, technological, and aesthetic prob-
lems by using both traditional and digital tools and processes.
The first part of the book explores invention pedagogy, developed collaboratively
by Finnish teachers and researchers, from the perspective of learning. The part
begins by laying the theoretical foundation of learning by inventing and by explor-
ing the nature of epistemic objects and knowledge creation involved in invention
projects. In addition, the chapters examine learning by inventing through the
viewpoints of collaboration and co-regulation, materiality, and sustainability, as well
as through competences related to creativity and technologies.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-2
2 Learning by Inventing
Theoretical Foundations
Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen

Introduction
Invention pedagogy engages teams of learners across all ages in computer-supported
collaborative learning (Stahl & Hakkarainen, 2021), which involves using tradi-
tional and digital fabrication technologies for ideating, designing, and making
complex artifacts sparking intellectual, engineering, and aesthetic challenges.
Education for invention is required because humans are facing increasingly severe
cumulative problems and risks related to climate change, sustainability of the earth,
geopolitical crises, and radical inequality. Investigators are concerned that there is
an increasingly severe ingenuity gap (Homer-Dixon, 2001) between such chal-
lenges and the limited problem-solving capabilities inculcated by the prevailing
educational practices. Productively participating in the rapidly changing innova-
tion-driven knowledge society requires young people in Finland and elsewhere to
start practicing personal and social-creative competencies, including complex
problem-solving, invention capacity; entrepreneurial skills and risk-taking adapt-
ability; and skills related to effective teamwork and sharing of knowledge from the
beginning of education. Instead of merely promoting intellectual elites, all citizens
need to be more capable of seeing things in fresh perspectives, enhanced creative
self-efficacy, and associated identities as potential creators of knowledge (Bereiter,
2002; Hakkarainen et al., 2004). Coping with a constantly changing society requires
epistemic fluency (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017), i.e., the capability to integrate
formal and informal knowledge, and go beyond information given in contexts that
require the application and creation of new knowledge. Learning to find solutions
to varying open-ended complex problems is the only known way of preparing
young people to overcome the unforeseen problems of the future (Bransford et al.,
2006; Marton & Trigwell, 2000).
Productive participation in invention processes can be facilitated in educational
institutions by engaging students in the skilled use of sociodigital technologies, i.e.,
the recently emerged integrated system of mobile devices, social media, digital
fabrication, and the internet, for creative work with knowledge and media
(Hakkarainen et al., 2015). Sociodigital technologies mediate all creative work in
modern society shaping personal epistemic practices, collaborative activity, and
interaction with extended, collective knowledge networks across domains ( Jenkins,
2007; Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012; Stahl & Hakkarainen, 2021). Although the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-3
16 Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
sociodigital revolution is disrupting human activity across all spheres of life
(Christiansen et al., 2011), educational institutions tend to reduce digital innova-
tions to those merely sustaining prevailing reproductive educational practices.
Moreover, young people are not given enough structured support to learn advanced
academic and creative practices of using digital technologies, creating an increas-
ingly severe creative participation gap (Jenkins, 2007), and innovation inequity
(Barron, 2004). As we apply the term, knowledge creation is the opposite of repe-
tition and reproduction; such shallow epistemic practices are found even among
the best students because of the low expectations they encounter in routine learn-
ing tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, invention is “something
newly designed or created, or the activity of designing or creating new things”. We use the
term invention pedagogy to refer to the process of engaging the learning community
supported by traditional and digital fabrication technology to design, invent and
make complex artifacts and build new knowledge, at least locally. By talking about
inventors and invention processes, we would like to make both students and their
teachers see themselves as prospective creators of knowledge and artifacts.

Invention Pedagogy as a Form of Knowledge-Creating Learning

Invention pedagogy is anchored on knowledge-creating learning framework
developed for examining novel affordances of technology-mediated collaborative
learning (Paavola et al., 2004; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014, 2021). The knowl-
edge-creation metaphor of learning was proposed as a response to Sfard’s (1998) well-
known distinction between the knowledge acquisition and the participation metaphors of
learning. The traditional acquisition metaphor examines learning as an individual
cognitive process; the human mind is seen as a kind of container and the learning
process that fills the container with knowledge (Bereiter, 2002). An individual has
an important role in learning because no one can learn difficult things on an
agent’s behalf. Simultaneously, addressing mere individual capabilities would mask
various materially and socially distributed resources that enable humans as species
as well as individuals to surpass themselves (Clark, 2003; Donald, 1991; Hutchins,
1995; Skagestad, 1993). Proponents of the sociocultural participation metaphor
have argued since the 1980s that ultimately learning is a process of growing up in
a community and moving from peripheral to more central participation as a func-
tion of learning to master cultural norms and practices and forming one’s identity
(Holland et al., 1998). If we would like the young generation to acquire advanced
inventive skills, we need to provide them with expanded opportunities for authen-
tic cultural participation: However, understanding of the creative edge of such
practices necessitates going beyond the participation metaphor.
Paavola et al. (2004) argued that a third knowledge-creation metaphor is needed
to account for learning relevant to the future innovation-driven knowledge society.
To meet the future challenges, it is neither sufficient to assimilate already existing
textbook information (as assumed by the “monological” acquisition metaphor) nor
to grow up with prevailing community practices (as often assumed by the “dialog-
ical” participation metaphor). Knowledge creation entails a deliberate process of
inquiry that involves creating a joint epistemic object (the concept will be explained
 Learning by Inventing 17
in detail in next section), whether invention, artifact-in-making, or practice being
improved. The knowledge-creation metaphor is considered to be “trialogical” in
nature because it examines learning in terms of heterogeneous interaction between
individuals and communities, concepts, tools, and practices, as well as shared inven-
tion objects being developed. The knowledge-creation metaphor was inspired by
the theories of Peirce (1992–1998), Popper (1972), and Vygotsky (1978), and by
educational and organizational theories by Bereiter (2002), Engeström (1987), and
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). We have observed that knowledge-creating learning
has become accessible even for elementary school students when they are sup-
ported by sophisticated sociodigital technologies and guided to appropriate inno-
vative practices of working with knowledge and media.
Theories, practices, and technologies mediating learning appear to be socioma-
terially entangled (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Stahl & Hakkarainen, 2021). Available
technologies virtually structure human activity, and prevailing social practices
shape the ways of using technologies and their affordances. In accordance with
both reproductive educational practices and available information repositories,
search engines, and discussion forums, investigators long emphasized either infor-
mation genre or communication genre when addressing educational use of tech-
nologies (Paavola et al., 2004). Pioneering research of Scardamalia and Bereiter
(2021) and Bereiter (2002) changed the scene and contributed to the emergence
of collaborative technologies supporting knowledge creation. Their experiments
engaged young students in constructing textual and graphic notes for building a
local body of “world 3” – cultural knowledge (Popper, 1972) in the Knowledge
Forum environment. Knowledge building aimed ambitiously at the Copernican
revolution of placing students’ ideas, understood as conceptual artifacts (Bereiter,
2002), in the center rather than on the periphery of education. When the present
authors engaged in research and development of the Future Learning Environments
in Finland (see https://github.com/LeGroup/Fle4), their aim was to expand tech-
nology-mediated learning to provide support for the collaborative design of mate-
rially embodied artifacts (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2001, 2010). To deepen the
understanding of sociomaterial aspects of knowledge-creating learning, we looked
more deeply at emerging science and technology studies (Knorr Cetina, 1999;
Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Pickering, 1995), theories of cognitive evolution (Donald,
1991; Malafouris, 2013; Skagestad, 1993), distributed cognition (Clark, 2003;
Hutchins, 1995), and actor-network theory (Latour, 2005). It was soon realized
that knowledge creation is not a mere mental or conceptual process but is a messy
struggle of creating, developing, and extending epistemic “things” or artifacts across
long-term iterative efforts of individuals, teams, and learning communities sup-
ported by epistemic technologies. The design experiments we carried out in
schools involved increasing hybrid physical, digital, and virtual practices and mak-
ing materially embodied artifacts (Kangas et al., 2007, 2013).
Many investigators from Vygotsky to Piaget and Papert (1980) have emphasized
the importance of learning through constructing artifacts. Although Hakkarainen
and colleagues approached knowledge-creating learning from a direction that dif-
fered from Papert’s (1980) constructionism, they were familiar with Papert’s
thinking and inspired by it. Papert emphasizes the importance of engaging
18 Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
students in the active construction of tangible artifacts and developed associated
instruments and tools, such as the accessible Logo programming language. He
criticized acquisition-oriented “instructionism” and considered long-term work
with meaningful products to be educationally most valuable. Further, Papert
argued that novel pathways of learning are opened when students take part in
improvisational exploration involved in making of artifacts. Moreover, he saw that
artifacts mediate creative activity, may become both external and internal tools of
thinking, and thereby inflame learning. The pioneering efforts of Papert (1980)
and his followers Blikstein (2013), Kafai and Peppler (2011), and Resnick (2017)
played a crucial role in establishing the educational maker culture that the inven-
tion pedagogy currently relies on. Students’ knowledge-creating activities are aug-
mented with instruments and materials of laboratories in art, craft, technology, and
science education. Further, they are introduced to digital fabrication technologies,
such as designing and constructing robotic systems, additive (3D printing) and
subtractive manufacturing (e.g., laser cutting), designing and constructing circuits,
programming microcontrollers and sensors, and many other relevant tools.
Inventions are instantiated in a series of successively more refined transitional
artifacts and productions, which enable novel ideas and perspectives to be found.
Finnish exceptional craft and technology education infrastructure allows learning
by inventing integrated with regular educational activity (Korhonen & Lavonen,
2017; Riikonen et al., 2020).
The following principal features of knowledge-creating learning appear relevant
for the creative, intellectual, motivational, and artistic potentials of invention peda-
gogy in the context of Science,Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math (STEAM)
education practices:

• A defining characteristic of knowledge creation is its object-centered nature;

the process is driven by invention objects that represent what the participants
are seeking to create but have not yet mastered at the beginning of the inven-
tion process.
• Invention is an embodied collaborative process mediated by various tools and
materials in maker spaces in which teams of inventors iteratively pursue
advancement of their ideas.
• There is interaction between the levels of knowing from conceptual ideas to
fuzzy hunches and tacit situational understanding, giving rise to gradually
more elaborated ideas as the process goes on.
• Creative externalization occurs: Gesturing, sketching, and prototyping play a
central role in articulation of ideas and giving them a material form through
successive efforts.
• Invention is a nonlinear, improvisational, and emergent process that involves
continuing hindrances, sudden breakdowns, and emergent lines of inquiry that
could not have been anticipated at the beginning.
• Although an individual participant may have a central role in constructing
new ideas, invention takes place in the fertile soil provided by social collabo-
ration within teams and across the network of teachers, researchers, parents,
and experts.
 Learning by Inventing 19
Epistemic Objects of Invention
As explained in the previous section, the defining feature of knowledge-creating
learning is its object-driven nature (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2021). Accordingly,
invention processes are supported by collaborative interaction organized around
the artifacts being invented. Papert and Harel (1991, p. 1) observed that young
people’s learning “happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is
consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sandcastle on the
beach or a theory of the universe”. Invention projects involve envisioning a prod-
uct idea, developing it through iterative efforts, carrying out multifaceted explora-
tions, overcoming initial failures, and implementing successive improvements until
a final prototype is obtained. The process involves asking students to invent solu-
tions to the challenges they encounter rather than following linear instructions for
making a specific product in a way that was once common in craft education
(Riikonen et al., 2020).
In the present chapter, we refer to envisioned solutions or inventions-in-making
as “epistemic objects”; this theoretical concept is anchored on studies by Knorr Cetina
(1999). The concept of “object” has its philosophic roots in studies by Hegel and
Marx as well as Peirce and Popper, and psychological roots in activity theory as
developed by Vygotsky (1978) and elaborated by Engeström (1987). The object
arises, within Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective on human activity, as being a sign and
tool mediated in nature. Following Popper’s (1972) lead, Bereiter (2002) inter-
preted epistemic objects mainly as conceptual entities; the material embodiment of
the ideas is, however, critically important from the semiotic perspective (Paavola &
Hakkarainen, 2021; Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012; Skagestad, 1993). We examine
epistemic objects as symbolic-material entities that are embodied in successive
textual, visual-graphical, or physical (e.g., prototype) versions. Post-humanist
approaches highlight the active role of artifacts, as well as physical, virtual, and
hybrid environments (e.g., makerspaces) on which enacted collaborative activity is
embedded (Mehto et al., 2020; Stahl & Hakkarainen, 2021).
Accordingly, students’ invention processes are directed toward the epistemic
objects (Knorr Cetina, 2001), i.e., their ideas and thoughts, envisioned options, and
future-oriented projections regarding the nature of the invention. Epistemic
objects are incomplete, being constantly redefined, and located at the edge of
knowing and help to crystallize what the participants seek to accomplish, what
they aim at, and what they do not yet know or understand. Yet, Knorr Cetina
(1999) also pointed out that the artifact-in-making involves implicit hints about
missing pieces or lacking features that assist in directing further invention activi-
ties. Students’ invention ideas are drafted by sketching and prototyping, which
provide “material anchors” (Hutchins, 2005) for subsequent ideation, reflection,
and making processes. In invention processes, it is always necessary to make com-
promises according to available material, production procedures, and fabrication
opportunities. Despite being imperfect and partial in nature, the epistemic objects
guide and direct inventive activity and the associated process of building a succes-
sive series of half-baked and limited solutions. Further, transforming ideas into
materially embodied forms is a troublesome process that requires iterative efforts.
20 Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
Moreover, the members of a team may not always have a similar view of the
emergent but fuzzy object that they are working with. Given the learners’ limited
skills, resources, and sometimes overambitious designs, it follows that the artifact
created may not represent all the envisioned features. Although epistemic objects
have tangible, thing-like characteristics, they also represent deeper purposes or
motives that they are directed at, sparking students’ passions (Engeström, 1987;
Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2021).

Creative Epistemic Practices

Creativity researchers have distinguished four P-variables related to creativity, i.e.,
Persons, Process, Product, and Place (Kozbelt et al., 2010). What appears to have
been missing from psychological accounts of creativity is the fifth P – Practice, i.e.,
inventive practices that tools and studio environments of creative-disciplinary
communities enable.The rationale of having researchers support invention projects
is to provide participants with access to creative practices of using traditional and
digital fabrication technologies that expert communities have generated. To culti-
vate creative capabilities that the invention process requires, both learners and
teacher practitioners have to develop, enhance, and expand their epistemic practices
(Hakkarainen, 2009). When using the term “epistemic”, we refer to knowledge in
the broadest sense, to include beyond discursive entities (e.g., texts), knowl-
edge-laden in skills (“procedural knowledge”), and to what is implicit, informing
pre-reflectively one’s habits, and further yet to “thing knowledge” (Baird, 2004)
embedded in design and use of tools and studio environment. By epistemic prac-
tices we refer to dynamic game-like social practices of using tools and technologies
for pursuing knowledge-creating inquiries. In this regard, they come close to epis-
temic games (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017; Shaffer & Gee, 2007), i.e., identifiable
but partially hidden patterns and operational procedures that disciplinary epistemic
cultures have cultivated for enculturating new cohorts of creative knowledge
workers. Epistemic practices represent generative systems of creative habits, pat-
terns, routines, practices that mediate inventive activity, corresponding to flexible
cultural scripting of open-ended creative activities. Although epistemic practices
sometimes support routine learning (transmission), at their creative edge, they
diverge from other routine social practices because they occur in deliberately cul-
tivated dynamic and fluid settings that foster innovation (Knorr Cetina, 2001).
The point of invention pedagogy is to engage students in appropriating discipli-
nary epistemic practices. Science and technology studies indicate that creativity
does not lie merely within the human mind but is embedded in shared epistemic
practices cultivated by innovative knowledge communities and their networks
(Paavola et al., 2004). Although many students have problems in appropriating for-
mal-logical scientific competencies, they can productively appropriate epistemic
practices such as inventive epistemic games, operational competencies, and habits
of mind that characterize scientific and professional activity. Maker instruments and
practices of knowledge creation given to young students function as “cognitive
prostheses” (Clark, 2003), which expand and augment their personal and collabo-
rative creative resources in a way that makes deliberate pursuit of invention feasible
 Learning by Inventing 21
if they have sufficient social support and creative motivation of their own. Using
sophisticated instruments to create artifacts enhances thinking through doing (i.e.,
manipulative abduction; Magnani, 2009) and elicits gradual emergence of so-called
thing knowledge critical in use of instruments (Baird, 2004). Such instruments and
practices may be interpreted to provide material agency (Pickering, 1995) for pur-
suing more complex and challenging inquiries than the participants would other-
wise be able to accomplish. Simultaneously, interrelations between human and
material agencies are complex and vary situationally across the invention process
(Mehto et al., 2020). Overall, the aim of invention pedagogy is to foster a renais-
sance of practical thinking and actionable knowing (Markauskaite & Goodyear,
2017) at school by providing diverse learners with opportunities to appropriate
practical and operational aspects of STEAM practices.
The epistemic-practices framework is compatible with the next-generation
standards of science education that highlight the importance of bringing discipli-
nary practices to school for guiding, structuring, and fostering knowledge-creating
learning in the context of invention projects (Krajcik et al., 2014; Osborne, 2014).
Invention projects can be anchored on integrated scientific, engineering, design,
and entrepreneurial practices that structure and support knowledge-creating learn-
ing in open and flexible ways. Scientific practices involve cultivating inquiry-based
methods of learning science, such as progressive inquiry (Hakkarainen, 2003) or
project-based learning (Krajcik et al., 2014) that engage students in posing ques-
tions, generating working hypotheses, carrying out experiments, analyzing results,
visualizing and modeling results, presenting evidence-based arguments, and build-
ing and reporting knowledge. Engineering practices engage students in investigat-
ing complex phenomena, envisioning potential solutions, determining their
criteria, and iteratively modeling, constructing, and testing solutions, comparing
their strengths and weaknesses, and building and communicating results (Krajcik et
al., 2014). In advanced art and craft classrooms and creative STEAM projects, sci-
entific and engineering practices are intertwined with design practices (Peppler et
al., 2016; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). Collaborative designing involves iter-
ative team efforts to ideate, create, modify and test artifacts to find solutions to
design challenges. The roles of scientific, engineering, design, and entrepreneurial
practices and possible cross-cutting curricular challenges vary, according to teach-
ers’ and researchers’ preferences, from one invention project to another (see Chapter
10 of this book for examples of enacted disciplinary practices and Chapter 9 about
epistemic structuring of invention projects).

Orchestrating Nonlinear and Emergent Processes of Invention

Scardamalia and Bereiter (2014) emphasized the self-organized and emergent
nature of knowledge creation and argued that the pursuit of novelty and invention
cannot be scripted. Although structuring, scaffolding, and guiding student activity
are crucial, overly stiff scripting may hamper or even eliminate the emergence
needed to pursue knowledge-creating learning and innovation (Sawyer, 2011; see
Chapter 10 of this book for a detailed examination). Scripting is closely related to
social practices understood as patterns and sequences of goal-directed actions based
22 Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
on certain technological and epistemic systems that both guide and constrain
activity. In the school context, scripts are sequences of typical instructional or
learning activities that follow one another in a predictable way. Further, scripts vary
from explicit and rigid micro-level regulation of learning tasks (e.g., patterns of
teachers questioning) to macro-level structuring of educational activity, for instance,
in terms of disciplinary epistemic practices (e.g., learning through collaborative
design, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). Such pedagogic activities are openly
and flexibly structured; the various aspects of the overall process do not mechani-
cally follow one another but advance in an adaptive and dynamic way according to
the progress of the invention process. Expanding knowledge-creating learning
beyond the conceptual realms to the world of material culture and fabrication of
materially embodied artifacts appears only to foreground the emergent and self-or-
ganized nature of invention.
From the sociocultural perspective, scripts may be understood as cultural models
that learners appropriate through their sociomaterially mediated epistemic activity.
Accordingly, scripting is related to cultural mediation involved in using artifacts as
tools of activity. Long ago, Vygotsky (1978) addressed the crucial importance of
engaging learners themselves in creating artifacts for transforming problem situa-
tions; this is a central aspect of his method of double stimulation. When planning
their invention activity, students may construct scripts mediating their creative
activity in terms of selecting tools and materials, organizing training of necessary
skills, creating timetables, distributing work among the team, and so on. However,
authentic open-ended invention projects cannot rely on predetermined steps,
ready-made alternatives, and well-defined solutions. Invention projects engage stu-
dents in iterative testing, improving, and advancing ideas that guide the direction
of subsequent inquiries.Yet, invention is not only about the process of ideation but
also mediated by traditional and digital instruments and materials. The appropria-
tion of associated operational practices and ideating, drafting, and materializing
artifacts-in-making requires sustainable iterative efforts. Intertwining traditional
and digital technologies may cause its own challenges because different aspects of
an invented artifact have to be seamlessly integrated.The material ecology of maker
activity is not understood well, although it has been part of human activity for
much longer than the literacy-based school culture (Donald, 1991; Malafouris,
2013). Moreover, many aspects of the present types of invention and making pro-
jects mediated by digital fabrication technologies have not previously been imple-
mented or investigated in school contexts. Finding promising directions of
advancement takes place at various stages of complex and multifaceted investiga-
tions in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate.
Further, it appears crucial that the development of teachers’ epistemic flexibility
should be fostered so that they learn to orchestrate nonlinear, open-ended, and
inventive study processes rather than highly scripted, closed, and reproductive
learning tasks (Sawyer, 2011). Although student agency and initiative are important
in knowledge-creating learning, the teachers’ strategic guidance also plays a crucial
role due to their higher-level visions of knowledge-creating learning projects
(Viilo et al., 2018). Nevertheless, pursuit of manifold investigations may go to
unforeseen directions unfamiliar to both students and teachers; the nonlinear
 Learning by Inventing 23
nature of the invention process may make scaffolding challenging (Härkki et al.,
2021). However, linear and nonlinear processes are not mutually exclusive (Sawyer,
2005). Sometimes it is necessary to interrupt invention processes and focus on
systematic step-by-step efforts of learning to master tools or to seek relevant new
knowledge. Moreover, teachers are sometimes foregrounding joint inventive
actions rather than being willing to put in the extra effort needed to implement an
additional reflective layer of engaging students in appropriating disciplinary epis-
temic practices and building and synthesizing knowledge in their projects.
Epistemic practices necessitate engaging students in documenting the invention
process with intensive reflection on the phenomena investigated, rather than
merely coming up with the invention artifact requested. Simultaneously, it is essen-
tial to provide student teams with enough freedom to work with emergent objec-
tives, stages, social structures, and methods.

Concluding Comments: Appropriating Figured World of Invention

The present investigators have pursued invention pedagogy for several years.
Initially, we were uncertain about the extent to which young students can engage
in invention-driven knowledge creation. After various encouraging experiences
that involved creating sophisticated and non-trivial innovations (e.g., Riikonen et
al., 2020), we became bold enough to talk about “invention” pedagogy (rather than
mere innovation education). Although the students’ creative processes are not at a
professional level (Pro-C), their inventions may represent minimal creativity
(mini-C) referring to locally novel creative production and meaningful “creative
experiences, actions, and events” (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010, p. 195). In the pres-
ent context, it involves producing tangible creative productions, i.e., the inventions
being developed. Such processes involve creative insights and artifact designs that
sometimes have also broader potential significance. Blikstein’s (2013) observations
indicated that a significant percentage of young people’s inventions anticipate ones
that professional experts and organizations later produce. We have also had an
invention being commercialized by business organizations, suggesting that, in some
cases, mini-C becomes stretched toward Pro-C.
To have students appropriating the figured world (Holland et al., 1998) of engi-
neering, designing and inventing, and experience themselves as inventors, we have
invited professional designers, product developers, and inventors to join teachers in
guiding, coaching, and supporting students’ invention processes (e.g., Kangas et al.,
2013). Occasionally, students’ invention projects have gone in such a surprising
direction that it has been necessary to find external experts (e.g., a mobile applica-
tion developer) with the relevant knowledge to support students’ invention pro-
jects. Figured worlds are cultural models of disciplinary epistemic practices that
learners may appropriate to expand their own creative capabilities. The symbolic
and sociomaterial activities of invention lead potentially to remixing students’ edu-
cational activities with the disciplinary cultures of experts they are interacting and
collaborating with. Leaning in a figured world opens possible worlds for authoring
oneself (Holland et al., 1998) and engaging in improvisation building of creativity
and identity (Hanson, 2015).
24 Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
Invention processes are distributed among a multifaceted and dynamic network
of more distant (external experts and stakeholders) and proximal (inner team and
community) actors (Clapp, 2017). In the background of maker activity are experts
who crystallized (“black boxed”) their creative achievement in the systems of dig-
ital fabrication technologies. Participation in using sophisticated maker instruments
and expert epistemic practices augment students’ creative capabilities in Douglas C.
Engelbart’s sense (Skagestad, 1993, see also Clark, 2003): They become part of a
complex distributed sociotechnical system in which ordinary minds and capabili-
ties suffice to make more or less remarkable inventions. In such cultural activities
as complex as invention, diversity appears to overcome ability (Page, 2007) in terms
of heterogeneously distributed knowledge and skills playing a crucial role. Invention
is a purposeful and deliberate activity (Gruber, 1981; Hanson, 2015) that is criti-
cally dependent on both personal and collaborative contributions. Further, there
are always multiple pathways for participating in invention activity, enabling diverse
people to make a valuable contribution to joint creativity.
Clapp (2017), Glaveanu (2014), and Hanson (2015) are developing a participa-
tory synthesis of creativity that fits very well in the theoretical framework of inven-
tion pedagogy.The fundamental ethos of our invention pedagogy is democratization
of invention; in accordance with Glaveanu’s (2014) We-paradigm, anybody can be
an inventor when sufficiently supported and guided (Blikstein, 2013). Many of our
invention projects have included students with special educational needs, who have
demonstrated capabilities of productively participating in invention processes
(Sormunen et al., 2020). When embedded in meaningful contexts sparking aca-
demic curiosity and creative expression, learning by inventing is likely to be equally
motivating to female and male, low- and high-achieving students. Knowledge-
creating learning becomes accessible when students, their thoughts and interests,
are taken seriously and provided with adequate facilitation and support (Bereiter,
2002). Invention projects spark interest and motivation, provide personal and social
challenges, enhance collaborative skills, and lead to shared creation of novelty and
innovation. Participation in invention projects develops students’ own thinking and
their ability to tinker with workable solutions and build knowledge-creating
agency. Our experiences indicate that participation in collaborative invention pro-
vides students with a strong sense of contribution (Honneth, 1995); they receive
social recognition of their achievements when presenting their team inventions at
invention fairs or national tournaments at universities. Creative capabilities are
likely to grow through pursuing a whole network of creative projects facilitating
learning and development (Gruber, 1981).

References
Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge. University of California Press.
Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 31, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. (2010). Broadening conceptions of creativity in the class-
room. In R. Beghetto & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 191–
205). Cambridge University Press.
 Learning by Inventing 25
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781410612182
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education. In J.Walter-Herrmann &
C. Buching (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers, and inventors (pp. 203–222). Transcript.
https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839423820
Bransford, J., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D., Meltzoff, A., Pea, R., Roschelle, J., Vye N., Kuhl,
P., Bell, P., Barron, B., & Reeves, B. (2006). Learning theories and education. Toward a
decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 209–244). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688244
Christiansen, C. M., Horn, M. B., s& Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class. McGrawHill.
Clapp, E. (2017). Participatory creativity: Introducing access and equity to the creative classroom.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315671512
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence.
Oxford University Press.
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind. Harvard University Press.
Engeström,Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit.
Glaveanu, V. (2014). Thinking through creativity and culture. Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315135625
Gruber, H. (1981). Darwin on man. The University of Chicago Press.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in computer-supported biology classroom. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10121
Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated
learning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9064-x
Hakkarainen, K., Hietajärvi, L., Alho, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2015). Socio-digital
revolution: Digital natives vs digital immigrants. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclo-
pedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nded.,Vol. 22, pp. 918–923). Elsevier.
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked
expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Elsevier.
Hanson, M. H. (2015). World making: Psychology and the ideology of creativity. Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137408051
Härkki, T.,Vartiainen, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021) Co-teaching
in non-linear projects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103188. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2020.103188
Holland, D., W. Lachicotte, D. Skinner, & C. Cain (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds.
Harvard University Press.
Homer-Dixon, T. (2001). The ingenuity gap.Vintage.
Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition. Polity Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37,
1555–1577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008
Jenkins, H. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. MIT Press.
Kafai,Y. B., & Peppler, K. (2011).Youth, technology, and DIY. Review of Research in Education,
35(1), 89–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383211
Kangas K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen P., & Hakkarainen K. (2007). The Artifact Project: History, sci-
ence, and design inquiry in technology enhanced learning at elementary level. Research and
Practice inTechnology Enhanced Learning,2,213–237.https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206807000397
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P, & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Figuring the world of
designing: Expert participation in elementary classroom. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 23, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9187-z
26 Kai Hakkarainen and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic cultures. Harvard University Press.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von
Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203977453
Korhonen, T. & Lavonen, J. (2017). A new wave of learning in Finland: Get started with
innovation! In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva, & R. Vinz (Eds.), Educating for the 21st
century: Perspectives, policies and practices from around the world (pp. 447–467). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1673-8
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runko, M. A. (2010).Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman,
& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839
Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet
the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
25(2), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford
University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. Princeton University Press.
Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03631-6
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9476.001.0001
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4
Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000).Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research &
Development, 19(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360020021455
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020).
Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary
school. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246–1261. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjet.12942
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. W. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of tech-
nology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433–474. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25,
177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Paavola S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In
S.-C. Tan, H.-J. Jo, & J. Yoe (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 53–72). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Trialogical learning and object-oriented collaboration.
In U. Cress, C. Rose, S. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer supported
collaborative learning (pp. 241–259). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Modeling innovative knowledge com-
munities: A knowledge-creation approach to learning. Review of Educational Research, 74,
557–576. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543074004557
Page, S. (2007). The Difference. Princeton University Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex.
Peirce, C. S. (1992–1998). In The Peirce Edition Project (Eds.), The essential Peirce: Selected
825 philosophical writings (Vol. 2). Indiana University Press.
 Learning by Inventing 27
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, J. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments.
Volume 1. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726519
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. The University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford University Press.
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten. MIT Press.
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Student teams’
collaborative making processes in a knowledge-creating learning project. International
Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 15, 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11412-020-09330-6.
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology mediated learning.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 239–258. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11412-012-9144-1
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511734892
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). What makes good teachers great? The artful balance of structure
and improvisation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching
(pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997105
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Smart technology for self-organizing processes. Smart
Learning Environments, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0001-8
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: Advancing the state of community
knowledge. In U. Cress, C. Rose, S.Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-sup-
ported collaborative learning (pp. 261–279). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Raami, A., Muukkonen, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001).
Computer-support for collaborative designing. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 11, 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011277030755
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo M., &, Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative
designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 20, 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9066-4
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
Shaffer, D. W., & Gee, J. P. (2007). Epistemic games as education for innovation. BJEP mono-
graph Series II, 5, 71–82.
Skagestad, P. (1993).Thinking with machines: Intelligence augmentation, evolutionary epis-
temology, and semiotic. The Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(2), 157–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(93)90026-N
Sormunen, K., Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2020). Maker-centered project-based learning in
inclusive classes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 691–712.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9
Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In U. Cress, C. Rose, S. Wise, &
J. Oshima (Eds.) International handbook of computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 23–43).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3
Viilo, M., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2018) Teacher’s long-term
orchestration of technology-mediated collaborative inquiry project. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 62(3), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258665
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
3 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge
Creation in Invention Projects
Sini Davies

Introduction
In this chapter, we approach collaborative invention projects in an educational
setting through their nature as artifact-mediated, knowledge-creating learning pro-
cesses. We examine how these projects extend beyond knowledge acquisition and
social participation to involve systematic collaborative efforts in creating and
advancing shared epistemic objects by externalizing ideas and constructing various
types of intangible and tangible artifacts (see e.g., Burke & Crocker, 2020; Paavola
et al., 2004; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014a). An epistemic object in the context of
invention projects can be defined as a conception of the invention, with all the
visions, aspirations, projections, processes, and knowledge involved. Epistemic
objects are characteristically open and complex, constantly evolving and ques-
tion-generating (Knorr-Cetina, 2001). They can exist simultaneously in many
forms, both abstract and material, such as figurative and scientific representations,
and material prototypes that enable and promote them to further evolve into
something else, by raising new questions and revealing what is missing (Ewenstein
& Whyte, 2009; Knorr-Cetina, 2001). By investigating epistemic objects and how
student teams develop them during invention projects it is possible to gain under-
standing on the learning that takes place through inventing.
Participation in knowledge creation through invention projects and collabora-
tive design provides learning experiences that promote young people’s creative
thinking, teamwork, progressive inquiry, and problem-solving skills (e.g., Binkley
et al., 2014; Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Learning
Compass 2030 (OECD, 2019) considers innovation, collaboration, and co-creation
as key competencies that young people need to cultivate to meet the challenges of
an emerging innovation society. These knowledge-creating skills must be pro-
moted from a young age (Aflatoony et al., 2018; Carroll et al., 2010). In the Finnish
context, the emphasis on the development of students’ wide transversal competen-
cies in the national curriculum, and lack of standardized testing, provide a fertile
ground for knowledge creation through multifaceted innovation projects (Finnish
National Agency of Education [FNAE], 2016).
In the following, I first present theoretical aspects related to knowledge-creating
learning and epistemic objects.We then introduce a case example of our investigation

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-4
 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation 29
into knowledge creation and a model of conceptual knowledge dimensions in the
epistemic object of a student team that took part in an invention project in a sec-
ondary school in Helsinki, Finland.

Knowledge-Creating Learning and Epistemic Objects in Invention

Projects
We consider that invention processes represent artifact-mediated knowledge crea-
tion. Through these processes, students must solve complex and ill-defined design
challenges through iterative processes, in which design ideas are elaborated and
refined through analysis, evaluation, sketching, prototyping, and making (Blikstein,
2013; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). In inven-
tion projects, students engage in joint efforts to create tangible and digitally
enhanced objects using various technological resources, including digital fabrica-
tion and programming. Numerous researchers have emphasized the benefits of
such participation in embodied design activities and of working with materials and
artifacts in learning (e.g., Blikstein, 2013; Kafai, 1996; Kangas et al., 2013; Kolodner,
2002). Artifact-mediated knowledge creation is an emergent and nonlinear process
in which the actual goals, objects, stages, digital instruments and results cannot be
predetermined and the flow of creative activity cannot be rigidly scripted
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014b). Inventions can be designed only through repeated
iterative efforts to solve complex problems, overcome obstacles and repeated fail-
ures, obtain peer and expert feedback, try new approaches, and end up with out-
comes that may not have been anticipated at the beginning.
Collaborative invention projects that include usage of digital devices can be
regarded as a form of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).According
to Stahl and Hakkarainen (2021), CSCL is a form of educational technology that
engaged students in collaborating over networked devices. Students’ collaboration
may take place “through” technology-mediated learning environment or occur
“around” digital devices in learning spaces (Lehtinen et al., 1999). Further, CSCL
is distinguished from “cooperative” learning, in which tasks are divided among
members of student teams, whereas collaborative learning involves the joint pursuit
of shared objects (Dillenbourg, 1999; Knorr-Cetina, 2001). Moreover, post-hu-
manist approaches highlight the active role of materially embodied digital and
other artifacts in collaborative learning processes. Such an “inter-objective” (Latour,
1996) framework guides one to examine how students as teams, communities, or
networks create knowledge and construct shared artifacts within technology-en-
hanced physical, virtual, and hybrid learning environments. The theories of tech-
nology-mediated knowledge communities provide a basis for a third approach to
learning through CSCL—the knowledge creation metaphor of learning
(Hakkarainen et al., 2004; Paavola et al., 2004), as separate from the knowledge
acquisition and participation metaphors (Sfard, 1998). The knowledge creation
view represents a “trialogical” approach because the emphasis is not only on indi-
viduals or community but on the way people collaboratively develop mediating
artifacts (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014).
30 Sini Davies
Knowledge creation may be guided and directed by envisioned epistemic objects
that are incomplete, being constantly defined and instantiated in a series of succes-
sively more refined visualizations, prototypes, and other design artifacts (Ewenstein
& Whyte, 2009; Knorr-Cetina, 2001). Previous studies of knowledge creation pro-
cesses suggest that advanced collaboration requires group members to focus on a
shared object that they jointly construct (Barron, 2003; Hennessy & Murphy, 1999;
Kangas et al., 2013; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014). Epistemic objects are critical in
knowledge creation because they can be endlessly re-interpreted, and their evolv-
ing network used as a starting point to articulate and iteratively improve novel
epistemic artifacts (Bereiter, 2002; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). Knorr-Cetina
(2001) emphasized how creative knowledge work focuses on incomplete epistemic
objects, objects that are open-ended, constantly generate novel questions, and
become increasingly complex when pursued:

Objects of knowledge appear to have the capacity to unfold infinitely. They

are more like open drawers filled with folders extending infinitely into the
depth of a dark closet. Since epistemic objects are always in the process of
being materially defined, they continually acquire new properties and change
the ones they have. But this also means that objects of knowledge can never
be fully attained, that they are, if you wish, never quite themselves.
(p. 181)

Knorr-Cetina (1999) also observed that epistemic objects and their material instan-
tiations, such as prototypes, involve “pointers” (hints, guidelines, directions) regard-
ing how to focus further activities. The objects in making imply both limitations
and weaknesses, as well as provide novel ideas and suggestions, and, thereby, guide
further inquiries. Consequently, the epistemic objects created provide intuitive sup-
port, suggesting which way to proceed. Further, epistemic objects in invention pro-
jects guide and direct the process as students are constantly generating, defining, and
ideating conceptual and visual design ideas and instantiating in a series of succes-
sively more refined visualizations and prototypes (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.,
2010). Moreover, based on our findings on invention projects (Mehto et al., 2020),
students’ epistemic processes are materially entangled as the material objects being
worked on deeply affect the interwoven generation of more redefined design ideas.

Case: Conceptual Knowledge Dimensions of a Student Team’s

Epistemic Object in a Secondary School Invention Project
Invention Project and Data Gathering
This case example of knowledge creation by a student inventor team took place in
spring 2018 in a lower secondary school in Helsinki, Finland, where we organized
an invention project. A seventh-grade technology-focused class comprising 18 stu-
dents aged 13 to 14 participated in the project. For assistance, teachers relied on
collegial resources to negotiate emerging challenges (Riikonen et al., 2020). Two
craft-subject teachers and a visual arts teacher took the main responsibility for the
 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation 31
project. Science and information and communication technology (ICT) teachers
participated in the project when their expertise was needed. In addition, we
engaged eighth-grade students as “digital technology” tutors to provide additional
support to the participating inventor teams (Riikonen et al., 2020, see Chapter 12
of this book.). The teachers were familiarized with the digital fabrication technol-
ogies before the project and given pedagogical support.
Before the actual invention project started, the students visited The Design
Museum in Helsinki and participated in two warm-up sessions. During the first
session, the students experimented with electric circuits by making postcards with
copper tape, simple LEDs, and a coin cell battery, following the idea of twen-
ty-first-century note booking. The eighth-grade tutor students arranged the sec-
ond warm-up session, which consisted of a microcontroller workshop, to familiarize
the students with the opportunities and infrastructure of microcontrollers, such as
GoGoBoard and Micro:bit, and to promote the emergence of ideas on how micro-
controllers can be used in inventions (Ching & Kafai, 2008). The actual invention
project was initiated in February 2018. The collaborative invention challenge,
co-configured between teachers and researchers, was open-ended: “Invent a smart
product or a smart garment by relying on traditional and digital fabrication tech-
nologies, such as microcontrollers or 3D CAD”.The project involved eight or nine
weekly design sessions (two to three hours per session) in spring 2018.
This case example focuses on one of the teams that were followed and video-re-
corded during the project.The team consisted of two girls and two boys aged 13 or
14 years old: Jessica, Carla, Leo, and Ray. The teams were randomly formed at the
beginning of the project through a draw.The team examined in this article invented
a banana-shaped light that could be attached to a laptop lid to light up the keyboard.
Their invention included a lamp with a bendable inner structure and a microcon-
troller that provided sensor-based, on-off functionality and automatic light bright-
ness control. A prototype of the light is presented in Figure 3.1. Throughout the
process, the team worked in intensive, self-driven collaboration, with all members
being highly engaged. They demonstrated strong motivation to participate in the
project and appeared to enjoy the design process and its epistemic challenges.
Our analysis relied on ethnographic video data and observations of the student
team’s invention process (see Derry et al., 2010). The video recordings were made
using a GoPro action camcorder, placed on a floor-standing tripod, and a separate
wireless lavalier microphone. In total, 12 hours and 40 minutes of video data were
gathered and analyzed.The first author was present during every design session and
made observations and field notes to support in-depth analysis of the data. We also
collected sketches and documents created by the team and photographed the
team’s invention and prototypes.

Methodology and Analysis

By relying on the ethnographic video data and observations of the student teams’
collaborative invention processes, our aim was to examine the knowledge creation
that took place during the projects and to investigate the knowledge dimensions
and themes of the epistemic objects that the student teams developed. To gain
32 Sini Davies

Figure 3.1 Prototype of the Banana Light.

Photograph by the author.

insight into the epistemic object of the team studied in this article, we first analyzed
the evolution of the design ideas by systematically picking out all ideas that the
team generated from the video data. We used an expression of a design idea as an
analysis unit. For every idea, we determined the following factors: (a) the theme of
the idea; (b) possible preliminary parent ideas; (c) whether the idea was included in
the final design—that is, was a final design idea; and (d) if the idea was materially
mediated, meaning was the student holding, looking at, pointing to, or modifying a
design artifact or materials while generating the idea. The team generated 77 ideas,
of which 40 were materially mediated and 30 were included in the final design.
During the idea evolvement analysis, it became evident that the ideas and their
development unfolded concepts of knowledge that were more profound and wider
than just the evolution of the design ideas. Ideas represent answers to design prob-
lems, but the complexity of the problems and the knowledge work required to
solve them remained hidden. For a more detailed examination of the epistemic
work involved in the team’s invention process, a second round of video data anal-
ysis was conducted. In this round, we isolated expressions of design problems and
the conversations related to solving them and analyzed them using qualitative con-
tent analysis. We used one question or problem and the discussions related to it as
our unit of analysis. The analysis was conducted separately for each team in two
phases: first, we determined themes and phenomena covered in solving each prob-
lem, and second, we further clustered the themes into four knowledge dimensions:
(1) computing, (2) design and making, (3) usability, and (4) physics. From our
analysis, we constructed a model of the knowledge dimensions and themes of the
 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation 33
Banana Light team’s epistemic object that describes the invention process and
invention from the perspective of conceptual knowledge. Through the epistemic
object model, we captured the complexity and magnitude of the knowledge crea-
tion required in the team’s collaborative invention processes.

Conceptual Knowledge Dimensions of the Banana Light Team's Epistemic Object

The design ideas describe the invention through the development of the properties
and characteristics of the object being invented, whereas the knowledge dimen-
sions of the team’s epistemic object describe the invention and invention process
through the knowledge work required for its creation. This model is presented in
Figure 3.2. From the close, object-driven collaboration of the team, it follows that

Joints and
bendable
structures
Friction
Momentum and
center of mass
Intensitity
of light

Refraction
Bendable
Physics structures
Construction Lightweight
Electric techniques fabric
circuits structures

Design and
Block-based Making
programming

Materials

Computing
Sensors
Banana Prototyping
Light and sketching

Collaborative
design
3D-modelling
and -printing

Microcontrollers

Usability

Practicality

Adjustability

Adaptability
Ergonomics

Figure 3.2 Model of the knowledge dimensions and themes of the Banana Light team’s
epistemic object.
34 Sini Davies
the team members shared the same epistemic object throughout the process of
active development.Toward that end, the democratic nature of their teamwork and
decision-making was also important. The atmosphere in the team for the entirety
of the project was very open, and the students encouraged each other to come up
with and voice ideas.
The knowledge that the team created over the four dimensions was intertwined
in nature. Usually, the team worked with knowledge from several dimensions and
developed and maintained many ideas and idea strings simultaneously in their
discussions. This required the team to fully commit themselves to the process, use
each other’s existing knowledge, seek new knowledge, and combine this knowl-
edge with new ideas through ideation, experimentation, and prototyping. They
used sketching intensively to visualize structures and ideas and communicate them
to the other team members.
The Banana Light team concentrated primarily on physical functionality and
the structure of their invention, creating knowledge, particularly around mechan-
ics, such as momentum and the center of mass and friction, through material
experimentation. Their invention had several mechanically challenging elements,
such as how to direct the light onto the keyboard and how to attach the lamp to
the laptop. They explored making bendable structures with metal and chicken
wire, a bendable ruler, revolute and spherical joints, and hybrids of bendable and
solid structures. The following quote illustrates their development of a clip holder
that grabs the laptop screen.The discussion demonstrates both how mechanics was
fundamentally intertwined with their invention process and how the open atmos-
phere of the team allowed ideas to be challenged and discussed. In this discussion,
the students were ideating a mechanical button that could push open a clip that
would hold the lamp on the laptop lid. After the discussion, they tested possible
solutions with a binder clip and a clothes peg.

JESSICA: Yes, but then it [the clip] has to be pushed from both sides.
CARLA: No, it doesn’t have to, because when the button is pressed, we put some-
thing there that pushes the clip claws open. Like in the clothes peg.When you
press from the sides, the peg opens … the same mechanism.
JESSICA: But you will have to press from the other side as well. You will have to
press from both sides for it to open.
CARLA: Oh, yes.
JESSICA: So, could we make two things that press it from both sides?
CARLA: Yes, okay, we can do that.

The students also had to create knowledge about different physical aspects of light,
such as intensity and refractions and how to control them.They put the knowledge
they had gained from the copper tape card workshop into action when connecting
the LED lights to the microcontroller. Through actual making and experimenting,
the team learned, for example, how different sensors detect movement, how to
make electric circuits for one and several LEDs, what different kinds of LEDs are
available, what a short circuit is, and how voltage changes affect the intensity of
light.
 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation 35
On the theme of design and making, the students built knowledge around var-
ious ways of making bendable structures. One of their early prototypes is presented
in Figure 3.3. With this prototype, they experimented with a bendable structure
made of chicken wire and modeled the possible aesthetic design of the light.When
reflecting on their design with this prototype, they discovered the importance of
making the lamp as light as possible, which became another key area of construc-
tion that they built knowledge around.
Regarding computing, 3D modeling was one of the themes that the team
explored. One of their ideas was to create ball-and-socket joints that could be
3D-printed to achieve the bendable structure needed to adjust the direction of the
light. They sought knowledge on using 3D-modeling software and experimented
with different ways to create 3D models and modify ready-made models to suit
their needs. They also received help from a tutor student. Although they did not
complete their 3D model of the lamp during the design sessions, their knowledge
work on the subject was intensive. Furthermore, none of them had previous
knowledge of this topic.
In addition to 3D modeling, the team attached a microcontroller (Adafruit
Circuit Playground Express) to their invention to control the lights. They used
block-based programming, building knowledge around the two following areas
in particular: using sensor data to trigger the on-off functionality of the LED
light and controlling the light’s brightness and color. Experimenting with differ-
ent sensors provided the students with ample opportunities to create knowledge
about programming. They had to use conditional if-statements and familiarize
themselves with the functionality and concept of events and variables in pro-
gramming. To solve the programming challenges, they collaborated intensively
and asked for help from teachers and tutor students when they felt they needed
it. The programming seemed to be very rewarding for them, and they even cel-
ebrated together when they succeeded in making the light work as they wanted
it to.
The team considered usability at all stages of the design process. First, they
approached it from the point of view of the product’s practicality and usefulness.
Later in their process, they moved toward more specific usability issues, such as

Figure 3.3 Early prototype of the Banana Light.

Photograph by the author.
36 Sini Davies
adaptability and adjustability. These themes are not only important in terms of
knowledge about usability, but they are also a vital aspect of creating sustainable
products.
Making, prototyping, and working with materials and tools were central ele-
ments of the team’s knowledge creation process. By making, the team was able to
create knowledge about science themes that they were not familiar with at a the-
oretical level.They also experimented with a wide range of design techniques, such
as sketching and ideation methods, building knowledge about them. They learned
to engage in collaborative design—a valuable skill in itself that is not often obtain-
able in a school setting. The students had to organize their process, divide tasks,
consider each other’s ideas, and build on them. Traditional craft techniques played
a fundamental role in their project. The importance of using traditional craft and
prototyping techniques cannot be overlooked from the point of view of knowl-
edge creation as the teams were able to handle and materialize complex conceptual
knowledge through actual making activities.

Discussion and Conclusions

Open-ended invention challenges offer numerous opportunities for knowl-
edge-creating learning and inventive thinking. If the project is planned and scaf-
folded well, and sufficient support and material resources are provided to the
inventor teams, students can take on substantial epistemic challenges that may oth-
erwise seem advanced for their age. These challenges can be solved through collab-
orative iterative efforts at working out complex problems, overcoming obstacles and
repeated failures, obtaining peer and expert feedback, trying again, and ending up
with outcomes that may not have been initially anticipated. During invention pro-
jects, student teams jointly create and build knowledge through processes of collab-
orative design and inquiry into challenging phenomena with scientific and practical
experiments. Successful invention processes, and the knowledge creation that
accompanies them, require teams to identify together the design problems related
to the task, set up an epistemic object of invention, determine constraints around
the possible solutions, and actively engage in and take responsibility for the process
(Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014; Sawyer, 2006; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014a).
In our case example, it was remarkable how versatile and sophisticated the epis-
temic concepts that the team had to handle were, ranging from actual making to
theoretical scientific concepts. Furthermore, the case example highlights the
importance of making and working with physical materials, as well as prototyping
with traditional craft techniques. When building their prototypes, the team mem-
bers worked iteratively with their epistemic object, generating, testing, evaluating,
and refining their ideas to improve their design. Making and material artifacts play
an important role in stimulating and enabling ideation and knowledge creation.
This aspect has also been highlighted in previous research (Blikstein, 2013;
Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009; Knorr-Cetina, 2001; Mehto et al., 2020; Vossoughi &
Bevan, 2014). In the Banana Light team’s projects, science and making were funda-
mentally entangled. By making, the team was able to investigate and simultane-
ously consider aspects from several themes of conceptual knowledge.
 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation 37
To conclude, the open-ended design and making challenge set the stage for
knowledge creation. Design problems trigger the knowledge creation process,
leading to new ideas through the application of maker practices. During the inven-
tion process, new ideas bring forward new design problems and refine old ones.
Further knowledge must then be built to solve these emerging design challenges.
Working with physical materials enables student teams to test their ideas, create
new ones, and build an understanding of the science concepts related to their
invention. Hence, supported by the findings from our previous studies (Mehto et
al., 2020; Riikonen et al., 2020), we conclude that open-ended, materially medi-
ated, invention projects offer ample opportunities for knowledge creation and
multifaceted learning in schools.
Further research is needed to investigate how epistemic objects develop during
invention projects, as well as how invention projects could be further designed to
offer the best possible setting for knowledge creation. Moreover, future research is
required on opportunities for invention projects to be carried out several times
during a student’s school path. Creating a continuum of innovation education
could offer young people a way to learn the skills of innovation, collaboration, and
co-creation.

References
Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a design thinker: Assessing
the learning process of students in a secondary level design thinking course. International
Journal of Art and Design Education, 37(3), 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12139
Barron, B. (2003).When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. L. Erlbaum Associates. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/42927134
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2014). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of
invention. In C. Büching, & J.Walter-Herrmann (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers and inven-
tors (pp. 203–222).Transcript. https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.203
Burke, A., & Crocker, A. (2020). “Making” waves: How young learners connect to their
natural world through third space. Education Sciences, 10(8), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci10080203
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination,
imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International
Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/1640233.1640306
Ching, C. C., & Kafai, Y. (2008). Peer pedagogy: Student collaboration and reflection in a
learning-through-design project. The Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2601–2632. https://
doi.org/10.1177/016146810811001203
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R.,
Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video
research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884
38 Sini Davies
Dillenbourg, P. (1999).What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier. https://
telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190240
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual rep-
resentations as ‘Epistemic Objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0170840608083014
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., & Lipponen, L. (2004). From communities of practice to inno-
vative knowledge communities. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 9(123445), 74–83.
Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in
design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008855526312
Kafai, Y. (1996). Learning through artifacts—Communities of practice in classrooms. AI
& Society, 10(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02716758
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Figuring the world of
designing: Expert participation in elementary classroom. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 23(2), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9187-z
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard
University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxw3q7f
Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In K. K. Cetina, T. R. Schatzki, & E. Von
Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). Routledge.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an
inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.
Latour, B. (1996). Do scientific objects have a history? Pasteur and whitehead in a bath of
lactic acid. Common Knowledge, 5(1), 76–91. https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/
hal-02057228
Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Veermans, M., & Muukkonen, H. (1999).
Computer supported collaborative learning: A review. The JHGI Giesbers Reports on
Education, 10.
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020).
Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary school.
British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 51(4), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12942
OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. OECD Learning Compass
2030: A Series of Concept Notes.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor—An emergent
epistemological approach to learning. Science and Education, 14(6), 535–557. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014).Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In S.Tan,
H. So, & J. Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 53–73). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge com-
munities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker
movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing,
18, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002
Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen,T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,
P. (2020). The development of pedagogical infrastructures in three cycles of maker-
centered learning projects. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(2),
29–49. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2782
 Epistemic Objects and Knowledge Creation 39
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Bringing maker prac-
tices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’ col-
laborative making processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 15(3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learn-
ing: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11412-012-9144-1
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014a). Knowledge building and knowledge creation:
Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397–417). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014b). Smart technology for self-organizing processes.
Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0001-8
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative
designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9066-4
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176193
Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In U. Cress, C. Rose, A. F. Wise, &
J. Oshima (Eds.), International Handbook of computer supported collaborative learning (Springer)
(pp. 23–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_2
Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National
Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, July, 1–55.
4 Collaboration and Co-regulation in
Invention Projects
Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Kati Sormunen,
Sini Davies, Jenni Matilainen, and Kai Hakkarainen

Introduction
Long-term collaborative work requires students’ commitment to coordinated
problem-solving, the development of a shared object, and the division of labor to
support their collaborative work (Barron, 2003; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2009; Riikonen
et al., 2020).
When developing invention pedagogy, it is essential to understand how students
collaborate in teams when pursuing open-ended and emergent invention chal-
lenges. It also means understanding how to support the learning of all students
according to the principles of inclusive education (United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2016). One of the general aims
of Finnish education is to foster socially sustainable inclusive education and thus
eliminate the exclusion that might reduce students’ social relationships (e.g.,
Honkasilta et al., 2019). It means an increased risk of reducing options for students
with special educational needs (SEN) to follow their educational aspirations and
citizenship skills in education.
The invention challenges, which are completely beyond students’ capabilities,
may be experienced by SEN students as challenging. However, little is known
about how students with diverse capabilities have been able to participate in long-
term collaborative invention projects. Previous research indicates that learning
methods in which knowledge is built collaboratively in iterative cycles and through
working with real-life challenges are of benefit to all students’ learning (McGinnis
& Kahn, 2014). However, such diversity of academic knowledge and learning skills
might have a negative influence, especially on SEN students’ active participation in
collaborative groups (e.g., Anderson et al., 2008; Cohen, 1994). Through the case
examples, we will examine the level of socially shared regulation in invention
teams in which students with or without SEN collaborate. From the perspective of
successful invention projects, the extent to which students are taking other team
members into account and how they are mutually carrying out the responsibilities
for achieving common goals is critical (Barron, 2003; Damşa et al., 2010; Pijl &
Frostad, 2010). We examine collaboration and social regulation as an activity in
which students jointly regulate their design and making activities as a team in
relation to attaining a shared object.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-5
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 41
Teachers see students’ participation in the social regulation of invention activities
and their pursuit of the joint object with a flexible division of labor as active
involvement, which also engages SEN students in learning (Sormunen et al., 2020).
Students are engaged in co-designing their knowledge-creating inquiries and
deliberately organize team processes to maintain a shared understanding of the
unfolding process and evaluate their progress toward the shared invention
(Dillenbourg, 1999; Miyake & Kirschner, 2014). We focus especially on the devel-
opment of small group learning and the shared regulation of collaborative activi-
ties. In this chapter, we will introduce two invention projects that we organized.
Both cases focus on the inclusive class settings typical of today, and we spotlight
invention teams in which students with or without SEN collaborate. We seek to
deepen the current knowledge on the emergence and flow of collaboration in
longitudinal invention projects; the principles and findings addressed are adaptable
for all learning by making environments.

Invention Projects Require Object-Centered Social Interaction

Our investigations engaged teams of students in pursuing invention projects and
ideating, designing, and making artifacts. Collaboration within student teams has
been investigated rigorously, especially in relation to collaborative talk and action
(e.g., Barron, 2003; Buchholz et al., 2014). In many cases, collaboration is studied
intensively in the field of design and technology education (Hennessy & Murphy,
1999; Kangas et al., 2013; Rowell, 2002).The invention projects represent nonlin-
ear knowledge-creating learning processes, through which teams of students are
engaged in long-standing collaborative efforts of solving an open-ended chal-
lenge and pursuing emergent epistemic objects such as ideas, visions, and artifacts
in making. The co-regulation processes involved in virtual settings of technolo-
gy-mediated learning have attracted the interest of many investigators (Järvelä &
Hadwin, 2013). However, invention projects diverge from traditional comput-
er-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in terms of being embedded in a
shared physical maker space (e.g., a craft classroom). Our data involve the video
recording of collaborative interaction by student teams around digital fabrication
tools and instruments instead of interaction through virtual learning environments
(Riikonen et al., 2020); this makes the social regulation of maker activity less
problematic.
Yet, invention projects may involve overwhelming challenges for all team mem-
bers due to working with unfamiliar digital fabrication technologies, encounter-
ing unanticipated construction problems, and carrying out inquiries leading to
unforeseen directions (Gutwill et al., 2015). Such projects create unique learning
situations as students struggle with joint efforts of finding solutions, achieving
goals, sharing experiences and knowledge, and having a sense of making a creative
contribution. Participating in a collaborative group alone can be challenging for
struggling students, especially SEN students. Participants must negotiate between
various invention ideas, available tools and technologies, and constraints inherent
in designing and making (Petrich et al., 2013). If a student feels that they are not
a productive member of the team, it will affect their cognition and behavior,
42 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
leading them to withdraw from the work (Anderson et al., 2008; Cohen, 1994).
Instead, if a student feels accepted by peers, they may dare to express opinions and
participate in negotiations and joint decision-making (Jordan & McDaniel Jr.,
2014; Pijl & Frostad, 2010). To address an invention challenge successfully, a team
must simultaneously deal with epistemic and technological challenges as well as
organize, in real time, their ongoing design and making processes (Mehto et al.,
2020; Riikonen et al., 2020).
The students’ collaboration requires the team members to focus on a shared
epistemic object, that is, an artifact-in-making that they need to build together
during the invention process (Mehto et al., 2020). The success of collaborative
teamwork is critically dependent on students who actively engage in and take
responsibility for the learning process. To ensure student collaboration in inclu-
sive classes, the teacher should pay attention to the grouping so that socially
competent students support less competent peers (Webb et al., 1998). During the
process, the teacher facilitates learning by encouraging independent work as
much as possible but also offers support when required. It should also be noted
that students must be given time to build their collaboration independently
(Barron, 2003).
Further, variations in interactional processes between students can lead to pro-
ductive collaboration (Barron, 2003). The collaboration requires an adequate divi-
sion of labor (Barron, 2003) that is seen as more than just accomplishing a task
because it involves agreed-upon but flexible roles and active interactions between
team members. Although it is beneficial to participate equally, participants may also
have various roles and relationships during the project (Mercier et al., 2014). The
idea exchange may both facilitate and hinder ideation and tinkering, which is
dependent on the quality of a teams’ collaborative discourse interaction. Some
students can take a leadership role or have more initiative; however, the level of
initiation and intentionality (Gutwill et al., 2015) can change across the course of
students’ interaction (Mercier et al., 2014). Most commonly, the initiation and
leadership are related to handing over certain tasks, checking on the following of
the given instructions, coordinating the team members’ attention, and directing the
tools and materials used.
Appropriate social settings (i.e., a supportive atmosphere and close relationships,
positive social norms, participant engagement, and social recognition of team
achievements) facilitate participation for sharing ideas, organizing the process, and
supporting the emergence of a commitment toward a shared epistemic object.
Furthermore, teachers’ interaction with students as part of organizing and facilitat-
ing teamwork is an important aspect of collaborative learning in school settings as
well as in maker spaces (Gutwill et al., 2015).These include sparking initial interest,
providing stimulus, giving demonstrations and modeling, making new tools and
material available, and scaffolding participants through frustrating moments, as well
as providing hints and help to teams to overcome challenges related to the division
of labor and the distribution of the workload evenly (Gutwill et al., 2015). During
the maker project, the teacher should actively pay attention to how the ideas are
developed together and how the agreed-upon division of labor among the team
members is realized.
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 43
From Self-Regulation to Co-regulation and the Socially Shared
Regulation of Inventive Activity
The self-regulation, co-regulation, and socially shared regulation of learning are
distinguished from one another (Hadwin et al., 2017; Panadero & Järvelä, 2015); a
successful invention process is critically dependent on all these forms of regulation.
Research on self-regulated learning assists in understanding and examining the
role of intellectual, social, and emotional engagement in learning processes
(Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2009). Järvelä and colleagues see self-regulated learning as a
social process embedded in and mediated by a learning environment; it not only
shapes personal activity but also that of other team members. Self-regulated learn-
ing refers to a student’s capacity to manage their own activity, thinking, and moti-
vation so as to achieve learning goals and objects. It also involves adapting one’s
own activity according to the team’s shared objects, available tools, and epistemic
and material resources, as well as the conditions of the learning environment
(Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013; Järvenoja et al., 2015). Learning activities that rely on
students’ self-organized teamwork, collaborative interaction, and pursuit of novelty
and innovation challenge students to interrelate their own activities with those of
other team members and at the same time cultivate their self-regulative and collab-
orative competencies.
Co-regulation, in contrast, requires that the members of the team participate in
the ongoing monitoring of mutual activity, cognition, emotions, and motivation
(Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). Panadero and Järvelä (2015) anchor co-regulation on
Vygotsky’s (1978) sociohistorical theory: Higher cognitive processes are assumed to
develop through socially contextualized and tool-mediated interaction at the zone
of proximal development. In the context of invention projects novel to all partici-
pants, co-regulation cannot merely be a matter of an asymmetric relation of more
knowledgeable students supporting their peers but involves all team members and
the task, tools, and learning environment providing reciprocal support to one
another. Through teamwork, students are developing both their collaborative and
metacognitive skills. Co-regulation is a metacognitive process of planning, moni-
toring, and directing team-based creative activity. The development of metacogni-
tive skills requires that the students reflect on their own as well as the whole team’s
activities by asking about joint achievements, challenges, and required improve-
ments of activity. In the context of team-based invention processes, metacognitive
capabilities not only represent the personal awareness of one’s own learning activity
but expand to the awareness of socially distributed learning processes and the rele-
vant knowledge and skills of fellow team members. Hadwin et al. (2017) argued
that co-regulation plays a crucial role in fostering the development of both the
self-regulation of learning and the socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL).
Learning in invention teams is mediated by the mutual pursuit of the shared ideas
and visions of invention. Indeed, such an undertaking corresponds closely to SSRL
(Panadero & Järvelä, 2015), which strongly underscores the object-driven aspects of
the social regulation process. Shared regulation refers to a team’s deliberate planning
of its activity, the team members’ co-configuration of the invention idea, the mutual
shaping of the making processes, associated joint deliberation and reflection, and the
44 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
reciprocal adaptation of activity. It is based on students’ knowledge, beliefs, and expe-
riences, which have to be mutually adjusted for the coordinated pursuit of the teams’
shared epistemic object (Isohätälä et al., 2017,). SSRL requires that the team members
jointly assume metacognitive control of the invention project in terms of negotiating
and iteratively developing the invention idea and aligning teamwork activity cogni-
tively, motivationally, and emotionally in pursuing the shared object (Hadwin et al.,
2017). It means that the whole team should pursue the shared epistemic object as a
collective after interactively working out the invention object and employ co-regula-
tive efforts for successively forming as a team. SSRL is revealed in terms of active
participation and mutual recognition and responsibility for achieving a common goal,
that is, as a form of shared epistemic agency (Barron, 2003; Damşa et al., 2010). In such
socially shared co-regulation of activities, the team members also observe and direct
each other’s activities (Panadero & Järvelä, 2015). Therefore, the team manages and
directs the task in question through jointly agreed-upon methods and practices, but
the members can also take on various roles during the process (Mercier et al., 2014).
In collaborative teamwork, reaching a shared understanding and elaborating a
shared epistemic object are the most important aspects. Students’ teamwork aims at
making the invention. To that end, it is critical to support and strengthen the stu-
dents’ sense of belonging to a team and thereby increase each student’s commit-
ment to the joint invention project. A key part of the sense of belonging is a
commitment to the shared invention process and agreed-upon ways of working.
The cohesion of the team is enhanced by treating each participant equally, provid-
ing encouragement, and creating an adequate but flexible division of labor between
the team members. Social interaction and open discussion in the team assist stu-
dents in understanding each other’s perspectives, making compromises, compen-
sating for each other’s weaknesses, and gradually building mutual practices.
Understanding the skills and strengths of other team members is valuable when a
certain kind of knowledge or skill is needed for solving a novel problem. The
teacher can foster the development of teams’ metacognitive skills by asking stu-
dents repeatedly to reflect on their ongoing activity and advancement toward the
artifact-in-making during the invention project.
The shared regulation of the invention process is a transactive process in which
the initial epistemic object is invented, iteratively refined, modeled, prototyped, and
manufactured. Accordingly, the invention project is not only a socially mediated
process in nature but also a materially mediated one (Kangas et al., 2013; Mehto et
al., 2020). To construct an adequately functioning artifact, the students have to
employ diverse traditional and digital fabrication tools and multifaceted materials.
Sociomaterial interaction with the various models and prototypes help the teams
to explain, verbalize, communicate, and materialize initially vague ideas (Mehto et
al., 2020). Further, the use of certain tools and materials is likely to impact the
division of labor; the possession of a particular tool could, for instance, give author-
ity in the use of the materials shaped by that tool (Buchholz et al., 2014; Rowell,
2002). Alternatively, the material mediation involved in making tangible artifacts
enables all team members to observe the development and fabrication of the arti-
facts in making in real time; the material embodiment makes the diverging intui-
tions and expectations visible to all participants.
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 45
The focused social-creative pursuit of invention requires students to work
toward a joint object; to listen to, understand, and help each other; and to engage
in shared efforts of testing and constructing the artifacts being developed (see, e.g.,
Barron, 2003). The term process organizing (Riikonen et al., 2020) is used here to
refer to the social-epistemic regulation of collaborative design and making pro-
cesses. Such discourse interactions have been empirically identifiable across many
investigations; they share characteristics of both the co-regulation and SSRL. The
team members’ belief in their capacity to solve the invention challenges requires
unity, which should be supported in a range of ways. The teacher can see the
togetherness of the team members in the way the students negotiate and build on
the insights from each other’s ideas, how they plan the task at hand, how they talk
about the team’s strengths and weaknesses, and how the members express their
feelings about the task. Successful teamwork is clearly organized around joint prob-
lem-solving attempts, in which students have a shared idea of the designed object,
and the team wishes to take the joint ideation forward. For the teacher, this com-
mitment is clearly visible when the participants are talking about “us” as a team and
referring to each other’s ideas by expanding and developing them together. In the
following, through two case examples, we will examine the level of socially shared
regulation in invention teams.

Invention Project Settings and Method of Data Analysis

The two invention projects were organized at a primary and a lower-secondary
school, respectively. In the project implemented in primary school, we explored
collaboration and co-regulation in two inclusive teams including SEN students. In
the lower-secondary school project, in turn, we traced the social regulation in the
invention projects of five student teams. In both projects, student teams received an
open-ended invention challenge jointly designed by the teachers and researchers.
At the primary school, the student teams were challenged to “design an intellectu-
ally challenging, aesthetically appealing, and personally meaningful complex arti-
fact making daily activities easier. It could be a new or improved invention, and it
should integrate material and digital elements”. At the lower-secondary school, the
student teams were requested to “invent a smart product or a smart garment by
relying on traditional and digital fabrication technologies”.
The projects involved 8 to 12 weekly design and making sessions (two to three
hours per session) over three months.The research data consists of video recordings
of the seven teams. The fifth-grade teams worked on the Gel Comb and Key rack
projects, and in the seventh-grade teams dealt with the Bike, Mobile Gaming Grip
(MGG), Moon, UrPo, and Plant projects. We analyzed the video recordings using
the Making-Process Rug method. Altogether, approximately 83 hours of video data
were analyzed and coded in three-minute segments. The method of data analysis
was based on two stages of (1) systematic coding of the video data and (2) convert-
ing these data into a visual form that enabled us to perceive the collaborative inven-
tion process and its flow.With that end in mind, the analysis produced color-coded,
layered diagrams referred to as Making-Process Rugs because they resemble woven
rugs (see Figure 4.1, which we have made available via the link in the footnote1).
46 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
From the visually coded video data together with ethnographic notes, we illus-
trated the commitment of the team members. The coded data provide a variety of
indicators for assessing student teams’ shared responsibility and motivation. These
included (a) the extent to which the team members were involved in the activities
and (b) how they focused on the specific activities or stages, (c) how much they
were interested in the task, (d) how the members of the team interacted with each
other, and (e) how the division of the work between members took place, that is,
how the team members organized their collaborative process. Process organizing
(see green color in Figure 4.11) represents verbal interaction through which team
members negotiated mutual responsibilities, talked about what should be done
next, and analyzed the specific tools and programs needed in the next stage.

Findings
When analyzing teams’ collaborative designing and making processes, some possi-
ble drivers of successful invention were identified. Extensive video data revealed
each member’s participation, engagement, and the quality of interaction between
the members of the team. As the invention projects lasted 8 to 12 weeks, it is evi-
dent that the teams’ engagement and intensity varied at different stages of the
project. However, we were surprised that the student teams at both school levels
were able to maintain their enthusiasm and motivation throughout their longitu-
dinal invention processes.

Shared Responsibility at the Primary Level

At the primary level, we followed two inclusive student teams that we chose
because of the participant structure, size of the team, and the team composition in
terms of having both mainstream students and SEN students. Table 4.1 shows the
team members and their inventions at the primary level.
In the larger Gel Comb team, students were divided into smaller sub-teams to
work on their areas of responsibility. Some members were more active in advanc-
ing the invention, and they also directed the team’s activities more than others.The
Making-Process Rugs of the Gel Comb team revealed that the team had to repeat-
edly return to the process organizing, and the team also had more off-task work
(see black color in Figure 4.11), which can be interpreted as an inconsistency in the

Table 4.1 Primary school student teams and their inventions

Name Team Basic idea

Gel Comb Five boys (three SEN The Gel Comb is an invention where
students) hair gel is applied directly to the
user’s hair so that the user’s hands will
not get dirty.
Key Rack Three girls (one SEN The Key Rack was intended to keep keys
student) in a designated place with color-coded
hooks for each family member’s key(s).
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 47
team’s activities and a challenge in terms of focusing on the targeted invention.The
Gel Comb team reorganized its activities throughout the process and on several
occasions during one session. The smaller-sized Key Rack team, in contrast, func-
tioned in a very organized way right from the beginning, and the participation was
more equally distributed, and the team was committed to promoting their inven-
tion process.The following three themes related to the regulation and organization
of the teams’ activities emerged from the material of the primary class: (1) shared
responsibility, joint decision-making, and co-regulation; (2) reconciling tensions
and dilemmas; and (3) social support, encouragement, and participation.

Shared Responsibility, Joint Decision-Making, and Co-regulation

In the Gel Comb team, one student had greater responsibility for the team’s processes
and the completion of the invention. The student took responsibility for the team’s
activities, and his leadership was manifested in terms of sharing instructions with
others and the completion of tasks. Other members of the team relied on his opin-
ions and his organization of work assignments. The student was also responsible for
involving other team members and personally completing tasks that might otherwise
have been left undone. Although in the Gel Comb team the members gave the main
responsibility to one student, they mainly shared their decision-making in the team.
In the Key Rack team, there was no single leader or responsible person; rather,
the process was more evenly co-regulated among the students. There was constant
consultation between the two mainstream students about who was allowed to
make decisions, such as who was responsible for writing the learning diary or what
the invention should eventually become. They both had a strong desire to take
responsibility and make decisions. However, the authoritarian attempts of an indi-
vidual student to regulate team activities were thwarted, and the students sought to
make team decisions jointly. In particular, the third student played an essential role
as a mediator. Joint decision-making appeared to be important in both teams.
The activities of the invention teams were jointly co-regulated within the teams
in many ways. The co-regulation aimed to ensure that the activities of the teams
were continuous and desirable. In the Gel Comb team, the participation in the
invention process was organized by regulating the behavior of the team members,
particularly limiting off-task activity. The manifested leader often asked the other
team members to focus on the essentials, calm down, and listen to each other. He
emphasized the importance of focusing on the work for completing the invention,
and he patiently structured the activity of the other members by guiding and
encouraging them. Despite strong leadership, the activities of the Gel Comb team
were more fragmented than those of the Key Rack team. The larger the team size
and the larger the number of SEN students in the team may have contributed to
the challenges of focusing on the main activities.
Participation in team activities and interactions can be considered to be one of
the critical dimensions of collaboration. The team members regulated each other’s
behavior by obligating them to participate in joint activities. The obligation was
manifested explicitly and verbally to focus on the task at hand or participate more
actively. Invitations to concentrate on the task were especially addressed to the
48 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
SEN students in both teams. In both teams, the SEN students sometimes lost focus
until they were encouraged to return to the invention. In both teams, efforts were
made to find suitable tasks for each team member even though the situation might
not have required that activity.
Leadership, responsibility, and social support may appear to be more prominent
forms of team activity, but participation in social interaction is also essential.
Learners who for one reason or another are unwilling or unable to take on a visible
role in their team’s activities may still bring their own way of taking part in creating
the social order.This was the case especially with SEN students. For example, in the
Gel Comb team, one SEN student’s role as being socially funny may seem disrup-
tive; nevertheless, the student participated in social interaction, brought out his
ideas, and created a friendly, lighter atmosphere for the team by having fun with
others. Although the responsibility for team activities was not evenly distributed
among the team members, and commitment to team activities varied during the
project, neither team completely excluded any members from team activities.

Reconciling Tensions and Dilemmas

There are many challenges in the invention process and the team seeks to address
these together through a range of ways to strengthen collaboration. Conflicts that
arise in collaborative situations can allow students to take on a new kind of respon-
sibility for team activities, participate actively, and thus express their role by calming
the situation and contributing to the smooth continuation of team activities. In the
Key Rack team, there were several conflict situations. Disagreements arose between
two mainstream students; their close friendship outside the project may have influ-
enced the situation. Interestingly, the SEN student took the initiative to keep the
group dynamics harmonious by addressing disagreements between the other team
members. For example, she resolved a potential conflict even before it broke out
by intervening in a discussion that had turned into a debate between two members;
she encouraged each student to have their say and thus allowed all members to
express their own opinions in order to resolve the situation. Her effort of giving
turns and asking questions was proactive in nature, which may be interpreted as an
expression of the student’s agency in relation to SSRL.
The difficulties of the Gel Comb team were different. They appeared as a con-
tinuous reorganization of the process and a lack of focus concerning targeted
action. However, there were no actual emotional episodes that could be classified
as conflicts in the Gel Comb team. The tensions of the Key Rack team, in turn,
arose when the team members did not meet their implicit quality requirement or
when joint decision-making turned out to be difficult. Disagreements within the
team swelled to interfere with targeted team activities when a lot of time had to be
spent resolving them and when they became emotional and offensive. However,
the team resolved the conflicts together, and activities continued. Despite the Key
Rack team’s disputes, the videos show that keeping the team together was vital to
all members. Disagreements appeared to strengthen the Key Rack team and focus
the team’s activities on the invention after conflicts. With persistent cooperation,
both teams completed their inventions.
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 49
Social Support, Encouragement, and Participation
Overcoming tensions and dilemmas together can strengthen the team and sup-
port its activities later. In both teams, students also provided each other with
social support, encouragement, and guidance during the invention process. By
supporting and encouraging others, it is possible to increase the sense of contri-
bution, thereby strengthening the role of the actors in the team (Sormunen et al.,
2020).The Gel Comb team’s video material revealed that the students recognized
each other for a job well done. For example, the students praised the contribution
of the slightly passive SEN student. Positively encouraging an individual about
their own work can strengthen their sense of contribution, which in turn can
enhance agency and a sense of inclusion (see, e.g., Damşa et al., 2010). Also, at
many points in the Key Rack project, the members encouraged each other and
considered the effects of encouragement and positive support on the team’s good
atmosphere.

Experiences of the Social Regulation of the Invention Project at the Secondary

School
In the secondary school project, the size of the teams varied from three to
seven members, which clearly affected the teamwork (see Table 4.2). All stu-
dents were mainstream students. The results indicated that four of the five
teams were able to take on multifaceted challenges and come up with novel
inventions.
The analysis of the video data revealed that the collaborative processes within
the larger teams (six to seven members) were more fragmented than those in the
smaller teams (Riikonen et al., 2020). Moreover, off-task work was more common
in the larger teams than in the more compact ones. The following three aspects
related to co-regulation and process organization emerged from the data: (1) joint
commitment and engagement, (2) importance of model making and experimen-
tation, and (3) topics of process organizing.

Table 4.2 Secondary school student teams and their inventions

Name Team Basic idea

Bike 3 boys A three-wheel bike containing smart technologies, such as

an environment-responsive, rechargeable LED lighting
system
MGG 4 boys MGG, a pair of handles that improves the ergonomics of a
mobile phone while playing games
Moon 6 girls A smart outfit for sports, including an environment-re-
sponsive lighting system to improve safety
UrPo 6 boys A smart insole for sport shoes, including an automatic
warming system for winter sports
Plant 7 girls An automatic plant care system incorporating decorative
elements
50 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
Joint Commitment and Engagement
In most of the teams, the design challenge clearly appeared to be transformed into
a joint effort for the team as the project progressed, that is, a joint commitment and
shared engagement to develop their own inventions. Only one team (the Plant
team) really found it difficult to find commonly shared ideas and to organize their
process together. Moreover, other large teams appeared to have some problems
engaging all team members in working consistently to advance their invention.
However, when the design process proceeded, all members were able to participate
equally. The interaction between the members of the team was generally positive,
and the resulting conflicts related to the divisions of work were solved by consen-
sus, thus fostering collaboration within the team. This is important as negative
socio-emotional experiences may challenge the teamwork and undermine the
team’s chances for success (Barron, 2003).
The smaller teams were more committed and enacted the socially shared co-reg-
ulation more readily. During their design and making processes, the teams produced
multidimensional and relevant ideas for inventions to drive their design forward
into more specific ideas and new products. Although the members of the team
could have different ideas or views related to the ideas of invention at various stages
of the process, they nevertheless endeavored to produce the best possible joint
solution and to consider each other’s views. Beyond team size, group dynamics and
the nature of the inventions may have also affected the observed differences.

Importance of Model Making and Experimentation

The data analysis revealed the importance of model making in the successful com-
pletion of the making process (Riikonen et al., 2020). In the processes of the Bike,
MGG, Moon, and UrPo teams, model making was the most noticeable activity that
was intertwined with ideation, with discussion about manufacturing and evalua-
tion occurring either in parallel or following model making. These teams dealt
with the complexity of invention challenges by spending a great deal of their time
in model making and digital experimentation. The importance of tangible,
hands-on work for the successful teams is also emphasized in the results of previous
studies (Kangas et al., 2013). Therefore, it can be argued that without the creation
of prototypes, there would have been a lack of fruitful opportunities for shared
regulation. The model making gave the proposed solution a tangible form, ena-
bling the evaluation and acceptance or rejection of the prospective solution, and
helped the members to focus on joint decision-making. The prototypes integrated
the ideas and solutions and materialized all aspects of the team’s invention.
Sociomaterial engagement (Mehto et al., 2020), both in materially mediated mak-
ing and in focused social interaction, was critical in inventing tangible artifacts.The
Plant team did not engage in any model making over the course of the project, and
the team spent most of its working time on off-task actions. For example, they
experimented with materials and digital tools, but these experiments did not lead
to model making, and the potential to advance their invention never materialized:
they were not able to develop a shared understanding of the object.
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 51
Topics of Process Organizing
Common to most of the successful teams was concentration on shared working
and a commitment to it. The process organizing involved the social-epistemic reg-
ulation of collaboration to engage in shared efforts of testing and constructing the
artifacts being developed. The topic of process organizing focused on:

1) Organizing making activities covering the discursive aspects of doing or per-

forming something, including discussions concerning next steps, such as 3D
modeling, sewing fabric, or searching for more information about coding
LED lights
2) Constraints and resources, including discussions on how to find certain mate-
rials, scheduling future activities, or acquiring social resources such as help
from a teacher, and finally
3) Teamwork, covering how various tasks would be divided among team
members

The Bike and MGG teams focused on organizing making activities and tight
teamwork among all team members. In the MGG team, one student had a leading
role in the organizing process, but he provided the other team members opportu-
nities to participate. Further, the lack of teacher involvement was striking in both
teams, and the teachers were only needed to provide assistance in deciding how to
proceed or material resources and guidance regarding 3D printing (for example).
In the Moon team, the design and making processes were also organized in a very
collaborative manner through negotiations within the whole team, and they com-
posed sub-teams to conduct certain tasks. The UrPo team’s process organizing was
led by the two team leaders and supervised by the teacher. It was rare in the Plant
team’s process for the entire team or even most of the members to take part in
organizing the process.
In general, the teams’ engagement evolved as the teams’ solutions advanced:
they enjoyed problems-solving and making, and the teams’ activities were self-reg-
ulated. Their own meaningful invention challenge combined with the freedom of
making choices can be seen as major elements contributing to the creation of the
shared objectives of the internally motivated teams. For example, the teams did not
discuss the teacher’s expectations about their invention projects; instead, the dis-
cussion and activities focused on the realization of a shared object and the setting
of the teams’ own goals on the basis of their own starting points. The teams’ col-
laborative process of organizing can be characterized by joint project manage-
ment, continuous shared responsibility, and mutual control of the various aspects
of the multifaceted project.
The successful teams managed to sort out most of the teamwork challenges
themselves, and they addressed related issues in most sessions. Thus, the commit-
ment and co-regulation of shared working appeared in terms of enjoyment, capa-
bility, orientation toward destination, and commitment to problem-solving.
Developing their inventions together and the shared motivation among the team
members seemed to constitute a self-inducing positive cycle in which the team
52 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
members became increasingly motivated to achieve the objectives they had set,
which in turn encouraged the team members to set new goals and to work hard
to achieve them. However, as stated earlier, such corresponding shared motivation
was not observed in only one team: the team did not develop common prob-
lem-solving goals that would have created commitment within the team members
to develop their own invention. On the contrary, over time, these students made it
clear that they did not have inner motivation and were not able to organize their
process.

Discussion
The aim of the invention projects was to provide a variety of students with the
experience of participation, that is, to persuade them to make something relevant
together, thereby stimulating their internal motivation, referring to the desire to
promote commonly agreed-upon objectives and to commit to the completion of
the project. In teams, the close commitment and positive attitude and flow rein-
forced the view of how important it is to develop teams’ inner motivation and
commitment to their work. It can be said that in both school cases, most of the
teams had positive learning experiences in terms of having ambition, dedication,
and flow. The achievement of positive learning experiences as part of the curricu-
lum content can be regarded as significant, and these experiences may have
far-reaching implications as students move to adulthood and to the world of work.
Equal participation and the sharing of tasks evenly promoted the co-coordina-
tion of the team’s activities, which is a prerequisite for successful collaboration.The
unclear role of the students in the group interferes with the teamwork.Working in
small teams in which all members interact actively to achieve a shared goal and
object is usually inspiring and creates a positive cycle. Creativity in designing
requires the bravery of the members to present their own ideas and experience.
The quick drawing of ideas and testing of details are situations in which joint work
becomes visible. When working is at the center, students convey and make visible
their design ideas through discussion, drawings, and various material 3D models
and prototypes. This provides an opportunity for further processing ideas and dis-
cussing them and producing more advanced ideas. However, getting students into
this state of mind may be challenging as they may have varying skills and knowl-
edge, and the teams may thus be highly heterogeneous.
In the primary class project, the activities of the teams were co-regulated in
many ways. Shared responsibility for the team’s activities was taken both at the
individual level and collectively. Making decisions jointly was sought, or team
members gave one team member the responsibility for leading the team’s activities
and the division of labor. The teams regulated activities to influence the behavior
of other team members, involved all team members in joint tasks, and resolved any
difficulties and disagreements that arose during the project. The team members
gave each other additional social support and encouragement to ensure harmoni-
ous and smooth group activities. Students sought to compromise, work together,
and keep the team together during the project. Working together was perceived as
meaningful.
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 53
Directing the teams’ motivation and interest toward a common goal may become
a challenge for joint activities. This is influenced by the instructions, open-ended but
jointly negotiated and comprehensive assignment, and previous experiences of school
practices. Further, the team must put joint effort into working out the shared epis-
temic object of their activity; that is already an achievement rather than something
pre-given. Collaborative learning also takes shape differently depending on whether
the members of the team are allowed to choose their own team and working space or
whether they participate in collaborative activities on their own initiative, on the ini-
tiative of a teacher, or under compulsion. In addition, during the long-term invention
project, the motivation, commitment, and dynamics of the team members may vary.
The teacher can assist in the accomplishment of effective collaboration by mon-
itoring the interaction between team members and by scheduling the various
stages of the invention project—and also by practicing it with students, getting
them to use nonlinear working, and managing anxiety. In inclusive classes with
SEN students, collaboration and co-regulation can be supported by creating differ-
ent routines for working, including starting sessions with the team’s joint review of
ongoing phases (where we are now), what should be achieved during this session,
and at the same time, agreeing on which team members are responsible for which
phase or sub-task. At the end of the working session, it is also important to reflect
briefly on how the objectives of the working session were achieved, whether
everyone has had enough opportunity to contribute, and how collaboration
between the members of the team has proceeded. Agreement on the division of
labor can be reviewed separately in each session.

Note
1 https://growingmind.fi/inventionpedagogy_makingprocessrugs/

References
Anderson, D., Thomas, G. P., & Nashon, S. M. (2008). Social barriers to meaningful engage-
ment in biology field trip group work. Science Education 93(3), 511–534. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sce.20304
Barron, B. (2003).When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered
access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278–297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.939762
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.
Review of Educational Research,64(19),1–35.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Damşa, C. I., Kirscher, P. A., Andriessen, J. E. B., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. M. (2010). Shared
epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 19, 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
Dillenbourg, P. (1999).What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),
Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in
tinkering activities. Curator:The Museum Journal, 58(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cura.12105
54 Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al.
Hadwin, F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017) Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regula-
tion in collaborative learning environments. In D. Schunk, & J. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation of learning and performance (pp.99–122).https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048
Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design
and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1008855526312
Honkasilta, J., Ahtiainen, R., Hienonen, N., & Jahnukainen, M. (2019). Inclusive and special
education and the question of equity in education:The case of Finland. In M. J. Schuelka,
C. J. Johnstone, G. Thomas, & A. J. Artiles (Eds.), The SAGE handbook on inclusion and
diversity in education (pp. 481–495). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781526470430.n39
Isohätälä, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2017). Socially shared regulation of learning and
participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal of
Educational Research, 81, 11–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.006
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational
Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006
Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do
students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909x402811
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2015). Understanding regulated learning in situa-
tive and contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2015.1075400
Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel Jr., R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative
problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engi-
neering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10508406.2014.896254
Kangas, K. & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen K. (2013). Design thinking in ele-
mentary students’ collaborative lamp designing process. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 18(1), 30–43. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1798
McGinnis, J. R., & Kahn, S. (2014). Special needs and talents in science learning. In N.
Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education,Vol. II. Routledge.
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K; Kangas, K, & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020)
Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary
school. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (4), 1246–1261. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjet.12942
Mercier, E. M., Higgins, S. E., & da Costa, L. (2014). Different leaders: Emergent organiza-
tional and intellectual leadership in children’s collaborative learning groups. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(4), 397–432. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11412-014-9201-z
Miyake, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The social and interactive dimensions of collaborative
learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 418–
438). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.026
Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European
Psychologist, 20, 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226
Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., Bevan, B., & Wilkinson, K. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they
learning? In M. Honey, & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation
of STEM innovators (pp. 68–88). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108352
Pijl, S. J., & Frostad, P. (2010). Peer acceptance and self-concept of students with disabilities
in regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 93–105. https://
psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/08856250903450947
 Collaboration and Co-regulation 55
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P & Hakkarainen, K., (2020). Bringing maker prac-
tices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’ col-
laborative making processes. Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(3),
319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6
Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participa-
tion. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1013081115540
Sormunen, K., Juuti, K. & Lavonen, J. (2020). Reflective discussion as a method of support-
ing participation in maker-centered science project. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 18(4), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Education 2030:
Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development
Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for
all. Retrieved 15 August 2019, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collabo-
rative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational
Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1163461
5 Learning to Create
Creating to Learn
Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas

Learning to Create
Invention projects engage students in nonlinear, multifaceted hands-on processes,
through which they collaboratively generate creative solutions to open-ended,
real-life design challenges. The aim is to support students in learning to be curious
problem finders and solvers and to enhance their confidence to act in creative ways
(Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016). Furthermore, several future competencies
linked with creativity and considered essential for well-functioning future societies,
such as empathy and collaboration, can be developed in invention projects
(Noweski et al., 2012). Within invention pedagogy, creativity emerges as a form of
sociomaterial action as the material world is explored by students through collab-
orative generation of shared artifacts (Clapp, 2017; Mehto et al., 2020).
Throughout its history, creativity has been given multiple definitions. A widely
accepted definition focuses on creative outcomes that need to have both novelty
value and be appropriate or useful for their purpose (e.g., Stenberg, 2022). However,
these elements are always determined in particular social, cultural, and historical
contexts (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014). In schools, teachers and students are the
experts who recognize the creativity in students’ solutions, and novelty value means
that a solution is new to students or exceeds what can be expected from them
(Clapp, 2017). In education, it is essential to understand that anyone can be creative
at a certain level and can develop from one level to the next (Beghetto & Kaufman,
2014; Clapp, 2017). Creativity can be seen “as a capacity to imagine, conceive,
express, or make something that was not there before” (Durham Commission on
Creativity and Education, 2019, p. 3).
Sawyer (2021) suggested that the goal of teaching for creativity could be for
students to understand creativity as an iterative, improvisational, and nonlinear pro-
cess. Helping students to navigate in such uncertain and undetermined contexts
cannot be guided by fixed instructions (Sawyer, 2018); instead, a creative approach
to teaching is required both in terms of pedagogical methods and simultaneously
enhancing competencies for creativity in students (Patston et al., 2021). Despite the
significant role of creativity in the future society, there is the lack of research on
pedagogies in nurturing learners’ competencies for creativity in K–12 education
(Cremin & Chappell, 2021).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-6
 Learning to Create 57
In this chapter, we explore how students’ and teachers’ competencies for creativity,
that is, a dynamic set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Noweski et al., 2012), can
be applied and developed through participation in invention projects.We present a
case, an invention project called We Design & Make, in which the design thinking
approach was used for teaching and learning competencies for creativity. In the
project, eighth-grade students (ten girls aged 14–15 years) co-created e-textile
products for local preschoolers according to their wishes and needs. The class met
12 times in weekly lessons facilitated by a craft teacher (later referred to as the
teacher) and a researcher (the first author of the present chapter). The project
engaged the students in a collaborative, open-ended design and making project
which emphasized textile craft practices, new e-textile technology (programmable
microcontroller), and development of a certain type of we-can-do attitude. In what
follows, we first describe how the design thinking approach was used to structure
and facilitate the creative process and practices in the project. Second, we explore
the teacher’s and researcher’s roles and pedagogical practices in building a class-
room culture for creativity and in supporting students’ creative confidence. Finally,
we provide an overview of the competencies for creativity applied and developed
in the project and highlight how several types of competencies are involved in
creative learning projects.

Learning Competencies for Creativity through Design Thinking

Design thinking is an approach to creative problem-solving in which several cog-
nitive and affective processes, skills, and mindsets are applied (Goldman &
Kabayadondo, 2016; Noweski et al., 2012). The process is dynamic in nature; pro-
cesses of defining the challenges and generating solutions are simultaneous, and
they require sustained, iterative efforts and various domain-specific and
domain-general skills and competencies from students, as well as teachers (Sawyer,
2018). Both creative and critical thinking skills can be enhanced with methods
and activities that encourage divergent (widening the solution space) and conver-
gent thinking (narrowing the solution space) (Noweski et al., 2012; Razzouk &
Shute, 2012).
Design thinking is characterized as a human-centered and collaborative process
that generally involves five steps: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.
These steps support novices in the process, as they provide them orientation and
stability (Noweski et al., 2012). However, learning through design thinking aims at
not simply following the process steps but also developing a change of mindset
through participation in an action-oriented collaborative problem-solving process
(Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016). Further, hands-on exploration with materials
and tools has a fundamental role in many fields of designing, and embodied prac-
tices are a significant part of learning creative ways of working (Groth, 2016). In
invention projects, students practice and develop several competencies for creativ-
ity in close collaboration with peers using a variety of materials, while they explore
the context, generate solutions, prototype, receive feedback, evaluate, and refine
their designs. Perseverance and coping with uncertainty and failure become neces-
sary aspects of the iterative process (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016).
58 Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lessons 4–5 Lessons 6–12

Co

Co
g

g
in

in
n

n
ve
nk

nk

ve
rg
i

rg
th

th
en

en
t

t
en

en
t

t
th

th
g

g
i
er

er

i
nk

nk
iv

iv
in

in
D

D
g

g
Immerse, Define Quick ‘n dirty
Ideate Making
observe, and possible protos
solutions Sharing
interview challenges and user
and vote Reflecting
the users feedback

Discover Define Develop Deliver

Empathize Define Produce Create
with users, challenges many ideas prototypes
discover, and according to and possible and test
search for challenges the research solutions solutions

DEFINING CHALLENGES CREATING SOLUTIONS

Figure 5.1 The creative process in the We Design & Make invention project.
Adapted from British Design Council, 2004.

Our case example, the We Design & Make project, followed the Double
Diamond design model (British Design Council, 2004). The model is used in pro-
fessional design, particularly human-centered design, and was slightly adapted to
better suit the needs of a school project (Figure 5.1). The model consists of two
“diamonds” (i.e., process phases): (1) defining the challenges, and (2) creating the
solutions. Both phases involve divergent and convergent thinking, but in practice,
the phases and modes of thinking are partly parallel. In our case example, the first
phase or “diamond” focused on discovering the context of designing (divergent
thinking) and defining the challenges to be solved during the invention process
(convergent thinking). In the second phase, the aim was to develop many ideas and
solutions (divergent thinking), and to deliver prototypes and to test the solutions
(convergent thinking).
During the process, the Double Diamond model was shown to the students at
the beginning of each lesson to visualize how the creative process was evolving,
what steps needed to be taken, and why and how these steps were taken. This
exercise helped the students to understand the iterative and lengthy nature of the
process. In the following, we describe the use of the model as part of the pupils’
co-design process and explain its theoretical pinnings using practical examples
from the project.

Defining Challenges
The foundation of an educational invention project can be laid out in a design
brief created before the project, which outlines the project’s overall goals and con-
straints but does not predetermine the challenge for the students. Setting up the
brief for students’ demands constantly seeking to balance the openness and
 Learning to Create 59
constraints of the task. Too much openness or a lack of constraints may lead to
unrealistic ideas or recycling already familiar patterns, whereas tasks with balanced
constraints help the students toward more advanced conceptions (Sawyer, 2018). In
the We Design & Make invention project, the design brief was formulated as fol-
lows:“Co-design and make an e-textile product for preschoolers according to their wishes and
needs.” This brief emphasized collaboration between team members, consideration
of the ideas, feelings, and needs of others, and creative and critical thinking about
how technology could be used in the products. Yet, the brief was open-ended
enough to leave space for students’ explorations around the theme before defining
the final challenge. Although educational invention projects do not encounter all
the constraints of professional design projects, it is essential that students learn to
understand the complexity of working with open-ended challenges, communicate
initially vague ideas and challenges, and deal with the ambiguity of the process.
The invention process generally begins by exploring the design context to dis-
cover the challenge and discussing to build shared understanding of the design
context and its dependencies. It is critical that the student team shares the same
understanding of their challenge or problem (Noweski et al., 2012).The We Design
& Make project began with the eighth-grade students discovering the context,
which entailed empathizing, observing, and interacting with the preschoolers. At
the beginning of the process, students recalled their own preschool experiences,
wrote memories on Post-it notes, and made empathy maps. In this way, the stu-
dents were more able to empathize with the preschoolers and to become attached
to the We Design & Make project theme. The students also visited the local pre-
school to conduct observations and user research, using the interview forms and
other supportive material prepared by the researcher. They were encouraged to
observe the space with all the senses; they took photos and asked questions of the
preschoolers and preschool teachers to understand the end users’ needs and per-
spectives better.
Discovering the context helps students recognize and define the challenge they
want to solve during the invention project. Defining the challenge and the related
constraints takes place at the beginning of a project but continues in the later
phases through iterative efforts. Students simultaneously elaborate the challenge at
hand and create ideas for its solution, constantly alternating between divergent and
convergent thinking. In our case example, the definition phase was strongly inter-
related with the development phase. Based on the insights from the user research,
observations at the preschool, and the preschool teacher’s suggestions, the researcher
put together various “how might we …” questions, such as “How might we make
dressing up more fun?” By brainstorming solutions for the needs identified in the
preschool, the students were also able to further define the challenges to work
with. Many innovative ideas for challenges and solutions were on the table, and the
students voted for their favorite ideas and started to work with the chosen idea.

Creating Solutions
The second main phase of the Double Diamond model focuses on creating solu-
tions to the defined challenge, including developing ideas and solutions, and
60 Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas
delivering prototypes to test those ideas (see Figure 5.1).The first stage emphasizes
divergent thinking and seeing beyond the obvious, and when students generate
and play with several ideas, they develop an understanding that there is more than
one solution to a problem (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016). During the delivery
stage, students evaluate ideas from several perspectives and develop appropriate
solutions through prototyping, feedback, and other testing strategies. Invention
projects involve reflective practices in all stages, and sociomateriality has an essen-
tial role in helping students to think and communicate their ideas verbally and
non-verbally through sketches, prototypes, and other design artifacts (Mehto et al.,
2020; see also Chapter 6 of this book).
In the We Design & Make project, different methods were offered to support the
students’ creative ideation and critical evaluation of ideas. In the ideation phase,
inspirational visual materials, idea maps, and supportive questions about the use and
the users of the preschool space were placed on the walls and tables of the craft
classroom. Various solutions were discussed and enriched by the students, and the
goal was to develop adequate plans for starting the prototyping and testing phase.
In addition, the student teams were given large pieces of cardboard on which they
could write ideas, draw models and shapes, and visualize proportions, measures, and
materials so that they were visible to everyone. This practice supported communi-
cation and evaluative and reflective discussions among all the group members, the
teacher, and the researcher.
In our case example, the process then continued with the delivery phase and pro-
totyping.The ideas were further developed and materialized with rapidly constructed
prototypes made from recycled cardboard and fabrics, felt, and other cheap and
easy-to-manipulate materials, which were available in the craft classroom. In addition,
to support idea development, prototyping helped the students visualize their ideas to
others, as the preschoolers visited the school for presentations and a feedback session.
According to the comments and feedback from the preschoolers and their teachers,
the students elaborated their designs and continued toward the making phase.

Making the Inventions

The making phase in invention projects is strongly interrelated with the earlier
stages, and many competencies for creativity are applied and developed during this
phase. Students need to modify their ideas according to the constraints posed by
materials, tools, and their skills to use them, as well as the restrictions of time and
space at school. By making finished products, students also learn many craft skills,
such as implementing an entire craft process; using materials, tools, and machinery;
understanding craft concepts, signs, and symbols; and perceiving and anticipating
risk factors related to work safety (Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE],
2016). In addition, students can assess the novelty and usefulness of their own
inventions and those of their peers and evaluate and acknowledge their limits.
Moreover, students usually find the finished inventions to be meaningful and antic-
ipate presenting them to wider audiences in the final stage of the invention project.
This was also the case in our example project, to which fully functional needs-based
products were brought to the enthusiastic preschoolers (see Bosch et al., 2022).
 Learning to Create 61
Creative Confidence and Classroom Culture for Creativity
Kelley and Kelley (2014) suggested that the focus of teaching for creativity
should be helping people rediscover their creative confidence, that is, the abil-
ity to produce novel, unexplored ideas, and the courage to try them out with-
out fear of failure or shame. People with creative confidence challenge the
ways of doing, cope well with uncertainty, trust their intuition, and are curious
and interested in others.Young children display many aspects of creative confi-
dence but tend to lose it when they grow up participating in cultures and
activities that are more focused on right answers than creative ideas (Kelley &
Kelley, 2014).
Creative confidence is reciprocal to a student’s creative agency, and their devel-
opment is strongly interrelated. Student agency is regarded as an essential element
in future-oriented learning, and it is conceptualized as a will, ability, and opportu-
nity to act upon and positively influence and transform activities and circumstances
in their own lives and the world around them (Rajala et al., 2016). Following
Bandura (2001), Karwowski and Beghetto (2019) stressed the importance of peo-
ple’s creative self-beliefs reflecting the degree of confidence that they feel in their
ability to act or think creatively. However, they have further suggested that to act
creatively, mere creative confidence is not enough; rather, people also need to see
personal value in acting creatively.
As students learn and exercise their competencies for creativity in social contexts
at school, both personal agency and co-agency are crucial (Clapp, 2017). Co-agency
develops in an interactive, mutually supportive, enriching learning community,
which supports social and emotional skills, such as empathy (Clapp et al., 2016).
Research has shown that creative making with and for a community can be an
important way for students to build these identities and abilities, and thus add value
to the process (Clapp et al., 2016).

Teachers’ Role in Nurturing the Creative Confidence

Many researchers have emphasized the teacher’s role in the creative classroom,
where students need many social and emotional skills, such as flexibility and per-
severance, to cope with unfamiliar and uncertain design processes (e.g., Beghetto
& Kaufman, 2014; Davies et al., 2012). Recent research has suggested that social
and emotional support may be more important for teaching for creativity than
other forms of encouragement (Gajda et al., 2017). According to recent review
studies of creative pedagogies and of nurturing creativity in classrooms (Cremin &
Chappell, 2021; Davies et al., 2012; Richardson & Mishra, 2018; Sawyer, 2017), the
teacher should fulfill the following role:

• Act as a facilitator, guide, and co-learner

• Guide and support students to actively navigate the open-ended, uncertain
creative process, and balance between structure and freedom
• Scaffold students’ work with open-ended questions by offering several per-
spectives, modeling, and simplifying
62 Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas
• Demonstrate sensitivity to learners’ individual needs and diverse perspectives
and stand back when needed to support students’ ownership of learning
• Create an open, joyful, caring atmosphere that encourages free ideation, sup-
ports risk-taking, and accepts and values new, original ideas
• Base relationships with students on trust, equality, and collaboration
• Organize collaboration with external partners to increase the meaningfulness
of learning and to support students’ social identity and sense of belonging
• Organize physical spaces, materials, and other resources to support students’
free choice, play, and flexibility

Although the teacher’s role in supporting students’ competencies for creativity,

including creative confidence, has been recognized as essential, and the core
curricula emphasize creativity in an increasing number of countries, teachers are
given little support to turn policy into practice and include practices that nur-
ture competencies for creativity in their classrooms (Patston et al., 2021).
Therefore, next we provide a narrative description of how the teacher and the
researcher in the We Design & Make project controlled the learning environ-
ment dimensions that directly affected the development of classroom culture for
creativity and thus the students’ competencies for creativity (see Richardson &
Mishra, 2018).

Classroom Culture for Creativity in the We Design & Make Project

In the We Design & Make project, various practices were used throughout the
process to develop classroom culture for creativity. The teacher and the researcher
worked side by side, and both were responsible for addressing the curriculum
goals. Together, they built the constraints into the process, organized the time and
material resources, and formulated the design brief to collaborate with the pre-
school. They worked as facilitators in the design and making process, offered a
range of ideation methods for ideation and provided support for regulating the
process. The teacher and the researcher also acted as peers for the eighth-grade
students in figuring out the programming and sewing e-textile components with
conductive thread.
The teacher and the researcher sought to create a safe, caring classroom culture
suitable for creative work in which the eighth-grade students could practice and
develop their competencies for creativity.To do so, they used multimodal methods,
such as pedagogical talk and practices (e.g., explaining), dialogic teaching/moves
(e.g., questioning, suggesting), embodied support (e.g., modeling), and emotional
support (e.g., encouraging). The teacher and the researcher emphasized explana-
tion, collaboration, experiential and experimental attitudes, process orientation,
and multiplicity. They also built connections outside the classroom and paid atten-
tion to the students’ experiences and own explorations.
During the process, the teacher and the researcher explained the overall project
plan, learning goals, assessment practices, and reasons behind each design task for
the eighth-grade students, so everyone had an idea of what would happen in the
coming three months and why. Creative confidence and we-can-do attitude were
 Learning to Create 63
supported when the researcher emphasized that there was no one way to do things.
The students were supported to envision new ways of doing things, take risks, and
make mistakes.

RESEARCHER: Let’s be brave in exploring. You are allowed to make mistakes

because you can learn from them. Without mistakes, you cannot really learn
much. And then let’s try to think outside the box—not how things are sup-
posed to be or that there is only one way to do things because that is not
true.

The teacher’s statement in the first lesson that “We don’t know how these technol-
ogies function, but let’s try to solve it together” made the teacher, the researcher,
and students equal learners in the situation. The teacher and the researcher had a
low authority position, and this offered the students autonomy within the open-
ended challenges, as well as freedom to use the material resources and tools as they
wanted. As one student explained, “We were allowed to work as we wanted to.The
teachers were supportive and tried to help if something went wrong.”
The teacher and the researcher continuously walked around the classroom,
made themselves available, and offered the students empathic support and encour-
agement. They observed which students and groups needed help, stayed close to
students by sitting next to them, and offered help by suggesting, re-voicing, and
simplifying. The teacher and the researcher offered embodied support with mate-
rials, tools, and programming.

RESEARCHER: You know, you learn these things [refers to the microcontroller]
much faster than I or Mia [the teacher].
TEACHER: It’s so great.
RESEARCHER: Which is great. Marvelous.
TEACHER: You can teach us.

The process strongly emphasized collaboration and peer support. As a student on

one team learned to program certain functions, the researcher shared this knowl-
edge with all the class and invited other students to come over to learn.The students
also had to collaborate with students with whom they were not familiar.The teacher
aimed to mix established groups of friends and encouraged the students to work on
diverse teams. A student reflected, “I learned to collaborate with people other than
just my friends. It is useful anywhere, for example, here at school, at work.” Moreover,
the students were given predefined team roles (e.g., leader, documenter, program-
mer), but the roles were not necessary as the students offered peer support within
and between the teams. As one student wrote down in a post-questionnaire:

SOFIA: My role was to be a leader, but I think the roles were unnecessary as we
did everything together anyway. I always helped others on my team and
contributed ideas, and the team also helped me. Our team shared work well,
and we all designed and made the product together, and no one did just one
thing.
64 Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas
The design brief and the methods used had a role in motivating and engaging
the students in the creative process. The process included designing for a specific
group of people, so empathy, perspective-taking, and meaningfulness were built
into the design brief and the process. Preschool is obligatory in Finland, so every
student had experienced it, making it easier to step into preschoolers’ lives and
build relationships with preschoolers. Working with real-world challenges moti-
vated the students, and students’ engagement became visible when they dis-
cussed their own preschool experiences. As one student explained in the
post-questionnaire, “I learned to observe various challenges and to think how
these could be solved.”
The process involved challenges and failures that required perseverance. The
teacher and the researcher praised the students’ work, encouraged students to ask
peers to help, and suggested that students try new ways of solving challenges. The
parents’ help was sought; for example, one student invited her father to help with
programming on the school’s open day. Humor and laughter were important in
building an easy-going, encouraging classroom environment and sometimes served
as a useful tool to overcome a difficult moment.
From the teacher’s point of view, the most significant challenge was changing
the mindset of a teacher to a facilitator, sharing authority, and letting students
try and fail on their own. From the students’ point of view, the most inspiring
and important aspects of the project were the collaboration with the preschool
children and the sense of purpose in making functional things for those chil-
dren. Students also said that planning their own work and collaborating with
their own teams were important aspects of the project. The students referred to
the importance of helping each other and trying out new ideas with an open
mind. Students used technology creatively, rather than following step-by-step
instructions.

VIOLA: I felt that I could have a say in the way the process progressed, and all ideas
from our team members were happily received. Our team had an encouraging
atmosphere, and the teachers knew how to support and help when needed.
The freedom to explore was obvious in our work. For example, we did diverse
designs for the appearance of the product.

This experimental project was challenging but rewarding in many ways. As in

all open-ended, undefined design processes, the beginning is generally messy
and uncertain, and it might feel difficult to get down to work. Both the stu-
dents, the teacher, and the researcher had to overcome elements of uncertainty,
roll up their sleeves, and start working. They worked together in a community
of practice in which every member was invited to join, interact, and
co-construct.

SENJA: Being a designer was difficult at times as we had to design everything our-
selves, for example, how the product would be durable and how to even make
the product. It was also a lot of fun to let your creativity run free, but, as I said,
it was difficult at times.
 Learning to Create 65
Nevertheless, we want to point out that the project was organized in Finland with
its low-hierarchical school culture, where relaxed teacher–student relationships
might have supported the co-construction of ideas and artifacts. Although the
teacher and the researcher tried to sustain an easy-going, flexible design process,
the time limits and school structure posed challenges to the process. Several classes
had to be rescheduled due to various school happenings or other events, such as a
climate strike. Although the Finnish curriculum emphasizes the importance of
such open-ended multi-disciplinary projects that develop transformative compe-
tencies in all school subjects, it is challenging to adapt them with the rigorous
schedules of formal education.

Creating to Learn
In this chapter, we have described the nature of creative processes and practices
and illustrated how several competencies were entangled in a creativity-sup-
portive invention project. Our aim was to explore how the students’, the teach-
er’s, and the researcher’s competencies for creativity can be applied and developed
in invention projects. In this concluding section, we provide an overview of
these competencies with three broad but overlapping themes (Figure 5.2), fol-
lowing loosely the three innovation skill categories by Vincent-Lancrin et al.
(2019). The overview emphasizes that design thinking processes involve many
cognitive, affective, and embodied capabilities and practices (Goldman &
Kabayadondo, 2016), that are all important building blocks when learning com-
petencies for creativity.
The students applied and developed creative and critical thinking as they discovered
the design context and its constraints and defined the design challenges through
inquiry.They brainstormed various ideas, generated and evaluated several solutions,
and continuously reflected on their ideas, solutions, and the process. The Double
Diamond model provided structure for the iterative, nonlinear, and sometimes
messy design thinking process, supporting students in shifting between divergent
and convergent modes of thinking. One of the outcomes of going through such
creative processes can include the new mindset that enables students to approach
problems in more experiential ways, learn from failures, and be more confident in
their ability to create (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016).
During the project, the students practiced several social and emotional skills, such
as empathy and perspective-taking. Working in groups demanded ongoing collab-
oration and communication, and the students peer-supported and encouraged
each other in many moments. Both individuals and the group had to regulate their
work to be able to complete the products within the given constraints, although
some students with predefined leadership roles paid the most attention to co-reg-
ulating the process (see Chapter 4 of this book). The openness of the design brief
offered many uncertain paths to follow during the process, which demanded flex-
ibility, but the students exercised a responsible and perseverant attitude to finish the
products. Total frustration was close many times, but confidence could grow as
challenges were resolved with the help of teachers, peers, and parents, and the
students expressed pride in the results.
66 Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas

CULTURE FOR CREA

OOM TIV
ASSR ITY
CL

Creative and
critical thinking

challenges through inquiry

Create several new ideas and

solutions (divergent thinking)

Question and evaluate ideas and

solutions (convergent thinking)
Basic concepts
and practices
solutions, and process
Design research, ideation,
visualizing and materializing ideas

Making with craft materials, tools

and techniques; work safety Social and
Sewing circuits with E-textile emotional skills
components and tools; Empathy and perspective taking
programming
Collaboration and communication

Managing uncertainty

Leadership and responsibility

Self-regulation and
co-regulation
TE E
R

AC RN
HE EA
RA
SAF O-L
ACILITATOR, GUIDE, AND C

Figure 5.2 Competencies for creativity applied and developed in the We Design & Make
invention project.
Adapted from Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019.

Besides domain-general creative and critical thinking and socio-emotional

skills, some more domain-specific basic concepts and practices were also introduced
to students. These were related to design, craft, engineering, and programming.
Design concepts and practices were used as the students iteratively developed
their shared ideas for the e-textile products by using various ideation methods,
and by visualizing and materializing their ideas through sketching, drawing,
model making, and prototyping. Familiar craft concepts and practices were rein-
forced, and new ones learned through the use of textile craft materials, tools,
and techniques, for example, in patternmaking and sewing with conductive
thread. E-textile technology itself introduced many new engineering and pro-
gramming concepts and practices into the process, while the students became
familiar with circuitry, e-textile components, and tools, as well as programming
and troubleshooting.
 Learning to Create 67
The project engaged the students in a collaborative, open-ended design and
making project, which emphasized human-centered design, new e-textile tech-
nology, and development of a certain type of we-can-do attitude. Moreover, we
want to highlight that many of the skills and competencies for creativity con-
cerned both the students, the teacher, and the researcher. As co-learners, the
teacher and the researcher developed their own skill sets and creative confidence
while guiding this uncertain, multidimensional project. New digital technology
introduced in the invention project caused significant demands and challenges in
the process, but in the post-questionnaires, many students said that their most
important learning outcomes were related to new digital technology and its wide
range of uses.
Invention projects can focus on developing many competencies for creativity if
they are carefully implemented in the process. Competency development is both a
learning process and a learning goal, and it requires teachers to have extensive
knowledge of creative learning processes and creative learning environments. For
example, it is important for teachers to understand how both individual and social
factors play roles in creative processes (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014) and that stu-
dents need various means of support to unleash their creative capabilities. Moreover,
as suggested by Sawyer (2021), we should emphasize creativity as an iterative pro-
cess, a journey, more than an outcome of the process. Instead of educating kids
“how to be creative,” we should emphasize “how to participate in creativity”
(Clapp, 2017).
We believe that in our project, designing for a community (preschoolers)
offered the students an opportunity to take part in meaningful creative work and
build their creative confidence to act as designers and makers, creating minor
changes in the world around them (see Clapp, 2017; Clapp et al., 2016). The
students, as well as the teachers, learned to create, and simultaneously, they created
to learn.

References
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability
Studies, 25(1), 53–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
Bosch, N., Härkki, T., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2022). Design empathy in students’ par-
ticipatory design processes. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 27(1),
29–48. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/3046/3067
British Design Council. (2004). Double diamond. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/
news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond
Clapp, E. P. (2017). Participatory creativity: Introducing access and equity to the creative classroom.
Routledge.
Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-centered learning: Empowering
young people to shape their worlds. Jossey-Bass.
Cremin, T., & Chappell, K. (2021). Creative pedagogies: A systematic review. Research Papers
in Education, 36(3), 299–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677757
68 Noora Bosch, Jari Lavonen, and Kaiju Kangas
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2012). Creative
learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 8, 80–91. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S187118711200051X
Durham Commission on Creativity and Education. (2019). Final report. Retrieved from
https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/durham-commission-creativity-and-
education
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Exploring creative learning in the
classroom: A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 24, 250–267. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.002
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking design thinking to school—How the tech-
nology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. In S. Goldman, & Z.
Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform
teachers,learners,and classrooms (pp.3–20).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317327585
Groth, C. (2016). Design and craft thinking analysed as embodied cognition. FORMakademisk,
9(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1481
Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 402–415. http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?-
doi=10.1037/aca0000190
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2014). Creative confidence. Unleashing the creative potential within us all.
HarperCollins.
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020). Sociomateriality of
collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker centered learning. International
Journal of Child Computer Interaction, 26, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100209
Noweski, C., Scheer,A., Buttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., & Meinel, C. (2012).Towards
a paradigm shift in education practice: Developing twenty-first century skills with design
thinking. In H. Plattner, Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.), Design Thinking Research, Understanding
Innovation (pp. 71–95). Springer. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5
Patston, T. J., Kaufman, J. C., Cropley, A. J., & Marrone, R. (2021). What is creativity in edu-
cation? A qualitative study of international curricula. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2),
207–230. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1932202X20978356
Rajala, A., Martin, J., & Kumpulainen, K. (2016). Agency and learning: Researching agency
in educational interactions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 1–3. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.07.001
Razzouk, R., & Shute,V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of
Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/
0034654312457429
Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity:
Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tsc.2017.11.004
Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic liter-
ature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S1747938X17300271
Sawyer, R. K. (2018). Teaching and learning how to create in schools of art and design.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 137–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.
1381963
Sawyer, R. K. (2021).The iterative and improvisational nature of the creative process. Journal
of Creativity, 31(100002), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2021.100002
 Learning to Create 69
Stenberg, R. J. (2022). Missing links:What is missing from definitions of creativity? Journal of
Creativity, 32(10002), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2022.100021
Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra,
M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking:
What it means in school. Educational Research and Innovation. OECD Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1787/20769679
6 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy
Varpu Mehto and Kaiju Kangas

Introduction
Making practices are central to invention pedagogy, in which abstract ideas are
transformed into tangible forms and functional prototypes. Materiality transforms
the process and requires the students and teachers to be ready to alter their plans
and adapt to surprises as they are learning to work with the materials, technologies,
and schedules at hand. In this chapter, we discuss invention pedagogy from the
point of view of materiality. We consider how active and dynamic matter alters
practices and how this perspective enriches our understanding of the aims of
inventive learning. Theoretically, this chapter builds on the traditions of Nordic
research on craft education and the concept of relational materialism. Further, our
thinking is positioned with the insights from the Finnish educational system and
the school subject crafts.
We perceive the process of making as an entanglement of maker and matter,
where the human participants think with the matter and learn from it (Ingold,
2013). Materials are not considered merely as resources; instead, material transfor-
mations and related bodily movements emerge from dialogical negotiations
between maker and matter (Aktaş & Mäkelä, 2019). With cultivating their craft
practice, the maker develops their knowledge of materials and techniques, as well as
people and culture reciprocally (Lahti & Fernström, 2021). Materiality embeds pro-
cesses of learning and knowing into the tangible world (Mehto et al., 2020). Making
provides an opportunity to reflect on one’s position in the world and to sensitize to
the dependencies and responsibilities with the environment (Groth, 2020).
Within invention pedagogy, we have illustrated how prototyping practice acts as
an aid for thinking, as a social mediator, and provides inspiring constraints through
materiality (Yrjönsuuri et al., 2019). Further, we have analyzed how materiality
constrains and enables collaboration, for example by hindering opportunities for
participation or providing tangible access to common ideas (Mehto et al., 2020).
Focus on the epistemic roles of materiality emphasized the importance of thinking
with materials in making (Mehto et al., 2020). During these studies, our perspec-
tive has gradually shifted from how students use materials to perceiving relationali-
ties of materiality. Such a perspective aims to enrich the prevailing human-centered
perspective by shedding light on the edges of the intentional learning process and
the obscure, wide-reaching connections of matter.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-7
 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy 71
To help us understand how matter affects situations, we turn to theories that
flatten the ontological hierarchies between humans and non-humans (e.g., Bennett,
2010). Perceiving humans as parts of the world unravels dichotomies, such as mind/
body or nature/culture, highlighting the interdependency of humans and environ-
ments (Latour, 2005). Therefore, we emphasize the indeterminacy prompted by
materiality in making. Further, the perspective of sociomaterial entanglements is
steered toward seeking more-than-human collaborations that are crucial for living
on a damaged planet (Haraway, 2016; Tsing, 2015). Thus, we highlight making as
sensitizing to materiality to seek collaborations with the material world. The call
for re-evaluating the position and responsibilities of humans also includes knowl-
edge practices and pedagogies (Braidotti, 2019), setting demands for futures of
education (Common Worlds Research Collective, 2020). In this chapter, we discuss
the potential that making could have for cultivating learning with the world. Our
approach is practical, as we consider how ontological ideas of relational materialism
could relate to everyday life in school.
In addition to these onto-epistemological stances, our thinking is based on the
practices of Finnish education, in which material making is present especially in
the school subject crafts. Materials play an essential role in the tasks, objectives,
content, and learning environments of crafts (Pöllänen, 2020; Porko-Hudd et al.,
2018), and they can be used for their expressive qualities, as resources that are tested
and analyzed for creating design solutions, or as constraints that enable or hinder
technological activities (Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE], 2016).
Materiality requires appropriate learning environments for crafting, where versatile
equipment, machines, and tools enable adopting a responsible attitude toward
working (FNAE, 2016; Jaatinen & Lindfors, 2019). Further, Nordic research on
craft and sloyd (a school subject equivalent to crafts) education emphasizes materi-
ality. Working with materials develops students’ material knowledge that contrib-
utes to advancement in their designing (Härkki et al., 2016); therefore, students
should be encouraged to work with materials to experience both their potential
and limitations (Illum & Johansson, 2012). Communication and meaning-making
in crafts take place through several connected levels of interaction: between
humans; between humans, tools, materials, and the surrounding space; and between
mind and body (Kangas et al., 2013a).Teaching and instruction in crafts rely on the
multimodality of interaction (Ekström, 2012; Koskinen et al., 2015), providing
students with multifaceted opportunities to generate and communicate their ideas
and knowledge (Kangas et al., 2013b). Materiality of crafts can also promote aware-
ness of sustainability as well as critical and ecological stances toward consumption
(Väänänen et al., 2018).
To bridge the practical and theoretical takes on materiality, we discuss the theo-
retical approaches with an invention project in which students aged 14–15
designed and built smart products in small teams. The aim of the design task was
to orient students toward the problems in their everyday lives and the artifacts
involved. Initial ideas were first materialized as mock-ups and then as functioning
prototypes. Two researchers were present in the classroom throughout the process,
making field notes, videorecording the teams’ design activities, and conducting
short interviews with the teachers and the students. This chapter focuses on two
72 Varpu Mehto and Kaiju Kangas
example vignettes that are written based on video recordings and complemented
by our field notes and student interviews. The vignettes consider the making of
two inventions: a smart piggy bank, which counts the money inserted and
announces when a target sum is reached, and a smart shirt with LED lights that
turn on in the dark.
In this chapter, we first discuss material agency, that is, how matter contributes
to creating the unpredictable nature of the invention project, and second, how
materiality allows acting amidst this complexity by embedding the creative process
into local materialities. The approach is inspired by the methodology of thinking
with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012). Next, we illustrate the concept of assem-
blage with a vignette about a striped fabric. Then, we discuss potentials for acting
with uncertainty with a vignette about an abrasive belt grinder. We conclude with
implications for research and practice.

Material Agency
Matter matters: it affects situations. However, claiming that matter is agentic can be
problematic, especially in the education field, where agency has traditionally been
a human ability with connotations of intentionality and power. Therefore, discuss-
ing the agency of matter requires a different perspective. In this chapter, we reframe
the concept of agency, not as an attribute of someone or something, but as emerg-
ing in encounters (Latour, 2005). Instead of focusing on what someone or some-
thing does, the interest turns to relations—how entities transform each other.Thus,
flattening the ontological hierarchy between humans and non-humans shifts the
focus from individual actors toward loose, messy gatherings.We follow the example
of thinkers such as Mol (2002) and Tsing (2015) and choose the term assemblage to
illustrate this open, fluid, dynamic, entangled nature of reality. Next, we describe
how the theoretical concept of assemblage changes our thinking about the exam-
ple vignette about a striped fabric that participated in the materialization of the
idea about a smart shirt (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012).

Team Smart Shirt collaboratively designed a shirt for each team member. They
chose fabrics for each team member from a large plastic box filled with
leftover fabrics from other projects. Alice (pseudonym) spotted a black-and-
white striped fabric. It was thin, almost see-through. Alice was delighted. She
stated that she did not currently have a striped shirt in her wardrobe.
Pinning the plastic sewing pattern onto the striped fabric turned out to be
difficult. The fabric curled, crumpled, and slid away. Other team members
were already sewing. Alice was distressed and said, “This will take the whole
session, but okay. It’s because my fabric is like this; it, like, moves and…well,
sucks. More rigid [fabric] would be easier”. The teacher came to help. She
set the fabric on the table and, with slow and careful movements, smoothed
out the wrinkles with her palm, emphasizing that the most important thing
to have with this fabric was patience. When Alice finally began sewing, she
noticed that the stripes of two pieces did not meet unless she paid special
attention when aligning the pieces. Careful alignment made the hem straight,
 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy 73
also. She told her team members that starting the project made her anxious,
but now she liked crafts and sewing. When the shirt was sewn, Alice wore it
and danced around a bit.
Sewing the shirts took most of the design sessions; therefore, the team decided
to pare down smart functionalities and focus on making the LED lights light
up with the push of a button instead of using sensors that reacted to the
environment. However, in Alice’s case, the e-textile equipment, LED lights,
microcontroller, thick conductive thread, and battery pack were too heavy
and clunky for her lightweight fabric. The teacher confirmed that her shirt
would not be able to carry such heavy components; even the needle required
for the conductive thread would make holes big enough to result in the
fabric’s unraveling. The team decided to attach the smart functionalities to a
separate, sturdier piece of fabric, which could be attached and detached from
the shirt.
In the vignette, matter was intentionally given space to affect (Braidotti, 2019).The
making process was not predefined but instead adapted to the properties of the
materials. The striped fabric was not intended to be included in this particular
project, but it was part of the rich material resources of the classroom that allowed
multiple opportunities for learning to emerge (Keune & Peppler, 2019). So, the
properties of the striped fabric transformed the course and rhythm of the invention
process. For example, the problems sparked by the thinness of the fabric required
slow, careful work, i.e., time.This affected what else the team could do during their
limited time, and thus restricted other features of the initial planned invention.The
thinness of the fabric caused trouble only when combined with the limited
resource of time, relatively thick pins, plastic patterns, and the student’s lack of
experience with sewing such fabric.This transformation emerged through encoun-
ters. The invention process could not be reduced merely to the rational reasoning
of the students, but instead, the process emerged from the more-than-human
assemblage.
In addition to transforming the invention process, the striped fabric itself was
constantly changing and transformed during encounters (Latour, 2005). Its stripes
were a fashionable element that would complement Alice’s wardrobe at one
moment, and at the next, a structural element complicating the sewing process by
making the pattern alignment visible. The thin softness of the fabric, which made
the finished garment light and flowing, was at first alluring, making it stand out
amidst other fabrics in the box. However, during sewing, those attractive qualities
became problematic. These examples illustrate how turning one’s gaze from singu-
lar stable properties to fluid assemblages allows for acknowledging the agency of
matter.
The striped fabric was not only part of an assemblage but an assemblage itself. It
consisted of matters and their properties, such as color, texture, and physical struc-
ture. These assemblages within assemblages relate to each other in the classroom
and beyond. When reflecting on the relations among assemblages, a useful com-
parison is with the metaphor of rhizomes (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Unlike
roots, rhizomes are not hierarchical and have no center, beginning, or ending. The
striped fabric also has these wide-reaching “rhizomes”. Research centralizing
74 Varpu Mehto and Kaiju Kangas
materiality could follow the entanglements of the fabric manufacturing or, further,
the chemicals used for dying the fabric and how they affect the environment. This
kind of research would link local and global scales and provide an understanding of
the politics of specific material practices (Gallagher, 2019).Thus, turning one’s gaze
to agentic matter explicitly emphasizes how the invention process is rooted beyond
the classroom.
Amidst these endless connections, students, teachers, and researchers make deci-
sions on which “rhizomes” to focus on. These decisions are also affected by non-
human participants (Bennett, 2010), such as curriculum, sociomaterial practices, or
material resources. For example, the stripes of the fabric prompted a conversation
about consumer culture and fashion when students were selecting fabrics. These
aspects were not deliberately addressed later; however, they remained present in the
matter and artifacts (Latour, 2005). Not all choices to address certain connections
were verbal; connections were also met with actions. For example, the teacher had
organized the classroom in a way that allowed storage and re-use of leftover mate-
rials, such as the striped fabric. This practice considered the topic of waste and the
problematic relationship with maker education and the use of matter. Similarly, the
focus on proficient sewing brought up issues relating to quality, usability, and the
life cycle of artifacts. These issues were not solved or rationalized but handled in a
tangible manner.
Perhaps the most practical consequence of acknowledging more-than-human
agency is the expansion of responsibility. When considering matter as more than a
mere resource for inventing, we must acknowledge how pedagogical choices or
making activities affect humans and more-than-humans not directly present
(Bodén et al., 2019). However, constantly changing and endlessly expanding
assemblages make it impossible to determine outcomes. Therefore, responsibility
requires staying with the trouble and responding with action or by giving space
and listening (Haraway, 2016). Next, we discuss how making practices might enable
learning that cannot rely on definite conclusions.

Acting with Uncertainty

Attuning to rhizomatic relationships, open-ended questions, and thus the rela-
tional and unpredictable nature of the invention project might feel overwhelm-
ing. Educators, students, makers, and researchers must act amidst uncertainty
when hierarchical categorization falls short. Braidotti (2019) has emphasized
that embracing uncertainty does not mean falling into relativism, but instead
requires acknowledging the embodied and embedded nature of knowing. To
learn with the world, instead of mastering it from the above, Tsing (2015) advo-
cates for cultivating “arts of noticing”, becoming attentive to the vibrant more-
than-human details (Bennett, 2010), that are sometimes deemed as a passive
backdrop. The attentiveness should aim not only to understand and explain the
world but also to generate something new, being conscious of the material con-
sequences of knowledge practices (Haraway, 2016). Next, we reflect on the
encounter of an abrasive belt grinder and two students, from the perspective of
acting with uncertainty.
 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy 75
Team Magic Bunny ideated a smart piggy bank, shaped like a magician’s top hat.
When they started to search with the teacher for materials, they came across
a drawer filled with metal clippings from another project. The teacher
showed them a metal sheet and asked if that could work; metal would be
lighter and easier to handle than wood that they had initially planned on
using. The students agreed and decided to adjust other parts of the piggy
bank to the size of the metal sheet so that they would not have to cut it.
The teacher instructed the students to make a cylinder by spot welding the
edges of the metal sheet together. After welding, the edges of the cylinder
were still sharp and had to be smoothed.The teacher recommended using an
abrasive belt grinder, which was located in a separate small room with trans-
parent walls. Two students, Haley and Lily (pseudonyms) were tasked with
using the machine. As the teacher demonstrated how to use it, a loud noise
filled the room and sparks flew. Haley and Lily jumped back and screamed,
nervously said they would not do that. The teacher gave Haley and Lily
protective gloves and safety goggles and reassured them, “Those are just
sparks. They won’t hurt you”.
In the hallway, Haley put on the gloves and goggles. Lily laughed and took out
her smartphone; Haley posed for some pictures. They giggled and danced
around, but when Haley stepped into the room with the belt grinder, her
movements slowed. The teacher took a step back and let Haley do the work
by herself. Her gaze was focused on the edge of the metal while she carefully
rotated the cylinder. Lily recorded the whole process with her smartphone.
Afterward, Lily and Haley ran to excitedly tell their classmates what they did.

The materiality of making requires attention to detail. While working with the
powerful and cacophonous belt grinder, it was necessary to slow down to notice
the movement of sparks and metal. Hayley’s embodied activities adapted to the
rhythm of the matter and tools (Aktaş & Mäkelä, 2019; Groth, 2020). Further,
the making process required deliberation of functionality of the artifact in
everyday life. Considering the cultural aspects of the piggy bank was not enough,
but the students also had to focus on materiality, such as the sharpness of the
edges of the metal sheet. However ambitious or imaginative the initial idea was,
the students had to grapple with the mundane details during making (Haraway,
2016) (Figure 6.1).
Making rooted the abstract and somewhat universal idea into local materialities.
It was no longer a common piggy bank: it was a piggy bank made with materials
available in the classroom using the combined skills of the students and teacher
within the time constraints of the school day.The metal sheet, excess material from
an earlier project, transformed not only the structure of the artifact but also which
craft practices were learned during the project. Inventing was explicitly situational
in that aim was not to discover general facts; focus was on finding solutions that
would work in the specific time and place. Materiality made visible the embedded-
ness of inventing (Braidotti, 2019), providing an opportunity to experience learn-
ing as a balancing act.When adapting design aspirations to local constraints, students
were balancing creativity with practicality.
76 Varpu Mehto and Kaiju Kangas

Figure 6.1 Haley using the abrasive belt grinder.

While constraining action, the unscripted material making also allowed stu-
dents to focus on more than just predefined learning tasks—there was plenty of
space for non-task-related play and material experimentation. In the vignette, the
invention process was simultaneously a learning task and play. These two seem-
ingly contradictory making practices were able to co-exist (Mol, 2002). On one
hand, making scaffolded complexity with situated activities, and on the other
hand, allowed co-existence of multiple practices. Even though the students were
obliged to act within the institutional setting of the school and from the position
of students, they were also able to transform the process according to their own
interests.

Conclusions
We have illustrated with examples how matter can be agentic and how it can aid
action amidst uncertainty. Open-ended tasks and unscripted making sessions pro-
vide space for matter to affect. Matter transforms a process through relations; there-
fore, its effects are not prefixed. Also, matter itself changes throughout processes
depending on what and whom it encounters. These connections of matter reach
beyond the boundaries of the classroom; societal, ethical, and ecological questions
are present, whether addressed deliberately or not. While matter creates unpredict-
ability and forms endless rhizomatic connections, it can also aid in acting amidst
the uncertainty. Materiality insists on careful deliberation and attentiveness to
details. Adapting the process to material constraints makes the embedded nature of
inventing tangible, highlighting learning as a balancing act.
Considering the perspective of agentic matter can deepen the understanding of
complex practices. First, sensitizing oneself to matter may help shed light on prac-
tices or technologies whose roles are taken for granted, thus revealing actors hiding
 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy 77
in mundanity (Bodén et al., 2019). Attentiveness to material details can therefore
reveal situations and places that call for a response (Haraway, 2016). This responsi-
bility reaches beyond humans to all those we share the planet with (Tsing, 2015).
Methodologically, the more-than-human perspective requires the readiness to
follow even the most surprising trains of thought, the ability to shift one’s focus
to relations instead of singular actors, and the use of firmly situated perspectives
instead of universal claims (Bodén et al., 2019). Finding ways to attune to the
more-than-human requires embracing all fields of knowledge (Tsing, 2015).
Educational research could offer a functional platform for bringing together
humanism and sciences since we already have plenty of experience in coping
with a broad and somewhat incoherent discipline that is nevertheless based on
practice.
Second, acknowledging agentic matter can widen our understanding of what
kind of learning matters. Philosophers such as Braidotti (2019) and educational
researchers, such as Common Worlds Research Collective (2020) have argued that
education and pedagogies should learn to place students and teachers in, and have
them be parts of the world, not outside observers. However, what this more-than-
human learning could be in practices of formal education is still an under-
researched area. In this chapter, we illustrated how material-making practices
enable and require learning beyond traditional academic skills, such as situated and
embodied knowledge, attentiveness to mundane details, and generative action. As
these skills are crucial for cultivating “the arts of noticing” (Tsing, 2015), the poten-
tial of craft practices should be further explored in various educational settings.
In practice, taking the more-than-human perspective turns one’s attention to
the fluidity of matter. In other words, when planning an invention project, it is not
fruitful to attempt to fully predetermine the effects of materials. Providing rich
material resources and an adaptable learning environment can enhance opportuni-
ties for learning on students’ own terms (Keune & Peppler, 2019). These opportu-
nities depend not only on the properties of the material, but also on the uncertain
relations; for example, on the skills (or lack thereof) of the user, time resources,
and/or available tools. Therefore, cultivating students’ craft skills can also aid the
process of ideating and making. However, learning with matter requires time and
opportunities to adjust to the tempo of work, emphasizing the importance of
allocating enough time for making.
Matter carries with it connections to political, environmental, and societal issues.
Even non-verbal practices can address wide-reaching connections. Therefore, to
grapple with such complicated issues ethically, careful attention needs to be paid to
the design task, material resources, and classroom practices. Involving matter into
pedagogical practices introduces global connections into the classroom thus pro-
viding natural opportunities for addressing wide-reaching issues. Considering
questions of responsibility through making shifts the focus from rationalizing an
external abstract phenomenon to mundane details at hand.Therefore, making pro-
motes sensitizing to matter and affirmatively generating something new. Instead of
aiming at mastering the world, this kind of situated knowledge emphasizes living
with it.
78 Varpu Mehto and Kaiju Kangas
References
Aktaş, B., & Mäkelä, M. (2019). Negotiation between the maker and material: Observations
on material interactions in felting studio. International Journal of Design, 13(2), 57–67.
http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/3267/857
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
Bodén, L., Lenz Taguchi, H., Moberg, E., & Taylor, C. A. (2019). Relational materialism. In
G.W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 1–23). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.789
Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Polity Press.
Common Worlds Research Collective. (2020). Learning to become with the world:
Education for future survival. Education Research and Foresight Working Paper 28. UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374032
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia
(B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Ekström, A. (2012). Instructional work in textile craft: Studies of interaction, embodiment and making
of objects [Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm]. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-69529
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic
Education 2014. Finnish National Agency of Education, Publications 2016: 5.
Gallagher, M. (2019). Childhood and the geology of media. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 41(3), 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1620481
Groth, C. (2020). Making as a way of interacting with the environment. In R. Grov Berger,
& T. Kjellevold (Eds.), Earth, wind, fire, water. Nordic contemporary crafts – a critical craft anthol-
ogy. Arnoldsche Art Publishers.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble—Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822373780
Härkki, T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). Material knowledge in col-
laborative designing and making: A case of wearable sea creatures. FORMAkademisk, 9(1),
1–21. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1480
Illum, B., & Johansson, M. (2012). Transforming physical materials into artefacts—learning
in the school’s practice of sloyd. Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science,
19(1), 2–16. https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/393
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.
Jaatinen, J., & Lindfors, E. (2019). Makerspaces for pedagogical innovation processes: How
Finnish comprehensive schools create space for makers. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 24(2), 42–66. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2623
Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data
across multiple perspectives. Routledge.
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013a). Design thinking in ele-
mentary students’ collaborative lamp designing process. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 18(1), 30–43. http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/
article/view/1798/1732
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Hakkarainen, K. (2013b). Design expert’s participa-
tion in elementary students’ collaborative design process. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 23(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9172-6
Keune, A., & Peppler, K. (2019). Materials-to-develop-with: The making of a makerspace.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12702
 Materiality in Invention Pedagogy 79
Koskinen, A., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2015). Interaction and embodi-
ment in craft teaching. Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science, 22(1),
59–72. https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/1253
Lahti, H., & Fernström, P. (2021). Crafticulation as a method of knowledge creation. Craft
Research, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1386/crre_00049_1
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Cambridge
University Press.
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020).
Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary
school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12942
Mehto,V., Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020). Sociomateriality of
collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker-centered learning project.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 26, 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2020.100209
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
Pöllänen, S. (2020). Perspectives on multi-material craft in basic education. International
Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(1), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12263
Porko-Hudd, M., Pöllänen, S., & Lindfors, E. (2018). Common and holistic crafts education
in Finland. Techne Series—Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science, 25(3), 26–38.
https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/3025
Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist
ruins. Princeton University Press.
Väänänen, N.,Vartiainen, L., Kaipainen, M., Pitkäniemi, H., & Pöllänen, S. (2018). Understanding
Finnish student craft teachers’ conceptions of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 19(5), 963–986. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-61-3319-5
Yrjönsuuri,V., Kangas, K., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2019).The roles of
material prototyping in collaborative design process at an elementary school. Design and
Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 141–162. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/
DATE/article/view/2585
7 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle by
Means of Invention
Anni Loukomies, Sanna Patrikainen, and Kalle Juuti

Sustainability Education and Circular Economy

Sustainability refers to a system’s capacity to maintain its own vitality, and sustain-
able actions are those that in principle can be continued indefinitely. The planet
cannot sustainably support humankind’s current lifestyle and rates of consumption.
A range of human-induced threats, such as increased CO2 emissions, may influence
climate change and negatively impact the preconditions of life, by reducing the
diversity of ecosystems and species, by escalating extreme weather phenomena, and
by increasing uninhabitable areas and mass migrations. In addition, human activi-
ties affect the unequal distribution of resources as well as poverty and hunger,
access to clean water and sanitation, and a wide range of additional conflicts.These
challenges can be linked to the dimensions of sustainability: ecological, social, cul-
tural, and economic (Pop et al., 2019). Ecological sustainability is related to the
reasonable use of natural resources, the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity,
and the reduction of waste and pollution (Gast et al., 2017). The social dimension
of sustainability can be understood as promoting equity and ensuring protection in
situations of vulnerability; it also includes built environments that are healthy and
promote a sense of community (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). The cultural dimen-
sion of sustainability encompasses the principles of cultural heritage conservation
and ensuring access to cultural resources. In addition, it incorporates the idea that
development can be implemented in a way that respects cultural capital and social
values (Pop et al., 2019). Economic sustainability refers to the reasonable use of
non-renewable natural resources and the impact of products on the planet, includ-
ing the price paid by the consumer and the profits for the producer (Chouinard et
al., 2011). The use efficiency of non-renewable raw materials can be increased by
circulating these materials for as long as possible.
It is important to understand the systemic structures of the different sustain-
ability dimensions to employ strategic competence to promote change. In sustain-
ability education, the dimensions should be regarded as being interrelated rather
than separate constructs, as they clearly influence one another. For example, proj-
ects addressing ecological sustainability also have an economic impact; likewise,
social sustainability projects have an ecological impact. Sustainability dimensions
appear in the UNESCO Agenda 2030 (UNESCO, 2021), which acts as a guide for
national education policy documents, albeit with varying emphases. The inclusion

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-8
 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 81
of a sustainability focus in a curriculum requires an interdisciplinary approach to
teaching and should include the systemic nature of the sustainability concept as a
starting point (Lozano et al., 2021). Furthermore, to strengthen the role of sustain-
ability in the curriculum, the summary by Lozano et al. (2021) called for peda-
gogical innovations that provide interactive, experiential, transformative, and
real-world learning. Thus, the multidisciplinary module introduced in this chapter
emphasizes interaction, innovation, and real-world connection. These fundamen-
tal aspects of the module are most closely aligned with the economic dimension
of sustainability; however, depending on the design, other dimensions can also be
present.
A circular economy uses a sustainable approach to consumption that re-thinks
the use of resources and the ownership of objects. Unsustainable consumption of
raw materials is a threat to the planet and its ecosystems; therefore, the core concept
of a circular economy is to minimize waste by extending the circulation of raw
materials. The primary objective is to ensure that ‘the product value chain and life
cycle retain[s] the highest possible value and quality [for] as long as possible and is
also as energy efficient as it can be’ (Korhonen et al., 2018: 38). However, using
recycled materials in production and manufacturing is beyond the scope of deci-
sion-making in everyday life. Instead, an ordinary person can contribute to a cir-
cular economy by re-thinking their ownership and use of objects and equipment.
To support this shift in focus, novel services of lending, sharing, and renting need
to be developed.
To operationalize this process in schools, Juuti and Gericke (2022) have defined
four circular economy transitions that manifest this change: (1) from disposable to
fixable (lengthening the lifespan of a product by improving its quality and by pay-
ing particular attention to reparability), (2) from waste to raw material (during the
product’s lifetime, technical and biomaterial cycles are separated), (3) from product
to service (when a commodity is available as a service, there is no need for universal
individualized ownership), and (4) from owning to sharing (people share material
resources via online platforms). The aim of this project was to identify which cir-
cular economy transitions the students utilized in their inventions and designs.
In this chapter, we introduce a multidisciplinary module for primary schools
that is situated within the context of sustainability education and employs an
invention pedagogy approach. During the project, sixth-grade students (aged
11–12 years) were familiarized with the concept of using a circular economy as a
way to support a sustainable future. By using digital tools, the students collabora-
tively designed prototypes of circular economy mobile applications. The primary
aims were to identify the types of inventions the students designed and developed
and reveal what understandings of sustainability were expressed in their inventions.
In addition, we examined the influencing mechanisms the students utilized during
the project.
The specific research questions were as follows:

1 What sustainability dimensions and circular economy transitions do the inven-

tions embody?
2 Which means of influence are employed in the inventions?
82 Anni Loukomies et al.
Sustainability Competencies
Targeted skills and knowledge are required to address the various sustainability
dimensions. More specifically, these abilities can provide people with the tools to
manage anxiety and frustration that is caused by environmental issues. A person’s
well-being may be enhanced by knowing that their actions can have a positive
impact.This is especially important when examining sustainability issues with chil-
dren and adolescents, as they may experience acute feelings of future uncertainty.
Lozano et al. (2021) created a summary of the sustainability competencies as a
way to describe the desired sustainability-related educational outcomes. Competence-
based education, instead of surface-level repetitive learning, is needed to address
complex problems. After reviewing the existing literature, Lozano et al. (2021) sug-
gested a structure of 12 sustainability competencies, while Wiek et al. (2011a) sug-
gested a construct of five competencies. Both studies identified the following
sustainability competencies as essential: systems thinking, futures thinking, strategic
thinking, interpersonal skills, and the ability to employ a perspective that incorpo-
rates ethics and norms. Critical thinking and communication skills are also regarded
as crucial aspects. However, while Wiek et al. (2011a) regarded critical thinking and
communication as foundational skills, Lozano et al. (2021) included them as key
sustainability competencies. In addition, Lozano et al. (2021) emphasized the inter-
disciplinary nature of sustainability skills and acknowledged the importance of
empathy, participation, evaluation skills, and a tolerance for uncertainty.
Strategic competency is critical regarding the promotion of change, as it is central
to the ability to design and implement sustainability-related strategic plans (Wiek et
al., 2011b). Strategic competency encompasses the understanding of strategic con-
cepts as well as the skills related to designing, implementing, evaluating, and adapting
policies and programs (Wiek et al., 2015).The ability to employ strategic knowledge
also requires other sustainability competencies, particularly systems-thinking com-
petency, anticipatory competency, and interpersonal competency. Systems-thinking
competency refers to the ability to understand the complexity and systematic nature
of sustainability problems and address them from a more holistic perspective. Systems
thinking requires a variety of methodological skills to manage distinct types of data.
In addition, systematic knowledge is necessary to understand motives and cause-
effect relations, which are at the core of this multidisciplinary module. Moreover,
analytical skills, such as articulating a system’s structure and its key components, are
fundamental aspects of systems-thinking competence (Wiek et al., 2011a).
Anticipatory competency, which involves analysis skills that focus on future sce-
narios, is another precursor for strategic competency. In particular, anticipatory
competence requires future-oriented knowledge and skills that can facilitate simu-
lation and scenario analyses (Wiek et al., 2015). Being able to ‘see the future’ was a
starting point for the students as they worked on their inventions in this project.
Sustainability concepts address questions relating to how systems should function
and what changes are needed; therefore, sustainability is a value-laden concept.The
values that motivate actions and decisions (such as justice and equity) are actualized
in the ethical aspects of inventions as well as in the empathy that students may
express in their problem setting and solution development.
 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 83
Effective sustainability actions require the involvement of many people, and
therefore interaction is required for goal setting and goal attainment. Successful
interactions may also require the ability to influence the behavior and decisions of
other people. In practice, influential actions can be straightforward or more discreet.
The term nudging is used to describe discrete influencing that aims to draw ben-
efits from automated system one decision-making (Sunstein, 2015). In nudging, the
default choice is automatically the most sustainable, and it is selected by the people
who seek the easiest option. It is essential to consider the ethical implications asso-
ciated with nudging, as people may feel manipulated and exploited if the activities
are not transparent.The ability to influence people also requires interpersonal com-
petence, and the process can be made more effective by encouraging a sense of
empathy. Interpersonal competency is necessary to co-construct knowledge and
practical solutions for transformative actions (Wiek et al., 2011a). In this chapter, we
examine how the students’ interpersonal competence was manifested in their solu-
tions and how they aimed to influence the end users of their inventions.

Sustainability in the Finnish National Core Curriculum

The Finnish national core curriculum places the value aspects of sustainability in
the value section (FNAE 2016). Sustainability knowledge and the objective of
learning sustainable ways of living are also integrated into every school subject.
While the national core curriculum does not directly introduce sustainability com-
petencies, they are referenced in the transversal competencies section. More specifi-
cally, it is a requirement that students are guided to use information both
autonomously and collaboratively to solve problems, argue, reason, draw conclu-
sions, and generate novel inventions. Students should also be taught how to search
for reliable information, critically analyze topics from several perspectives, and effec-
tively evaluate their thought processes. Students are guided to understand how their
choices, lifestyle, and actions have an impact on themselves and on their community,
society, and the environment.The aim is to foster a readiness to evaluate and change
the procedures and structures of their community and develop their constructive
actions to build a sustainable future (FNAE 2016). Furthermore, the national core
curriculum provides an outline of science content that promotes competencies of
strategic action and tolerance for uncertainty: ‘A collaborative influencing project is
carried out where the pupils practice participation and involvement at the local or
the global level’. To implement the directives of the national guidelines, we can use
the framework developed by Lozano et al. (2021), which describes pedagogical
approaches that support the development of sustainability competencies.
Transversal competencies are pursued through a multidisciplinary approach, and
the Finnish curriculum has introduced multidisciplinary modules to highlight the
holistic nature of various phenomena and support students’ systemic understand-
ing. The module introduced in this chapter has an inbuilt multidisciplinary
approach and follows a key requirement outlined in the environmental studies
section of the Finnish national core curriculum: the school program must include
a collaborative project in which the pupils practice participation and involvement.
The module structure is introduced in more detail later in this chapter.
84 Anni Loukomies et al.
Solely focusing on a discussion of environmental threats may needlessly promote
feelings of guilt and anxiety about everyday choices; therefore, we have employed an
activity based on classroom teaching. By following procedures that encourage inven-
tion, students can actively develop their sustainability competencies as well as consider
and practice how they can resolve problems through creative thinking and design.

Our Study
Context and Participants
This study presents a collaborative multidisciplinary module for primary schools
that supports participation and encourages involvement; the module was trialed in
a Finnish comprehensive school.
Sixth-grade students (aged 11–12 years) were assigned a task that employed an
invention procedure and introduced and developed the concepts of influencing
and sustainability. The students were asked to design mobile applications with the
aim of changing the culture and actions of a community and generating support
for a more sustainable future. The prototypes of the mobile applications were cre-
ated using the Marvel application (https://marvelapp.com). An essential element of
the project was to identify a positive way to support the development of under-
standing and a willingness to change; the project aimed to avoid the promotion of
guilt and dystopian concepts.
The sequence of aims in the module was grounded in curriculum content and
related to transversal competencies and subject-specific objectives. Furthermore,
the invention pedagogy protocol formed the structure of the sequence.The course
of the module was established as a general sequence plan with additional specific
lesson plans.The structure covered the iterative process of drafting and refining the
conceptual ideas that arose during the needs assessment and during the develop-
ment of the final prototype applications. Throughout the process, the collaborative
student teams were asked to explain and justify their ideas within the group and
between groups.
In the module described in this chapter, the students were asked to design an
interactive mobile application prototype using the Marvel app prototyping tool.
The purpose of their prototype was to invent a product that supported sustain-
ability. Two problem spaces have been identified in design activities: composition,
represented by visual design, and construction space, represented by technical
design (Goel & Pirolli, 1992; Kangas et al., 2013; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen &
Hakkarainen, 2001). In the context of this invention project, the emphasis was on
the composition space, but the students also addressed the construction space by
adding hotspots, interactions, and layers in their prototype applications; thus, they
modeled the technical functions of the design solution. The construction of func-
tioning applications was beyond the scope of this project, as it would have required
additional time and scaffolding skills to teach the students code writing. Instead,
the digital prototype application offered students a shortcut to the construction
space and enabled them to overcome the technical obstacles caused by the restricted
period and their limited coding skills.
 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 85
Phases of a Participatory Circular Economy Inventions Module Employing an
Invention Pedagogy Approach
The phases of the multidisciplinary module followed the phases of the invention
process, as described in Chapter 9 of this book. In the context of this project, the
phases were as follows: (1) Orientation to the topic and the work; (2) defining the
invention challenge; (3) brainstorming, information gathering, and testing of ideas;
(4) presenting the ideas and evaluating and approving the plan; (5) fabrication of
the prototype; (6) implementation and modification of the prototype and feed-
back; and (7) presentation and launching of the prototype.
The multidisciplinary project was started during Finnish language lessons by
studying the concept of influence and examining its meaning and methods. Drama
activities were also used to familiarize the students with well-known influential
people and inventors. In science lessons, the students were introduced to the con-
cepts of sustainability and circular economy and their various related dimensions
and transitions. During mathematics lessons, the students employed statistical
methods to examine the most popular mobile applications used in the class. This
orientation phase was designed to familiarize the students with the project’s con-
text and the required takeover concepts.
In the second phase of the project, the students were asked to list the sustainabil-
ity-related problems that they had observed in their own environment: at home, at
school, or in the classroom. The students were then given the opportunity to
implement and practice meeting protocols during their Finnish language lessons,
and in small groups, they selected one interesting problem to explore further. The
students were also asked to self-evaluate their meeting skills. The aim of these
activities was to enable the observation and examination of sustainability phenom-
ena in a context that was familiar to the students. Furthermore, the students were
encouraged to identify and apply the concepts and skills that they had learned.
In the third phase, the aim was to employ creative ideation methods to identify
the sustainability problems and support the generation of multiple ideas and solu-
tions. In the idea generation phase, the students applied ideation methods (e.g., the
8x8 method) and searched for information online. During visual arts classes, the
students examined prominent mobile applications and interviewed each other to
find out why certain applications were popular. Finally, they familiarized them-
selves with the user interfaces of the applications and discussed how visual design
elements, such as logos and colors, are used to communicate ideas and influence
the decisions of the end users.
In the fourth phase of the invention process, the students practiced giving and
receiving constructive feedback. In small groups, each student introduced their
design solution ideas and obtained feedback from their classmates. Based on the
feedback, they chose a final design solution that could be developed into a proto-
type. The students evaluated their group’s work at the end of the idea generation
phase.The aim of this phase was to develop reasoned decision-making and employ
group support to aid the selection of a suitable solution idea.
The multidisciplinary project then proceeded to the fifth phase. During math-
ematics lessons, the students used the Marvel app mobile application to draw the
86 Anni Loukomies et al.
display images that would be required for the construction of their prototypes.The
aim of the prototype generation phase was to identify the technical mechanisms of
the prototype application that could be used to influence the end users’ behaviors
and choices.
Once the prototypes were finalized, the working groups entered the sixth phase
of the project and received feedback from the teacher regarding their prototype’s
user interface. Based on the feedback, the students further revised their application
designs. An essential aim of this phase was to learn to use feedback to improve a
design solution. In addition, it was important that the teachers noted any signifi-
cant emotions that were expressed during the process so that they could support
the students in identifying and exploring these feelings.
The collaborative project was finalized by introducing and launching the proto-
types. The characteristics of influential communication were covered in Finnish
language lessons, and the students were given a task to construct a draft speech at
home. In their small groups, the students prepared speeches that introduced their
choice of sustainability problem and its intended circular economy solution. They
presented the details of their solution, focusing on its usefulness.The students were
also asked to explain why their sustainability problem was personally significant
and describe what experiences they had related to its context. Finally, the students
evaluated their process of working and the mobile application prototype they had
constructed.The aim of this final phase was to collect data on the students’ experi-
ences of influencing and inventing while activating their awareness of these aspects.

Data and Analysis

The data for this study consists of (1) the students’ notes that were generated in
small groups during the various phases of the project, (2) the completed mobile
application prototypes, and (3) the students’ speeches that explained the sustain-
ability problems that were selected, introduced the design solutions, and considered
the usability and potential impact of the prototypes. Furthermore, the data analysis
was targeted at the sequence plan of the multidisciplinary invention project. Two
researchers conducted the analysis, deductively when using existing theory and
inductively when the interpretations were based on the data that were collected.
The researchers started the analysis using a deductive approach. The students’
working notes and final design solutions were examined to identify the sustain-
ability problems that served as the starting points of the invention process; the
researchers also established the characteristic operational principles of the suggested
design solutions. The sustainability dimensions (economic, ecological, cultural, or
social, as described in the introduction section) represented in each prototype were
defined by applying the different dimensions of the sustainability concept (Pop et
al., 2019) and the circular economy transitions (Juuti & Gericke, 2022).
The analysis phase then proceeded using an inductive method. Special consid-
eration was given to the mechanisms of influence employed in the prototypes,
from both the external and internal perspectives. The external perspective was
based on the researchers’ observations of the prototypes. The working groups had
generated the internal design view, and the data relating to the methods used to
 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 87
influence sustainability behavior was sourced from the working groups’ introduc-
tory speeches. These aspects were then reduced to interpretations that were classi-
fied using the principles of data-based analysis.

Students’ Inventions
Throughout the project, the students worked in small groups. During the phases of
the invention pedagogy process, they identified a problem and then worked toward
designing a mobile application as the outcome.The collaborative invention process
resulted in 12 mobile application prototypes, and the design outcomes were related
to one or more dimensions of sustainability. Furthermore, the students were
directed to include a circular economy transition as a starting point for their design.
The project revealed that students employed their interdisciplinary competence
when they worked together, co-invented, and negotiated their decisions. In addi-
tion, students employed and practiced their media use and evaluation competen-
cies when designing and revising application prototypes. The design outcomes are
introduced in Table 7.1.
The students first addressed the various problems that motivated their invention
process; they identified a range of the sustainability-related issues mentioned in the

Table 7.1 Outcomes of the invention process

Mobile application prototype Sustainability perspective

Garbage Swipe Sustainability dimension:

Problem: Ecological
Limited recycling; the impact of recycling on Economic
climate change Circular economy transition:
Solution: From waste to raw material
A game that teaches people to sort waste
Banana Bottles Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Social
Poverty Ecological
Solution: Circular economy transition:
A game that simulates helping disadvantaged From waste to raw material
people by recycling waste bottles and donating
the money
Disposable Fashion Calendar (DFC) Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecological
Pollution, water consumption, and poor working Economic
conditions caused by throwaway fashion Social
Solution: Circular economy transition:
An application that helps to monitor garment From disposable to fixable
purchase, use, and repair
E-Paper Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecologic
Deforestation Economic
Solution: Circular economy transition:
An application for taking notes From disposable (to fixable)
From product to service
(Continued)
88 Anni Loukomies et al.
Table 7.1 (Continued)
Mobile application prototype Sustainability perspective
Vege Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecological
Deforestation of rainforests Economic
Solution: Circular economy transition:
An application for increasing the consumption of From product to service
vegetarian food; includes a collection of recipes
World travel Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Social
Racism Cultural
Solution: Circular economy transition:
A game that familiarizes people with different --
countries and cultures
Nonelectric Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecological
Consumption of electricity Economic
Solution: An application to monitor and control Circular economy transition:
electric devices at home --
Recycling spigot Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Economic
Availability of tools and equipment; Ecological
consumption Circular economy transition:
Solution: From owning to sharing
An application that facilitates the lending, borrow-
ing, and renting of equipment
Puuhuut Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Social
Lack of knowledge about sustainability issues Ecological
Solution: Circular economy transition:
A quiz application that presents participants with --
information on a range of sustainability topics
Bensappi-fuel-app Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecological
Excess driving Economic
Solution: Circular economy transition:
An application that monitors the kilometers driven --
Wuokraut-car-renting-app Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecological
Renting cars Economic
Solution: Circular economy transition:
An application that enables people to rent out their From owning to sharing
cars
Eco-info Sustainability dimension:
Problem: Ecological
Lack of sustainability-related knowledge Economic
Solution: Circular economy transition:
An application that enables people to share their --
best tips for a sustainable lifestyle
 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 89
Agenda 2030 (UNESCO, 2021). For example, the students highlighted limited
recycling and its influence on climate change, poverty, pollution, throwaway fash-
ion and its association with extreme water consumption and poor working condi-
tions, fuel consumption, deforestation of (rain)forests, racism, excessive consumption
of electricity, excessive consumption of materials related to owning tools and
vehicles, and a lack of knowledge about sustainability issues. The inventions
included games and applications that facilitated the monitoring of sustainability-
related behavior, the provision of sustainability knowledge, support for recycling,
the presentation of sustainable choices, and platforms for sharing knowledge and
commodities. Most of the inventions were related to the ecological and economic
dimensions of sustainability. Four innovations were linked to social sustainability
and one to cultural sustainability.
The inventions were classified deductively based on their circular economy con-
tent. Several circular economy transitions were evident in the inventions, and some
inventions were associated with two transitions. Two inventions dealt with the
transition ‘from waste to raw material’ and another two addressed the transition ‘from
disposable to fixable’. The perspective ‘from owning to sharing’ was associated with two
solutions as was the perspective ‘from product to service’; however, the connection to
‘from product to service’ in one solution was not so obvious. Five inventions that were
monitoring, entertainment, or educative applications did not clearly connect with
a circular economy transition. Overall, the solutions emphasized waste reduction or
recycling. Material or item-related transitions are more tangible and therefore are
easier to use as a starting point for an invention process; in contrast, services that are
intangible may be more difficult for a student to visualize.
Based on the external view, the inventions contained several mechanisms of
influence, such as gamification, education, effortless usability and clarity, support
for social relations, an appeal to empathy, and sanctions and rewards. Based on the
external evaluation, five solutions appeared to rely on education as a means of
influence. Three solutions were based on gamification. Empathy, collaboration,
personal benefits, and tangible solutions for sustainability problems each appeared
as the mechanism of influence in two solutions. Most solutions included more than
one mechanism of influence.
The designers’ views that related to the mechanisms of influence were more multi-
faceted than the assessments carried out by the external reviewers. The designers’
explanations for nine of the prototypes referred to a solution to a sustainability prob-
lem as a means of influence; in addition, nine solutions identified usability that can be
attained through effortless use, gamification with rewards, enjoyment and entertain-
ment, and personification. In seven speeches, the designers referred to education and
empathy as their mechanisms of influence; in six solutions, the designers relied on
facts. Collaboration, personal benefit, gamification, and entertainment were each
identified in four solutions.Two solutions introduced narrativity as a means of influ-
ence. Most of the inventions introduced more than one mechanism of influence.
In summary, the mechanisms of influencing in the applications have been consid-
ered from many perspectives. On the other hand, whether the application seeks to
appeal to emotions or facts has also been considered. On the other hand, several
routes of influence have been used: Influencing can focus on an individual’s actions,
90 Anni Loukomies et al.
or it can exploit the social context and the power of cooperation. In addition, influ-
encing can be either indirect through education or direct influence, giving tangible
solutions to problems. Finally, the usability and personalization of the application as
well as the aspects of personal comfort and benefit are also considered.
Examples of the outcomes of the students’ group work are presented in
Figures 7.1 and 7.2. The idea of the Garbage Swipe app is to throw used items
in the right recycling bin and thus learn how to recycle (Figure 7.1). The players

Figure 7.1 Example of the application prototype, Garbage Swipe.

 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 91
are motivated by following their own progress from ‘Trophy Road’ and compet-
ing with others. The players can also customize the look of the app.
The intention of the DFC application is to increase people’s awareness of the
problems of fast fashion and encourage them to repair and recycle clothing (Figure
7.2).The app guides people to set goals for their responsible consumption and illus-
trates the consumption choices and actions made with color codes and diagrams.

Figure 7.2 Examples of the application prototype, DFC.

92 Anni Loukomies et al.
Conclusions
In the first phase of the project, the students identified a wide variety of problems
that were large-scale and addressed a range of sustainability dimensions, such as
racism, climate change, and poverty. Most inventions focused on the ecological and
economic aspects of sustainability. Only four innovations were connected to social
sustainability and only one to cultural sustainability.The results indicate that schools
focus on the ecological aspect of sustainability, such as by addressing how students
can take care of their own environment. In contrast, economic sustainability may
be discussed more often at home during family conversations that address the
consumption of resources and money-saving habits. Social and cultural sustain-
ability concepts are often more complex and less tangible; therefore, they may not
be at the forefront of the students’ minds when they first approach sustainability
topics. In this study, it should also be noted that several of the problems that were
established as starting points for the students’ invention process were more strongly
linked to the adult world. For example, it is unlikely that a primary school student
would be responsible for a vehicle’s fuel use.
The circular economy concept is often linked to a more effective use of materi-
als (Webster, 2017).This includes the reconceptualization of waste as a side product
of an industrial process. Thus, it is possible to use ‘waste’ from one process as raw
material for another product. However, viewing waste as a new raw material may
not encourage people to reduce consumption; instead, it could be used to justify
current processes and thus hinder a reduction side product (waste). Therefore, the
effective use of side products can limit necessary change relating to the primary use
of materials. In our case, the students’ inventions Garbage Swipe and Banana Bottles
reflected a viewpoint that well-resourced families do not have to change their
consumer behavior. It is challenging to rethink and facilitate practices that will lead
to a reduction in the use of primary materials. However, the students’ invention
DFC did reflect this process: the application encouraged users to reduce their
clothing consumption and facilitated the selection of more durable garments.
Through the process of inventing, the students became familiar with the dimen-
sions of sustainability and circular economy transitions. They practiced a range of
transversal skills, such as collaboration, argumentation, and giving and receiving
feedback. The module avoided focusing on negative emotions that related to the
behavior of humankind and the state of the world; instead, the students employed
a solution-based approach and experienced taking positive action when facing
problematic issues. The use of digital tools converted the project’s design concepts
into tangible solutions; in other words, the compositions were enriched with con-
struction space aspects that would have otherwise been unattainable (Kangas et al.,
2013). The evaluation of the design outcomes revealed the sustainability dimen-
sions that the students embedded in their designs. Based on these evaluations, the
students’ learning outcomes in relation to the sustainability topic can be observed.
The aims set out in the sequence plan could be used to define the explicit evalua-
tion criteria; however, this was not a focus for this chapter. The designers’ explana-
tions clarified the influential potential of their prototypes. In their introductory
speeches, the students presented inventions that used a range of methods to
 Toward Sustainable Lifestyle 93
influence consumer behavior. These descriptions were useful, as it was not always
easy to determine the influencing context when examining a prototype. However,
this uncertainty may also apply to real-world inventions, which often have an
indistinct means of influence; many commercial applications rely on subtle nudg-
ing techniques to influence the behavior of the end user (Sunstein, 2015).
The challenge for sustainability inventions is to ensure that they do not create
additional sustainability problems. A focus on increasing the efficiency of a prod-
uct’s production may reduce production costs and generate cheaper prices that
may boost sales. Thus, sustainable inventions that reduce the use of materials can
potentially increase the consumption of raw materials and energy. As Korhonen et
al. (2018: 44) emphasized, ‘[I]f the current consumption culture will not change,
[the] CE [circular economy] will remain as a technical tool that does not change
the course of the current unsustainable economic paradigm’.Therefore, it is impor-
tant that schools reflect on current consumption practices and encourage students
to consider decoupling material use and economic activities. This could be facili-
tated by highlighting the circular economy transitions ‘from product to service’ or ‘from
owning to sharing’ (c.f. Juuti & Gericke, 2022). This approach creates challenges for
the idea generation and idea evaluation phases of the invention process. Therefore,
students should be guided to evaluate the whole invention life cycle, as well as the
behaviors and values of people. These processes have been addressed by Wiek et al.
(2011a) in their model of sustainability competencies. Product life cycles and con-
sumption behaviors are complex systems that require knowledge of the physical
and social sciences and an understanding of value systems.The invention pedagogy
approach offers an instructional method that contains inbuilt motivating features,
such as collaboration and autonomy, and thus encourages students to spend time
on this interesting albeit challenging topic.

Acknowledgments
We thank SITRA, the Finnish innovation fund, Helsinki Institute for Sustainability,
and Erasmus+ project “Schools Educating for Sustainability: Proposals for and
from In-Service Teacher Education” for supporting the development of circular
economy in education.

References
Chouinard,Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011, October).The sustainable economy. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/10/the-sustainable-economy
Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework.
Sustainability, 9(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010068
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). Finnish national core curriculum
for basic education. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Gast, J., Gundolf, K., & Cesinger, B. (2017). Doing business in a green way: A systematic
review of the ecological sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future research direc-
tions.Journal of Cleaner Production,147,44–56.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.065
Goel,V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3),
395–429. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3
94 Anni Loukomies et al.
Juuti, K., & Gericke, N. (2022). Transforming circular economy principles into teachers’
powerful professional knowledge. International Perspectives on Knowledge and Quality:
Implications for Innovation in Teacher Education Policy and Practice, 127. https://doi.org/
10.5040/9781350178434.0016
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design thinking in ele-
mentary students’ collaborative lamp designing process. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 18(1), 30–43. http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/
article/view/1798/1732
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essen-
tially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544–552. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111
Lozano, R., Barrairo-Gen M., & Temel, M. (2021). Literature review and methods. In
Rodrigo Lozano, & Maria Barreiro-Gen (Eds.), Developing sustainability competences through
pedagogical approaches: Experiences From international case studies. Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-64965-4
Pop, I. L., Borza, A., Buiga, A., Ighian, D., & Toader, R. (2019). Achieving cultural sustain-
ability in museums: A step toward sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(4), 970.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040970
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Composition and construction in experts’
and novices weaving design. Design Studies, 22(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0142-694X(99)00038-1
Sunstein, C. R. (2015). The ethics of nudging. Yale Journal on Regulation, 32(2), 413–450.
https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12658
UNESCO. (2021, November 16). Sustainable development goals. https://en.unesco.org/
sustainabledevelopmentgoals
Webster, K. (2017). The circular economy: A wealth of flows. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/the-circular-economy-a-wealth-of-flows-
2nd-edition
Wiek,A., Bernstein, M., Foley, R., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., Kay, B., & Withycombe
Keeler, L. (2015). Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable
development. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann, & I.Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of
higher education for sustainable development (pp. 241–260). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315852249
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. (2011a). Key competencies in sustainability: A
reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–
218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C., & Mills, S. B. (2011b). Moving forward on compe-
tence in sustainability research and problem solving. Environment: Science and Policy for
Sustainable Development, 53(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2011.554496
8 Framework for Technological
Competence in Invention Projects
Tiina Korhonen, Kaiju Kangas, Sini Davies,
Kati Sormunen, Laura Salo, and Markus Packalén

Introduction
At the core of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) are pervasive digital technolo-
gies, which make it possible to radically change the nature of product and service
innovations and continuously form new technological innovations (Anderson,
2012; Oke & Fernandes, 2020;Yoo et al., 2012).Therefore, there is a need to engage
young people to participate in the technology-mediated practices and for them to
learn to integrate ubiquitous and complex technology competence with innovat-
ing. The meaning of technology is determined by its use, and technological com-
petence is learned through sustained use. A particular technological competency is
learned by appropriating it as a tool of learning, such as in maker activities. Sustained
use of the tool makes it a part of one’s system of activity. Such a developmental
process is referred to as an instrumental genesis (Rabardel & Bourmaud, 2003;
Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012). Maker-centered learning involves using a wide vari-
ety of tools and a participant does not have to master them very deeply to be able
to use and take advantage of them; in many cases, there is “performance before
competence” (Cadzen, 1997) as well as overcoming obstacles by social sharing of
competence.
There are varying interpretations of how the nature of technological compe-
tence is understood and how people should be educated in this era of industrial
revolution. Many recent studies and policies place a strong emphasis on digital
competence, such as knowledge acquisition, structuring, construction, and sharing
(e.g., Li et al., 2020; Redecker, 2017). A wider technological landscape that includes
all human-designed technological products, systems, processes, and services in
which technology is integrated into products, has been addressed especially in the
field of technology education. Recent research and policies in this field underline
technological literacy (i.e., the capability to understand, use, create, and assess tech-
nologies) as the key component in teaching and learning with and about technolo-
gies (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEAA],
2020; Jones et al., 2013). Yet, the concept of technological literacy has been criti-
cized because of the dichotomist premise about a person as either technologically
literate or not (Dakers, 2018). Further, it has been argued that more attention
should be paid to the interdependence of social and technological innovations (de
Vries, 2018); technological developments provide new possibilities for social

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-9
96 Tiina Korhonen et al.
activities which, in turn, affect the future direction of technology development
(Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).
In the Finnish curricula, teaching and learning technological competence are
approached in a cross-curricular and multidisciplinary manner. A future-oriented
approach to technology requires a broad perspective and strong connections to
21st-century competencies (Binkley et al., 2012; Finnish National Agency for
Education [FNAE], 2014). Technological competencies are underlined in several
areas of the curricula, from the transversal competencies (see Chapter 1 of this
book) to general competence objectives, as well as in many individual school sub-
jects. In addition, the teaching of programming has been introduced into the cur-
riculum as a completely new theme.
The push for integrating the teaching and learning of technological compe-
tence into schools has not been without challenges in Finland. The content and
methods in the core curriculum and the strategies adopted to further the use of
digital technology in schools have raised numerous arguments for and against both
among teachers and in the public discourse (e.g., Kokko et al., 2020; Saari &
Säntti, 2018). The primary challenges are related to schools’ equipment infrastruc-
ture, teachers’ lacking competence (e.g., Tanhua-Piiroinen et al., 2019, 2020),
sometimes fearful attitudes about content or tools that are new to them or their
school, and how ubiquitous technologies should be addressed in teaching (e.g.,
Kokko et al., 2020). Further, our latest research indicates that teachers and students
consider their academic digital competencies to be good but face various chal-
lenges related to the creative use of technologies (Korhonen et al., 2020; Korhonen
et al., forthcoming).
In the following sections, we respond to the challenges by proposing a frame-
work that conceptualizes and operationalizes the technological competence that
students and teachers can apply and learn through invention projects. We first
describe the theoretical foundations and pedagogical principles behind the frame-
work and then depict its five dimensions: crafting, designing, engineering, pro-
gramming and reflecting, documenting and sharing. Each dimension is elaborated
upon through its central concepts, aims, examples of the technological tools, and
pedagogical practices associated with their use. In addition, we note how the
dimensions are considered when planning invention projects and discuss the rele-
vance of the framework for the future work of teachers and researchers.

Technological Competence Framework

In invention pedagogy, technology encompasses a wide technological landscape,
including all human-made technological products, systems, and processes that may
be used in designing and making targeted inventions. By providing students with
traditional or digital fabrication tools, their personal and social capabilities become
significantly extended, enabling the creation of complex artifacts. The focal
assumption in invention pedagogy is that the cognition not only takes place in the
human head but that it is materially (between mind and tool) and socially (between
minds of invention team) distributed (Clark, 2003; Pea, 1993). The recently
emerged perspective of 4E cognition (i.e., embodied, embedded, enactive, and
 Framework for Technological Competence 97
extended cognition) (Newen et al., 2018) provides a useful way of thinking about
the distributed creative processes in the context of teaching and learning techno-
logical competence. Learning technological competence is embodied through
active engagement in invention projects. Cognition, affect, and behavior emerge
from the body being embedded, enacted, and extended across external tools (e.g.,
art and craft tools and materials, rapid prototyping and programming technologies),
and processes and structures (invention projects and processes), and environments
(e.g., learning environments for invention pedagogy). It follows that learning and
teaching technological competence through invention projects does not represent
reproduction but instead radically remediate a learner’s cognitive processes toward
new inventions.
In each phase of an invention project, students make use of technology in vari-
ous ways to achieve their envisioned invention. The creators can share the purpose
of their invention, the identified issue that it resolves, and the technologies that it
employs. Because students’ inventions may extend in several directions, the relevant
technological tools and instruments cannot often be predetermined, and prevailing
skills and capabilities have to be significantly extended. This challenge not only
concerns the students, as teachers cannot be assumed to be proficient with all the
requisite technology. Nevertheless, in many cases, the learning community involves
students who are already familiar with the required technologies and associated
competence and may share their knowledge both with peers and their teachers
(see Chapter 12 of this book).
Designing and creating an invention motivates a student to experiment and test
novel technological instruments as well as to put effort into acquiring and deepen-
ing their technological competence. At the same time, the invention being created
teaches both the students and the teacher something new about the surrounding
technological world. This assists participants to gradually cultivate a more general
understanding about broader domains of technology, cultivate a sense of available
instruments, and cultivate functional principles of their operation. Thus, students
and teachers apply and acquire technological competence both for defining their
inventions and as a tool for developing the same during invention projects.
To help conceptualize the technological competence that students and teachers
can apply and learn through invention projects, we have categorized them into five
broad dimensions: (1) crafting, (2) designing, (3) engineering, (4) programming,
and (5) reflecting, documenting, and sharing. These competence domains are close
to the disciplinary practices that the invention pedagogy aims at bringing to the
classroom. Each area is very complex and multifaceted and involves numerous skills
and competence that learners may appropriate through participating in invention
processes. Participation in the invention process, as explained in Chapter 2 of this
book, involves implementing learning through participating in collaborative design
and crafting (Kolodner et al., 2003; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010) and engi-
neering (Ceylan et al., 2020; Cunningham & Carlsen, 2014). Scientific practices
(Krajcik et al., 2014; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014) are involved both in program-
ming (Blikstein, 2015; Kafai & Burke, 2015) and reflecting, documenting and shar-
ing, i.e., in epistemic mediation (Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012). The dimensions of
technological competencies and their interrelations are illustrated in Figure 8.1.
98 Tiina Korhonen et al.

UMENTING,
, DOC SHA
TING RIN
EC G
EFL
R

EN
G

GI
IN

NE
GN

ERI
DESI

NG
CRAFTING

PR
O G R A M MI N G

Figure 8.1 The framework for technological competence in invention projects.

Together the five dimensions form the framework of technological competence

in invention projects. The framework serves as a tool for integrating technological
competence in the designing and implementation of invention projects.
Technological competence is perceived in terms of technological artifacts and sys-
tems, which are actively employed and developed through social processes of the
invention community. The categorization of the relevant technology-competence
dimensions is rooted in our sustained research-practice partnerships focused on
understanding and identifying the dimensions of technology being implemented
in early childhood and basic education classrooms.
The dimensions of the framework are partly overlapping, and it should be noted
that not all areas are covered in all invention projects. For example, some projects
do not include programming at all, some emphasize designing, while others focus
more on engineering. In the following sections, each dimension of the framework
is elaborated through its central concepts and learning goals as well as examples of
the technological tools and pedagogical practices associated with their use.

Crafting
Working with tangible tools, materials, and artifacts using traditional and digital
fabrication techniques plays a crucial role in knowledge-creating learning through
invention processes (Blikstein, 2013; Kafai et al., 2014; Kangas et al., 2013; Riikonen
et al., 2020a). In invention pedagogy, the material approach through crafting and
making is present throughout the whole process, enabling and often triggering the
implementation of all the other technological competencies of the project. It pro-
vides the means for creative ideation and experimentation with technologies to
 Framework for Technological Competence 99
develop students’ understanding of the technological world. It is noteworthy that
crafts is a separate subject in Finnish school and thus offers a special context for the
teaching and learning technological competence in invention projects (Finnish
National Agency for Education [FNAE], 2016).
It must be noted that both students and teachers need adequate expertise in the
relevant aspects of these tools, materials, and techniques to creatively and produc-
tively utilize them in their invention processes (Riikonen et al, 2020b). On the
other hand, such expertise also guides the invention process. For example, learning
how to use a hammer, a sewing machine, or a laser cutter expands students’ under-
standing of the options provided by these tools and therefore promotes the cre-
ation of functional and pedagogically appropriate inventions.
Due to the unpredictable nature of invention processes and their outcomes, it is
not always possible to predetermine the adequate tools, materials, and techniques
that will be needed during the process. However, by selecting specific tools, mate-
rials, and fabrication techniques, teachers can constrain the open-ended design task
to create focused and well-framed invention challenges that are appropriate for the
students’ age and skill levels. It is also important to remember that the focus of an
invention project is not on manufacturing perfectly finished end products but,
instead, on the knowledge-creating learning and invention process. On the other
hand, students are often highly motivated to learn new craft techniques while
working with their invention, which is a valuable learning outcome in itself.
In the following, we have divided crafting into four levels, based on the tools,
materials, and techniques used, suitable for different ages and skill levels. Special
attention should be paid to teaching the students how to use the materials, tools,
and facilities safely.

Simple Crafting
When working with small children, simple craft materials and techniques are often
the most suitable for invention projects. Basic materials that the children are already
familiar with, such as paper, cardboard, steel wire, felt, yarn, wooden sticks, rings,
and pearls, allow for multifaceted experimenting and prototyping. Soft metal
sheets, easily workable plastics, and modeling clay are suitable for small children.
With these materials, it is also possible to build simple mechanical inventions with
small children, such as moving toys and pop-up cards. For fabricating moving parts,
commercial assembly kits can also be used. Craft techniques suitable for small
children include cutting, gluing, knotting, and sewing simple stitches.

Hand Crafting
In tandem with the development of the hand-eye coordination and motor skills of
the students, new craft materials and hand manufacturing techniques and tools can be
introduced to them. For example, wood, metal, plastic, fabric, yarn, and wool can be
used with the relevant fabrication techniques. Simple machinery, such as a sewing
machine and a fretsaw, can also be introduced to the students. If possible, the co-
invention project should be carried out in dedicated craft classrooms or makerspaces.
100 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Machine Crafting
On this level, the students move on from using hand tools and simple machines to
more sophisticated traditional fabrication machinery, such as a wood lathe and
band saw, and to digital production, such as that using 3D printers and laser and
vinyl cutters.There are plenty of premade examples and projects for digital fabrica-
tion tools available online that can be used to familiarize students with the same.
More sophisticated materials, such as leather or harder metals can also be intro-
duced at this level.

Hybrid Crafting
Finally, when students become familiar with the main techniques and machinery
involved in the previous three levels, they can be allowed to use them, and the
corresponding facilities, extensively, as well as on their own, to create sophisticated
inventions combining multiple fabrication techniques, tools, and materials. Students
can also be encouraged to use the makerspaces and digital fabrication tools avail-
able outside the school premises, such as those found in a library. They can also be
guided to use the internet more to find instructions, tips, and example projects to
support their co-invention process. At this level, the co-invention process and the
inventor team become increasingly independent; they can even become experts in
using novel digital technologies

Designing
One of the aims in invention pedagogy is to help students understand that technol-
ogy is man-made and that before technological solutions take their physical or
digital form, they need to have been designed by someone. This understanding
develops gradually in invention projects, through which students learn to apply
design principles to address invention challenges and use technological means to
express their design ideas.Thus, in invention projects, technology is both the object
and the tool of design.
Designing can be roughly divided into three overlapping phases: ideation, visual
designing, and technical designing. The emphasis in design ideation is on gaining
new insights and looking beyond the obvious; it is the start of a process in which
the aim is to create something new (Laamanen & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2014).
Visual and technical design can be characterized as a search within two problem
spaces: the composition space and the construction space (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,
2001) (also see Goel & Pirolli, 1992). The composition space consists of the orga-
nization and manipulation of visual elements and principles such as the shape,
pattern, and color of the invention. The construction space includes the design of
technical elements, such as structure, materials, and production methods. Within
the composition space, the students consider how the outcome of the design pro-
cess (the invention) will appear, whereas in the construction space, they analyze
how the invention functions and how it will be fabricated. The students move
within and between these spaces both horizontally (i.e., generating several parallel
 Framework for Technological Competence 101
ideas) and vertically (i.e., developing the ideas further and adding more details)
(Kangas et al., 2013; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2004). In invention
pedagogy, the understanding of these two problem spaces, and of the deliberate
horizontal and vertical movement within and between them, enhances the quality
and versatility of students’ design ideas.
As with any other form of intelligence, design competence is not a given “tal-
ent” or “gift.” In invention projects, students are systematically facilitated to learn
and develop design competencies. During the early stages of learning design, the
function and significance of various design tools and representations, such as
sketches, mock-ups, drawings, and prototypes, may not be apparent to the students
(e.g., Hope, 2005; MacDonald et al., 2007; Welch et al., 2000). Therefore, students
are explicitly taught how to use various tools and techniques to facilitate the gen-
eration (not just the execution) of ideas (MacDonald et al., 2007). In invention
projects, various technological tools, both digital and non-digital, offer age-
appropriate means for students to create, visualize, and further elaborate their ideas.

Sketches and Mock-Ups

Hand-drawn or digital sketching is typically the first step of design, which is used
to externalize and visualize the very first, often fuzzy and vague, ideas. Sketching
plays a crucial role in generating, developing, and communicating ideas; it is both
a powerful form of thinking and the fundamental language of designing
(MacDonald et al., 2007; Welch et al., 2000). In invention projects, students usually
create simple idea sketches to quickly externalize their thoughts, study sketches to
investigate the idea in more detail, or use memory sketches such as visual mind
maps to substantiate their thoughts (cf. Pei et al., 2011). Designing inventions is also
a material-centric and embodied activity; engagement with and the manipulation
of physical materials is an intrinsic part of the invention process, which inspires and
constrains students’ ideation and designs (Mehto et al., 2020a; Mehto et al. 2020b).
Students create sketch models to explore their ideas in 3D form usually using
cheap materials that are easy to manipulate, such as cardboard, playdough, or con-
struction kits. However, rapid prototyping tools, such as 3D printers, have also been
used to create early phase models of students’ inventions. Sketch models often
capture the key characteristics of the form, but they can also be used to test and
experiment the functional properties of an invention (Pei et al., 2011).

Scale Drawings and Projections

Non-digital and digital drawings are used for both visual and technical design; stu-
dents make drawings on different scales and visualize their inventions with various
projections. Realistic renderings can be made to investigate and communicate the
shape, colors, patterns, and other visual elements of the invention, while perspective
drawings and projections, as well as technical illustrations, can be used to execute the
technical design (Pei et al., 2011). Making drawings requires the spatial ability to
perceive the dimensions of the invention; therefore, novice designers benefit from
embodied activities in which they build 3D models and practice using measuring
102 Tiina Korhonen et al.
tools such as rulers and tape measures (see Kangas et al., 2013). For young designers,
it is also helpful to start drawing their invention designs by hand at the 1:1 scale and
then move on to digital drawing and more complicated scales as their skills develop.
Drawing various projections of the invention enhances students’ perspective skills and
their competence in envisioning and externalizing something that does not yet exist.
For learning computer-aided design (CAD), students can first use software platforms
such as Tinkercad or Minecraft, through which designs can be created from blocks of
various shapes and sizes. Software intended for 3D drawing, such as SketchUp,
requires students to possess more skills but includes more possibilities for designing
complicated forms and mechanical or electronic parts for their inventions.

Functional Prototypes
In professional designing, a prototype refers to a full-size three-dimensional material
design representation that includes working and functional components and that is
used to test and communicate various elements of a design (Pei et al., 2011).
Prototypes are usually employed in the later phases of the process and provide a more
finished representation of the design than models. Here, however, we refer to the
prototypes that are used to experiment with the functionalities of inventions and
that are constructed using simple materials and mechanical, electronic, or program-
mable parts.These functional prototypes can be either full-size or smaller-scale mod-
els of the invention design or some of its parts.Various tools and technologies can be
used to produce the required functionalities – from simple moving parts made from
cardboard or using construction kits to more advanced functionalities realized using
programmable tools, such as educational robots or microcontrollers. As the students’
design and making skills are still developing, prototypes function both as tools for
idea refinement and as practical training in making (Yrjönsuuri et al., 2019).

Engineering
In addition to design intent and vision, the physical or digital form of technologi-
cal solutions is determined by engineering decisions. In invention pedagogy, engi-
neering knowledge is needed to create functionality in an artifact (Fortus et al.,
2004). Engineering builds a bridge between intuition and science, allowing the
students to measure, predict, and explain the built environment (Martinez & Stager,
2019). To solve real-world problems, the students need to employ mathematical
and scientific principles and apply engineering ideas and practices (Krajcik &
Delen, 2017; Nadelson et al., 2015). Solutions are often found by students through
various experiments. Fortus et al. (2004) note that teachers need to be explicit in
exposing the relationship between engineering concepts and their underlying
mathematical and scientific principles; otherwise, they would not be apparent to
students. We foreground three elements of engineering competence that are fre-
quently addressed in maker and invention projects (e.g., Davies et al., 2022; Kangas
et al., 2022): structures (Fortus et al., 2004), simple machines (Dotger, 2008), and
electronics (Litts et al., 2017). However, an invention project may just as well
address other engineering topics such as pneumatics or earthworks.
 Framework for Technological Competence 103
An organic way for students to start developing engineering competence is to
observe their environment. Armed with experience in observing the existing
functionality, students can begin building the functionality required for their own
inventions. For example, at school, teachers can encourage students to observe
and discuss relevant engineering topics, for instance, by asking them which struc-
tures they can identify in a chair or desk (structures), what benefits a bicycle
gearbox provides to a rider (simple machines), or which electronic circuits they
have used during the day (electronics). Students can then continue exploring the
relevant parts of engineering, such as structures, by implementing their own sim-
ple versions of the observed engineering concept. This activity prepares students
for invention projects, providing them with a template for building the function-
ality that they need in their invention in a way that is relevant to their vision and
that fulfills their expectations for their self-placed constraints, such as function
and durability. By combining such templates from multiple areas of engineering
competence, students can engineer technologically multidimensional invention
artifacts.

Structures
Mechanical structures form the basis of most of the built environment, which
manifests as, for example, poles, beams, trusses, plates, or shells. Technological com-
petence regarding structures allows students to understand why things break in the
real world and to build the structural scaffolding needed for their invention project
artifacts. Structures and structural systems are present in children’s lives from early
on. Children are natural engineers and build structures with all kinds of materials
– from blankets and cushions to blocks and sand (cf. Stylianidou et al., 2018). At the
playground, children experience exciting structures by testing different climbing
frames, swings, and slides.
Teachers can expand this initial model of structures to an understanding of
structural engineering principles and connect it to science core ideas (e.g., matter
and its interactions, and forces and interactions) (Fortus et al., 2004). By under-
standing this connection, students can not only apply structures in invention proj-
ects but deepen their understanding of underlying connection between disciplines.
The teacher can set up various motivational tasks and playful competitions in
which students can apply the structural templates that they have observed. For
example, students can experiment with structural principles by building a tower as
high as possible or by building a durable bridge in 20 minutes. Basic craft materials
found in the classroom can be used for the same. After the students complete such
a learning task, it is essential that the teacher leads a review of the rigidity of the
various built structures and helps students draw analogies between the structural
engineering principles, such as triangular and beam forms, in the structures they
have observed and those that they have built. Regardless of the form of the learn-
ing task, it should allow students to experiment with structural principles using
different materials, reflect on structural systems, and consist of several repetitions or
cycles. Several exercise cycles help students to develop more challenging solutions
and promote a deeper understanding of concepts (Schunn, 2009).
104 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Simple Machines
In addition to static structures, structures that move and form mechanical systems
are central building blocks in mechanical engineering. Indefinite variations of
simple mechanisms are present in our built environment, making it easy for stu-
dents to discover their application and observe their related kinematic (motion)
phenomena (e.g., Dotger, 2008). For example, by playing on a swing, a student can
experience the working of a pendulum. The movement of the bicycle accelerates
on its own downhill, and with the help of the crank mechanism, you can pedal to
accelerate on even ground (see Taylor, 2001).
Mechanical principles connected to science core ideas of motion and stability
can also be easily explored with students in class using familiar craft materials.
Students can experiment with and observe the mechanics of levers, wedges, wheels
and axles, screws, pulleys, cranks, and inclined planes in this manner. Based on their
experience, they can develop simple machines that use leverage mechanisms and
cultivate an understanding of the relationship between shape and movement.
Subsequently, students can apply the template ideas of simple machines to more
complex mechanical systems such as gears and transmissions. They can also add
mechanical properties to their inventions using rubber bands, springs, and wires or
pneumatics. The invention can be, for example, a mechanical hand whose fingers
can be operated by pulling on cables that are attached to the same.
While basic mechanisms can be easily built and explored using craft materials,
using these materials to build more complex mechanical solutions from scratch is
challenging for younger students and tedious for older ones. Mechanical building
kits, such as Lego Technics, allow for a fast and easy exploration of basic mechanical
principles as well as scale to very complex mechanical systems.

Electronics
Most of the products and systems that we consider “technology” in contemporary
everyday language are produced using electronic circuits. In fact, a simple circuit is
a good focus point for initial invention projects. A learning task for exploring
electrical principles can guide students to consider which devices in the classroom
and their homes are powered by electricity. It is very important that students grasp
the basic concept of an electrical circuit, as this knowledge forms the basics of
electrical safety. According to Osbourne (1983), even very young schoolchildren
can learn to build a circuit independently. The teacher can provide students with a
battery, wires, and a lamp. The learning task is to make the lamp light up through
experimentation. Such a simple electrical circuit can be used to study conductive
and nonconductive materials. Students can add a ready-made switch to the circuit
or build a membrane switch. Subsequently, the lamp can be replaced by an LED,
motor, or buzzer, making visible the range of electrically operated devices.
The construction of the circuits does not need to be limited to wires and tradi-
tionally packaged electronic components. Using new and unorthodox materials,
such as electrically conductive tape or playdough for wires and glued-on LEDs, can
make the construction process easier, allow inventions that require a different form
 Framework for Technological Competence 105
factor, and deepen students’ understanding of electrical phenomena in materials
(Litts et al., 2017). Osbourne (1983) emphasizes that by using the correct terminol-
ogy with students even on projects that feature extremely basic electrical circuits and
gradually building an engineering competence regarding concepts such as electric
current, voltage, and resistance, students can advance to understanding the principles
underlying devices such as sensors and transistors.With an engineering competency
in these basic concepts, students can calculate the value of the resistor that will pro-
vide the desired amount of current in an LED circuit. They can also practice more
complex electronics connections in simulation environments (e.g., Circuits.io).

Programming
Mirroring real-world technological products, the inventions created in invention
projects may be controlled through a software that runs on a computer embedded
in the invention. The software adds “intelligent behavior” to an invention, making
it come to life in the eyes of students. An invention project can also produce a
completely digital invention, which can be manifested only as a computer pro-
gram, with no material components (e.g., games) (see Laakso et al., 2021 for more
examples). Programming competence includes the programming languages, pro-
gramming tools, and practical methods that students need to create the software for
their invention. We suggest separating this practical competence from competence
in software engineering principles.
In the context of invention projects, the key programming competence is related
to robotics kits, microcontrollers, and programming languages.

Robotics Kits
Robotics kits such as Lego Mindstorms EV3, have proven to be very useful for
easily implementing even extremely complex artifacts in invention projects.
Although electronics hobby and teaching kits have been available for a long time,
similar kits incorporating a programmable element are a relatively recent addition
to the toolset. The area of robotics combines computer control with a physical
structure, moving mechanisms, and electronic circuits. As such, it provides a flexible
platform for inventions that may not count as typical robots but that bring together
the various technological competence involved in invention pedagogy.
Robotics kits offer several convenient ways for crafting an invention.The kits are
often designed to be directly compatible with those meant for building structures
and mechanisms; for example, EV3 robotics can be easily interfaced with Lego
Technics building blocks. With prepackaged sensors and actuator components fea-
turing standard electrical connections, the kits significantly simplify the electronics
craft. In addition, the kits are supported by approachable, often visual, program-
ming tools. The overarching simplicity motivates learners, as they can get the first
iteration of their invention moving quickly.
Surprisingly, despite the emphasis on simplicity, the kits also feature the capacity
and flexibility for more complex projects.They can be used for a range of invention
themes – from “future transportation” that innovates on moving robots to “smart
106 Tiina Korhonen et al.
homes” where students can trigger actions using light and sound sensors. However,
the key challenge associated with robotics kits also arises from the prepackaged
simplicity; students often wish they could have different physical forms for the “one-
size-fits-all” sensors and actuators included in the kits. The controller unit provided
is often physically large, complicating its use in most portable or wearable projects.

Microcontrollers
The controller unit of a robotics kit contains a microcontroller, which is a small,
specialized computer that runs the software programmed for the unit.
Microcontrollers are also available separately – both as individual electronics com-
ponents and as more convenient pre-built microcontroller boards. Microcontrollers
allow students working on invention projects to overcome the physical size limita-
tions of robotics kits. Microcontroller boards are available in a variety of shapes and
sizes, with a range of onboard functionality. Examples of popular beginner micro-
controller boards include the BBC micro:bit and the Adafruit Circuit Playground
Express (e.g., Litts et al., 2017). Despite having different form factors, both these
boards include a set of sensors, such as a motion sensor, and several LEDs for display,
which require minimal additional components to be used for an invention.
Students can embed a compact microcontroller board in their invention to
make it “intelligent.” Some boards are specifically designed to allow easy attach-
ment to fabric materials by sewing to create so-called e-textiles (see e.g., Kafai et
al., 2014). Their programs can use the onboard or separately attached sensors to
monitor the surroundings, control movement through servo motors, and com-
municate with the user using LEDs, buzzers, and speakers. The microcontroller
board can also be considered to be an electronics component in an electronic cir-
cuit that connects the various sensors and actuators. Thus, students will have many
opportunities to apply their engineering competence in electronic circuits. For
example, they can be introduced to using electronics prototyping boards, or bread-
boards, to easily test the many sensor and actuator connections in a microcontroller
board. They can also simulate such circuits before building them using free online
circuit simulation tools such as Circuits.io.
Students who are already experienced with programming can implement inven-
tions with more advanced microcontroller boards or use full single-board comput-
ers such as the Raspberry Pi. One of the key benefits of invention projects is that
students with different levels of competency can find challenges and learn new
things. In addition, by serving as tutors (see more in Chapter 12 of this book),
students who are more competent can guide other students by sharing their own
learning experiences.

Programming Languages
The primary goal of invention projects is not to make students proficient in a
particular programming language but to provide the students with age- and com-
petence-appropriate tools for experiencing the practice of creating software com-
ponents that can help them achieve their vision of their invention. The first
 Framework for Technological Competence 107
programming projects are typically completed using visual languages such as the
LabVIEW visual programming language, which is often used to program Lego
Mindstorms EV3 robots, or the Scratch language, which is often used with many
robotics kits but can also be used to build games and other non-robotics software.
When students are introduced to microcontroller boards, they can gradually
move to using text-based programming environments and languages. Hybrid pro-
gramming tools, such as the Microsoft MakeCode language (which is often used
with the BBC micro:bit), are useful for making this transition, as they allow the
student to switch back and forth between visual and text-based representations of
their program. In addition, the versions of general-purpose programming lan-
guages specifically designed for programming microcontrollers (e.g., CircuitPython)
can help introduce students to full text-based programming, such as the C pro-
gramming language used in the Arduino framework.

Reflecting, Documenting, and Sharing

The technological competence that students can use and learn in invention proj-
ects extends beyond the capabilities that they use directly to design, engineer, pro-
gram, and craft their invention. In addition to the physical or digital creation
activity, students also create a vast body of knowledge through social interaction
during invention projects. Diverse everyday socio-digital practices provide versatile
learning opportunities and enable young people to participate in developing their
technological competence (Hakkarainen et al., 2015). Previous research indicates
that the academic and creative competence of using socio-digital technologies may
be fostered through knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014), knowl-
edge-creating learning (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014), the educational maker
movement (Blikstein, 2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Kafai & Peppler, 2011),
and connected learning (Ito et al., 2013), which emphasize learning through col-
laborative inquiry and the making of artifacts and knowledge.
In invention projects, documentation is included as a natural part of the invention
process. Documentation refers not only to the reviewing and archiving of the project
afterward but also the real-time journaling and presentation of ideas during the proj-
ect. Student-created documentation targets both intra-team use and external audi-
ences. Note-taking using various tools allows both individual and team reflection on
the project’s goals, targets, progress, and hits and misses. Documentation creates a path
of knowledge creation that the students undertook while designing and making their
invention (Saarinen et al., 2021), including the decisions made by them at various
phases of the invention process. For teachers, the documentation and reflection con-
tent created by the students provide a tool for assessing their learning during and after
the project (see Chapter 13 of this book for more detail on assessment).

Pictures and Videos

The technological competence of using digital tools for documenting, reflecting,
and sharing is developed gradually. Starting from preschool, students can capture
photos that can be inspected and reflected on together. Both younger and older
108 Tiina Korhonen et al.
students enjoy creating journal- or log-type videos in which they narrate their
project progress. Tools originally developed for making digital books or films, such
as Apple BookCreator and iMovie, offer approachable tools for documentation,
which allow students to create impressive presentations that they can be proud of
easily. Through positive feedback on their presentations, students become more
motivated and enthusiastic regarding their projects.

Portfolios, Cloud Services,Web Pages, and Social Media

While they progress through multiple invention projects, students can start to build
a portfolio of their inventions (see Chapter 13 of this book for more details on
portfolios). A simple digital book creator software is a useful tool for starting with
this activity. Documenting each invention project can progress gradually from the
journaling of the different phases of a project and the iterative shapes of the inven-
tion toward a more reflective approach. The students can first start documenting
their successes and failures and progress in determining their causes as well as their
own learning. As students become more competent, they can start employing more
complex digital tools. For example, students can use a cloud service to build a
shared invention space in the class in which each team documents their project
phases. Students can also engage in blog writing, recording and editing vlogs, or
building their own web pages.
An invention project provides a good opportunity for students to gain techno-
logical competence in communicating to a wider audience outside their own class
or school. Students can share pictures and videos of their projects on the class or
school web pages or on appropriate social media platforms. The sharing of their
digital media creations provides a natural opportunity to discuss safe and appropri-
ate internet practices as well as the concept of digital copyrights. Ideally, the sharing
of inventions on various forums could generate positive social feedback that moti-
vates students to engage with new inventions and to seek further feedback. With
adequate attention to proper user practices, social media can provide an invaluable
tool for developing invention ideas, seeking peer support, and sharing best
practices.
To conclude our discussion on the technological competence framework, it
should be noted that in classroom settings, the dimensions overlap and entangle in
many ways. For example, exploring structures or functionalities of their inventions
develops both students’ technical design competence and engineering competence.
“Software engineering” is situated in the terrain between engineering and pro-
gramming; while applying computational tools, models, and ideas in their inven-
tions, students develop an understanding of the operating principles of software.
Crafting, as well as reflecting, documenting, and sharing dimensions are cross-
cutting in nature, and they overlap with all the other dimensions while students
develop their ideas into material forms and create knowledge through socio-digital
participation. However, considering the dimensions both together and separately
helps teachers and students to perceive the variety of cultivating technological
competence that can be included in invention projects. Further, it supports teach-
ers in planning the projects, as will be elaborated in the following.
 Framework for Technological Competence 109
Technological Competence in Invention Project Planning
A key part of planning an invention project is to determine which technological
skills the students should learn through the project. To inform this planning, the
teacher should survey the preexisting technological knowledge and skills of the
participating students, which may vary widely depending on the students’ interests,
hobbies, and the scope of teaching in the various classes in the school. For example,
when assessing the programming competency of the students, the teacher can
consider students who have already used programming tools in their spare time, as
well as those who have been introduced to programming as a part of their classes.
It is worth noting that one does not have to practice all the competencies at the
same time. Teachers can choose to focus on supporting the development of some
of the competencies based on the goals of the project, students’ age, or their exist-
ing competence. It is similarly important to note that the project planning should
not be overly constrained by considerations regarding the availability of the latest
digital tools and software – the students can learn a variety of technological skills
even with a basic supply of traditional art and craft materials and tools.
It is also important to not limit the learning of technological competence in
innovation projects to a purely linear activity by covering a large body of theoretical
engineering competence before allowing students to design their own project con-
cepts (for example). Presenting endless “basic skills” lessons before the project activ-
ity will bore the students and lead to them losing interest in the project activity
(Schunn, 2009). In an invention project, students learn the competence through
iterative activity, which entails proceeding from a very basic idea of each competence
to a deeper understanding as they apply their current capabilities and realize the
need for additional knowledge and skills to achieve their own project goals. However,
it is worth noting that certain basic skills should be practiced before proceeding to
more demanding applications. For instance, realizing projects that combine crafting
with multiple physical materials or techniques would require mastery over the cor-
responding constituents. Similarly, a basic understanding of software engineering
principles is needed before starting programming activities using visual or text-based
tools. A teacher can address the need for prerequisite knowledge in invention proj-
ects by planning appropriately timed, preparatory “mini-lessons” as needed.

Conclusions
In invention pedagogy, technological competence refers to both the students’ and
teachers’ capability to observe and understand the built technological and digital
environment, readiness to use technology to support personal and group activities,
and possession of skills for using technology as a tool for creativity and innovative-
ness. In this chapter, we proposed and described five dimensions of technological
competence and their embodied learning through invention projects: (1) crafting,
(2) designing, (3) engineering, (4) programming, and (5) reflecting, documenting,
and sharing. Crafting competence is cross-cutting in nature and refers to the knowl-
edge and skills related to the way an invention is fabricated into its physical form.
Designing refers to the knowledge and skills related to the original context and
110 Tiina Korhonen et al.
intention of the form and function of an invention, i.e., its “design.” Engineering
refers to the knowledge and skills related to the optimization of an invention regard-
ing the various constraints or imposed by external factors. Programming compe-
tence refers to the knowledge and skills related to the implementation of computer
programs using programming tools. The reflecting, documenting, and sharing com-
petence is developed throughout the invention process and covers the capabilities to
reflect, create, use, and share the knowledge related to the process and its outcomes.
Underlying the development of this framework is our notion that for both teachers
and researchers, reaching a holistic understanding of technological competence in
invention projects is challenging. Many teachers have limited personal experience of
learning or teaching technological competence within anything that even resembles an
invention project. Thus, they may find it difficult to think about what technological
knowledge and skills are involved in invention projects and how these relate to the
teaching and learning of the other competence described in this book (e.g., creativity,
collaboration, or sustainability competence). Similarly, researchers are in the process of
establishing an understanding of how these embodied, embedded, enactive, and
extended (Newen et al., 2018) competence are developed in everyday school practices.
A joint understanding is developed through an research-practice partnership (RPP)
with teachers who are experts in the pedagogical implementation of technology-
enhanced invention projects.The teachers’ ability to support age-appropriate and cur-
riculum-based development of technological competence, and to fit the project into
the restricted time, space, and material resources of schools, is essential when planning
the skills that are to be practiced in invention projects.With the help of this framework,
our goal is to continue to support and research the development of teachers’ pedagogi-
cal skills and practices related to the technological competence involved in invention
projects. Above all, our future goal is to explore how our framework supports the
development of teachers’ pedagogical competence and epistemic technological knowl-
edge (see Chapter 15 of this book) and how this affects students’ learning.

References
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers:The new industrial revolution. Random House.
Binkley, M., Estad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Brumble, M.
(2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of
invention. In C. Büching, & J. Walter-Herrmann (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers and
inventors (pp. 203–222). Transcript. https://doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839423820
Blikstein, P (2015). Computationally enhanced toolkits for children: Historical review and
a framework for future design. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1),
1–68. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000057
Cadzen, C. (1997). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the
zone of proximal development. In M. Cole,Y. Engeström, & O.Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, cul-
ture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 303–
310). Cambridge University Press.
 Framework for Technological Competence 111

Ceylan, Ş., Zeynep, Sonay A., & Seyit, A. K. (2020). A design-oriented STEM activity for
students’ using and improving their engineering skills:The balance model with 3D printer.
Science Activities, 57(2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2020.1805581
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies intelligence. Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5
Dakers, J. R. (2018). Nomadology: A lens to explore the concept of technological literacy. In
M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 17–31). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5
Davies, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022). Idea generation and knowledge
creation through maker practices in an artifact-mediated collaborative invention project [Manuscript
submitted for publication]. University of Helsinki.
De Vries, M. J. (2018). Philosophy of technology: Themes and topics. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.),
Handbook of technology education (pp. 7–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-44687-5
Dotger, S. (2008). Using simple machines to leverage learning. Science and Children, 45(7), 22.
Finnish National Agency for Education [FNAE]. (2014). Finnish national core-curriculum of
pre-primary education. Finnish National Agency for Education, Publications 2016:6.
Finnish National Agency for Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic
education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education, Publications 2016: 5.
Fortus, D., Dershirmer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlo-Naaman, R. (2004).
Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10),
1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040
Goel,V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3),
395–429. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3
Hakkarainen, K., Hietajärvi, L., Alho, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2015). Sociodigital
revolution: Digital natives vs digital immigrants. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclo-
pedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 22, pp. 918–923). Elsevier Scientific
Publ. Co. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26094-7
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard
Educational Review,84(4),495–504.https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
Hope, G. (2005). The types of drawings that young children produce in response to design
tasks. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10(1), 43–53.
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEAA] (2020). Standards
for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM educa-
tion. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-
Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design.
Digital Media and Learning. Research Hub.
Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology educa-
tion: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
23(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of
making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1
080/00461520.2015.1124022
Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented
approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices,
and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1),
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576874
112 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory
competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 89–119.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383211
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design thinking in ele-
mentary students’ collaborative lamp designing process. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 18(1), 30–43. http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/
article/view/1798/1732
Kangas, K., Sormunen, K., & Korhonen, T. (2022). Creative learning with technologies in
young students’ STEAM education. In S. Papadakis, & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), STEM,
robotics, mobile apps in early childhood and primary education—Technology to promote teaching
and learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_9
Kokko, S., Kouhia, A., & Kangas, K. (2020). Finnish craft education in turbulence: Conflicting
debates on the current national core curriculum. Techne Series: Research in Sloyd Education and
Craft Science, 27(1), 1–19. https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/3562
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003).
Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science class-
room: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4),
495–547 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
Korhonen,T., Seitamaa, A., Salonen,V.,Tiippana, N., Laakso, N., Lavonen, J., & Hakkarainen,
K. (forthcoming). Sociodigital practices, competence, mindset and profiles of Finnish
students before and after Covid 19 distance learning period.
Korhonen, T., Tiippana, N. M., Laakso, N. L., Meriläinen, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020).
Growing mind: Sociodigital participation in and out of the school context: Students’
experiences 2019. https://doi.org/10.31885/9789515150189
Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet
the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
25(2), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2
Krajcik, J., & Delen, İ. (2017). Engaging learners in STEM education. Eesti Haridusteaduste
Ajakiri.Estonian Journal of Education,5(1),35–58.https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2017.5.1.02b
Laakso, N., Korhonen, T., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Developing students’ digital compe-
tences through collaborative game design. Computers & Education, 174, 104308. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104308
Laamanen, T. K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2014). Constraining the open-ended design
task by interpreting sources of inspiration. Art, Design and Communication in Higher
Education, 13(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.13.2.135_1
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xio, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A
systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(11).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
Litts, B. K., Kafai, Y. B., Lui, D. A., Walker, J. T., & Widman, S. A. (2017). Stitching codeable
circuits: High school students’ learning about circuitry and coding with electronic tex-
tiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10956-017-9694-0
MacDonald, D., Gustafson, B. J., & Gentilini, S. (2007). Enhancing children’s drawing in
design technology planning and making. Research in Science & Technological Education,
25(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140601053500
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2019). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the
classroom (2nd ed.). Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020a).
Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary
school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12942
 Framework for Technological Competence 113
Mehto,V., Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Kangas, K. (2020b). Sociomateriality of
collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker-centered learning.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 26, 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2020.100209
Nadelson, L. S., Pfiester, J., Callahan, J., & Pyke, P. (2015).Who is doing the engineering, the
student or the teacher? The development and use of a rubric to categorize level of design
for the elementary classroom. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 22–45. http://doi.
org/10.21061/jte.v26i2.a.2
Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (2018). 4E cognition: Historical roots, key concepts,
and central issues. In A. Newen, L. De Bruin., & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of 4E cognition (pp. 1–16). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.1
Oke, A., & Fernandes, F. A. P. (2020). Innovations in teaching and learning: Exploring the
perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/
joitmc6020031
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. W. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of tech-
nology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433–474. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Osbourne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in
Science & Technological Education, 1(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514830010108
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In Seng
Chee Tan, Hyo Jeong So, & Jennifer Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 53–73).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87).
Cambridge University Press.
Pei, E., Campbell, I. R., & Evans, M. A. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design
representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. Design Journal,
14(1), 64–91. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630610X12877385838803
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmen-
tal perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0953-5438(03)00058-4
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators:
DigCompEdu. Y. Punie (Ed.), EUR 28775 EN. Publications Office of the European
Union, JRC107466. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen,T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,
P. (2020a). The development of pedagogical infrastructures in three cycles of maker-cen-
tered learning projects. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(2),
29–49. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2782
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020b). Bringing maker prac-
tices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’ col-
laborative making processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 15(3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learn-
ing: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11412-012-9144-1
Saari, A., & Säntti, J. 2018. The rhetoric of the ‘digital leap’ in Finnish educational policy
documents. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 442–457. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1474904117721373
114 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Saarinen, A., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Long-term use of ePort-
folios in craft education among elementary school students: Reflecting the level and type
of craft learning activities. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 26(1),
12–28. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2911
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Smart technology for self-organizing processes. Smart
Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0001-8
Schunn, C. D. (2009). How kids learn engineering: The cognitive science perspective. The
Bridge,39(3).https://www.nae.edu/16214/How-Kids-Learn-Engineering-The-Cognitive-
Science-Perspective
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2001). Composition and construction in experts’ and novices’ weav-
ing design. Design Studies, 22(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00038-1
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Visualization and sketching in the
design process.The Design Journal,3(1),3–14.https://doi.org/10.2752/146069200789393544
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative
designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 20, 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9066-4
Stylianidou, F., Glauert, E., Rossis, D., Compton, A., Cremin,T., Craft, A., & Havu-Nuutinen,
S. (2018). Fostering inquiry and creativity in early years STEM education: Policy recom-
mendations from the Creative Little Scientists project. European Journal of STEM Education,
3(3), 15. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3875
Tanhua-Piiroinen, E., Kaarakainen, S.-S., Kaarakainen, M.-T., & Viteli, J. (2020). Digiajan
peruskoulu II [Primary and secondary level school in the digital era]. Valtioneuvoston
­selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 17/2020. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/
bitstream/handle/10024/162236/OKM_2020_17.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Tanhua-Piiroinen, E., Kaarakainen, S.-S., Kaarakainen, M.-T., Viteli, J., Syvänen, A., &
Kivinen, A. (2019). Digiajan peruskoulu [Primary and secondary level school in the digital
era].Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 6/2019. http://julkaisut.
valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161383/6-2019-Digiajan%20peruskoulu_.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Taylor, J.A. (2001). Using a practical context to encourage conceptual change: An instruc-
tional sequence in bicycle science. School Science and Mathematics, 101(3), 117–124. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18014.x
Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer?
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 125–148. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1008991319644
Yoo,Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the
digitized world.Organization Science,23(5),1398–1408.https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
Yrjönsuuri,V., Kangas, K., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2019).The roles of
material prototyping in collaborative design process at an elementary school. Design and
Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 141–162. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/
DATE/article/view/2585
Part II

Facilitating the Invention

Process

The facilitation of multifaceted, phenomenon-based invention projects constantly

seeks balance between openness and structure. The task for teachers who design,
structure, and orchestrate invention projects is to guide student groups in setting
goals, team activities, and interactions with consideration of students’ individual
needs and the nonlinear nature of the invention process.The facilitation of projects
is supported by teachers’ teamwork and tutor-student collaboration.
The second part of this book explores invention pedagogy from the viewpoint
of facilitation and answers the questions of how invention projects are planned,
implemented, and evaluated. The part begins by delving into the designing, struc-
turing, and orchestrating of the invention process. Further, the chapters in this part
highlight the importance of team teaching and cross-age peer tutoring in inven-
tion projects and address the questions concerning student evaluation in nonlinear
learning.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-10
9 Designing and Structuring the
Invention Process
Kati Sormunen, Kaiju Kangas,Tiina Korhonen, and
Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen

Introduction
Implementing an invention project at school and intertwining it with transdisci-
plinary curriculum contents can be challenging and require much effort from the
teachers. Further, many Nordic countries have revised their K–12 curricula for
education to provide knowledge that reflects current and future society. It has
raised a question of how to develop the professionalism of the teachers and the
student teachers to address new needs of curriculum change and digital competen-
cies (Kjällander et al., 2018). Especially when implementation of new fabrication
technologies in formal school settings is in its initial stages, maker projects have not
yet built up to the clearly defined best practices.
The teacher has a crucial role in developing students’ creative and innovative
qualities and habits by engaging them in participating in the sociocultural world
through authentic making activities (Härkki et al., 2021). Invention projects are not
based on a distinct subject but on skills that can be integrated into many disciplines.
The meaning of the invention projects is built on transdisciplinary and engaging
learning activities, but the implementation of these projects needs careful planning,
designing, scaffolding, and support. The challenges are related to the transdisci-
plinary nature of nonlinear invention projects, new curriculum changes, projects’
structures, and teachers’ collaboration. The challenges include teachers’ competen-
cies in teaching new digital tools and how fabrication technologies are introduced
into existing school environments. Also, teachers might not have personal experi-
ence with these novel ways of learning.
Previous studies have revealed that teachers need pedagogical support for practi-
cal examples, models, and structures to design and conduct meaningful maker proj-
ects (Andersen & Pitkänen, 2019; Smith et al., 2016). In our research projects, we
have worked closely with teachers in the field and organized workshops aimed at
developing teaching practices by modeling invention project phases, supporting
teachers’ digital competencies to implement invention projects in their schools,
and getting familiar with pedagogical practices of team teaching (Härkki et al.,
2021; see also Chapter 11 of this book). Similarly, the teacher education program
addresses the same needs. The invention projects challenge student teachers’ exist-
ing competencies, and there is a need for a framework that considers how inven-
tion projects need to be designed and what significant components and phases they

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-11
118 Kati Sormunen et al.
should consist of to be appealing to various kinds of learners. In several workshops
and courses in the teacher education program, we have introduced design princi-
ples and models for nonlinear learning projects complying with the National Core
Curriculum for Basic Education (Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE],
2016) policies and providing practical training for relevant digital technologies
such as e-textile, programming, and robotics. A fundamental principle has been to
engage and empower teachers and student teachers to innovate invention projects
rather than to implement them directly (Andersen & Pitkänen, 2019; Kjällander et
al., 2018). In this chapter, the invention pedagogy process model is based on
research-based models of project-based engineering and learning by collaborative
design (LCD). As a practical example of professional development of teaching new
pedagogies, since 2016 we have been using the invention pedagogy course orga-
nized annually for master’s-level teacher education students.

Pedagogical Processes for Invention

In an invention project, the work is guided by an open problem, which becomes
more precise as the solution develops. Students work actively together toward a
common object.The intermediate stages of the process (ideas) and the final output
(the solution) are modeled with different artifacts. Perceiving the holistic view of
the invention process helps both teachers plan activities and students in their work.
It also enables teachers to facilitate, mentor, and supervise students’ collaborative
learning process (Jenkins et al., 2003; Stamovlasis et al., 2006). The invention proj-
ects are often longitudinal and can last from a few months to an academic year to
provide enough opportunities to develop and experiment with common ideas
through several iterative invention cycles. The first invention projects are often
shorter experiments in which the skills needed to invent are practiced, and they
can be implemented by organizing a one-week invention week. Such short exper-
iments allow the teacher to experiment with structures that support students’
active participation and for students to perceive how the project is progressing and
learn what is expected of them. Learning can be supported by various participa-
tory models and methods that highlight the steps of a nonlinear process typical of
an invention process. Models are helpful, especially in project design, even if the
invention process does not proceed linearly from start to finish in stages.
Several models and methods are suitable for the pedagogy of invention in which
the student is an active actor (e.g., Krajcik & Shin, 2019; Schwarz et al., 2016;
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). At its simplest, an inventing process can be
encapsulated into three steps: think, make, and improve (Martinez & Stager, 2019).
Martinez and Stager (2019) based the process on the “learning by making” con-
cept, in which making stands for working with tools and materials; tinkering for a
playful mindset with problem-solving, experimentation, and discovery; and engi-
neering for the “application of scientific principles to design, build, and invent”
(Martinez & Stager, 2019). However, relying on learning sciences research, we
argue that students also need to learn how to construct their understandings
actively, make connections between disciplines, and apply them by working with
and using ideas in real-world contexts (Sawyer, 2019). To this end, the teacher and
 Designing and Structuring 119
the student need more detailed process phases, especially in early experiments, to
identify related disciplinary practices and orient their work in the direction of an
open-ended problem. Since the invention projects often emphasize science and
craft and technology education, we have framed the pedagogical process of invent-
ing on the project-based learning (PBL) that connects scientific and engineering
practices as well as the LCD model in which knowledge creation is enrichened
with design practices (Figure 9.1). Although created in different disciplinary con-
texts, the selected process models are close.

The Project-Based Engineering Process

The PBL is widely used globally and is also applied in Finnish science education
(Sormunen et al., 2020) and various STEM or STEAM projects. PBL has its roots
in Dewey’s (1959) idea of real-world problems capturing students’ interest and
provoking serious thinking as the students acquire and apply new knowledge in a
problem-solving context. Learning scholars (e.g., Krajcik & Shin, 2019) have
refined Dewey’s original idea that active inquiry produces deep learning. PBL is
based on an active construction of knowledge by participating in real-world activi-
ties, experiencing phenomena in various scientific practices, constructing shared
understanding in collaboration with teachers, students, and community members,
and using cognitive tools to support students’ problem-solving skills.
Figure 9.1 depicts the project-based engineering process, which emphasizes the
engineering practices that are essential in solving real-world problems and creating
artifacts. It is cultivated from the PBL process moving through overlapping phases
(Krajcik & Shin, 2019). The process is initiated by asking and refining questions,
but when the emphasis is on designing and engineering, the process begins with
identifying a problem, which can direct learning in numerous directions (Krajcik
& Delen, 2017; Krajcik & Shin, 2019). However, emerging real-world questions
and teacher-set learning goals guided the project throughout the process: Students
search for solutions in collaboration with their peers by designing and conducting
investigations and gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information and data.
Students are scaffolded with learning technologies to solve emerging problems
during the inquiry process and to help them move beyond the information gath-
ered toward a tangible artifact. Students’ learning is visible by creating shared arti-
facts and reporting on the process. During the project-based engineering process,
they learn about and apply scientific concepts, principles, and practices, much like
in the complex social situations of expert problem-solving (Krajcik & Shin, 2019).
Many methods and models focus on engaging students in design to learn science,
but we claim that design as its own discipline has its own design practices that need
to be emphasized, such as the role of external constraints and various mediums for
external representations.

The Learning by Collaborative Design Model

Previously, we have developed the LCD model to facilitate design processes and
students’ design thinking (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). Theoretically, the
120 Kati Sormunen et al.
Project-based engineering process

Asking questions
Creating artifacts
and defining
and reporting
problems

Scaffolding Applying scientific

Focus on
with learning concepsts, principles
learning goals
technologies and practices

Gathering, analyzing Designing and

and interpreting conducting
information and data investigations

Learning by collaborative design model

Creating
conceptual and visual
Defining design ideas
design task and Evaluating ideas
design constraints and constraints

Connection to
Creating
Distributed expertise expert culture and
design context
data collection

Elaboration Experimenting and

of design and testing design ideas
re-design (sketching and
prototyping)
Evaluating function
of prototype

Figure 9.1 The project-based engineering process modified from Krajcik and Delen (2017)
and Krajcik and Shin (2019), and the LCD model modified from Seitamaa-
Hakkarainen et al. (2010).
 Designing and Structuring 121
LCD model is based on academic concepts of progressive inquiry and design
thinking (Cross, 2011). According to Cross (2011), design thinking can be seen as
a designer-like way of knowing: designers need to have the capability to define,
redefine, and change a given problem situation through design activities. In the
design process, problems and solutions co-evolve, and designers problem-solve in
solution-focused tackling of ill-defined design challenges (Cross, 2011).Within the
LCD model, the design integrates thoughts and actions, and designers navigate
complex and messy design situations through iterative reflection-in-action and the
creation of various external representations and material prototypes. The aim of
the LCD model is to engage the students in collaboration toward an explorative
and iterative design process to generate knowledge through making (Seitamaa-
Hakkarainen et al., 2010). Thus, the LCD model emphasizes the socio-material
aspects of designing: how conceptual design ideas are cyclically developed through
various visual sketches, mock-ups, and prototypes toward final artifacts. The model
describes the design process as a spiral in nature by approaching the optimal design
iteratively through successive design cycles. In the LCD model, a starting point is
an idea in which all participants are working to develop the shared design object
by sharing their expertise socially.The model emphasizes that collaboration should
occur at all stages of the design process by creating shared design contexts, analyz-
ing design constraints, collecting, and sharing new knowledge, prototyping, and
providing feedback for the artifacts being designed. The question is not simply to
divide labor between various parts of the overall design project, but the whole
design team has a central role in this activity.
The LCD process starts with all participants performing a joint analysis of the
design task and design context. They must analyze the design constraints (i.e.,
external requirements).Various, sometimes conflicting, factors that affect the design
process and define its requirements must be considered when framing the design
context. The design constraints form the design context by defining the intended
users and their unique needs for the artifact, the function of the artifact, and the
resources available. The efforts of the participants are organized toward developing
shared design ideas (conceptual artifacts), embodying and explaining those ideas in
visual sketches (graphic artifacts or inscriptions), and giving the ideas a material
form as prototypes or results (e.g., produced products). The design process appears
mediated by the shared artifacts being designed from the beginning to the end.
Thus, constant cycles of idea generation and testing of design ideas by visual mod-
eling or prototyping characterize the design process.

The Invention Pedagogy Process Model

Both previously presented models have been the backbone when we developed
our invention pedagogy process model. Both project-based engineering and LCD
models are well known in Finland, and we have introduced them in our workshops
for teachers in the field and teacher education courses. Both models view the
complete science or design process as involving several phases.The invention peda-
gogy process model has been developed in research-practice collaboration since
2015.Through over 50 invention projects organized in early childhood and school
122 Kati Sormunen et al.
settings, we have found that the classes benefit from a well-structured and designed
project plan and a visual process model that structure students’ open-ended, non-
linear creative processes. Nonlinear learning does not mean aimless and unre-
stricted activities, but the process requires clear planning and structuring. Based on
participants’ experiences and research findings, we have designed, tested, refined,
and developed the invention pedagogy process model (Figure 9.2), which follows
a seven-phase path: (1) orientation to the topic and work; (2) defining the inven-
tion challenge; (3) brainstorming, information gathering, and evaluation of ideas;
(4) testing and developing the chosen idea; (5) evaluation and approval of the plan;
(6) modification, implementation, and fabrication of the artifact; and (7) presenta-
tion and evaluation of the work. Understanding the holistic invention process helps
teachers and students to work.
Careful planning is essential in the implementation of invention projects. A proj-
ect’s planning considers the various phases of the process. It ensures that some of
the tools, materials, and content used during the process and the skills required are
already familiar to the students. These cannot be entirely determined in advance,
but the teacher can ensure that students are not overburdened with new content
and skills to be learned in the assignment. When planning invention projects, it is
worth considering the boundary conditions of the project, which are based on the
skills of the participating students and the available resources.The larger the project
is, the more it requires teachers’ well-designed orchestration. It is worth outlining
the project schedule and phases when planning a project. The plan is unlikely to
materialize as expected, but it will help teachers and students to understand the use
of time and the extent of the output to be implemented. In addition, it is necessary
to consider how to involve students in the planning of the project. Preplanning also

Defining Brainstorming,
the invention information gathering,
challenge and evaluation
of ideas

Orientation to the Testing

topic and work and developing
the chosen idea
Distributed
expertise

Presentation Evaluation
and evaluation and approval
of the work of the plan
Modification
implementation
and fabrication
of the artifact

Figure 9.2 The invention pedagogy process model

 Designing and Structuring 123
helps to assess whether students have the skills to use the tools needed to work.
These issues are discussed further in the next chapter (see Chapter 10 of this book).

Case: Invention Pedagogy in Teacher Education Course

This case example illustrates how the implementation of the invention pedagogy
process model was taught to teacher education students. Teacher education has a
crucial role in supporting teachers’ learning of new knowledge and competencies
that they may not have learned in their initial days (Lavonen, 2021). Therefore, it is
essential to connect novel development and research findings like designing and
structuring the invention process to the teacher education program. In Finland, the
high quality of education is based on university-level teacher education, equipping
teachers with deep and broad research-based professional knowledge and skills
(Lavonen, 2021). When entering the field, they have the competencies to phase
practical challenges, apply research-based knowledge about teaching and learning,
and develop their expertise further (Lavonen, 2021).

Invention Pedagogy Course Design

The invention pedagogy course (five credit points, optional studies) was organized
at the University of Helsinki for master’s level teacher education students following
the principles of research-based teacher education. The objectives of the course
were to become acquainted with the pedagogical aspects and components of
invention pedagogy, become familiar with research and practices in the field, and
plan and implement transdisciplinary and phenomenon-based teaching that uti-
lizes pedagogical approaches to maker and design education. The main goal was
that after completing the course, the student teachers could design, apply, and
develop learning entities that support creative invention.
The course design began with an orientation lecture (1.5 hours) on the theo-
retical basis of invention and maker pedagogy and two three-hour sessions during
which student teachers learned technology orientations of inventing. After these
orientation sessions, the students participated in the invention pedagogy workshop,
including four three-hour sessions that followed the invention pedagogy process
model. Student teachers kept a learning diary during the course and an invention
process portfolio during the invention process sessions. In both, they mirrored their
experiences with national and international articles.
The rationale was that teachers or student teachers have rarely been involved in
nonlinear and open-ended design projects addressing real-life contexts and lack the
experience to manage such processes (Andersen & Pitkänen, 2019; Smith et al., 2016).
Further, within short technology sessions, we guaranteed that they have some under-
standing of digital tools and materials to work while inventing. Further, by the invention
pedagogy process model structure, we can demonstrate and provide student teachers
with their own experiences from a learner’s perspective.We have used a similar approach
with similar content in all our workshops for teachers in the field. In the following, we
present the invention pedagogy process model through these course sessions, enriching
them with examples from course implementation and teacher-student portfolio entries.
124 Kati Sormunen et al.
The Phases of the Invention Pedagogy Process
The actual invention process was introduced to the student teachers in the fourth
session, in which they participated in the teacher-led process. To design the struc-
ture of the invention process, the teacher educator used research-based good prac-
tices gained from several co-invention research projects conducted at schools.

Orientation to the Topic and Work

The invention process begins with an orientation phase in which group work is set
up. The creative process requires a creative atmosphere (Fisher, 2014) in which
group members encourage and support each other, so it is worth doing exercises
that help grouping for the first few times.

Orientation to Work and Building Team Spirit.The invention pedagogy workshop

began with a group exercise aimed at building team spirit and tracing and
making visible the knowledge and skills of the group. The teacher had pre-
pared a list of words that described the strengths and skills needed during the
project. First, the student teachers chose three to five words that represented
them. Then we grouped them into teams of four, and each student presented
their strengths and skills to the other group members.The team’s final task was
to visualize their group’s strengths using the word cloud or graphic design
tools.
Orientation to the Topic. Before the workshop, the student teachers had to do
an orientation task to envision the future (Perttula & Sääskilahti, 2004). The
assignment was as follows: “You travel in time, first, five years, then 50 and 100
years onwards. You are standing in a place where the kitchen of a Finnish
home was in 2021. Fill in the worksheet: What do you see around you when
you look at (1) the kitchen as a space, (2) the person in the kitchen, and (3) the
technology?” The student teachers discussed their envisioning in their teams
and gathered a common vision using Google Jamboard.

Defining the Invention Challenge

After orientation, an invention challenge is determined, and the teams set out to
find a solution. The form of the challenge and design constraints (Cross, 2011) has
a vital role for students: It should be challenging enough to engage in problem-
solving but not too hard for them to follow the challenge independently. When
implementing an invention project for the first time, starting with a limited topic
is recommended. It is also necessary to plan the goal of content and skills pursued
in learning.

The invention challenge was introduced to student teachers using a recent news-
paper article about how stress negatively influences people’s eating habits.
Student teachers defined the concept of eating habits so that everyone had an
understanding of the subject and listed lousy eating habits on sticky notes.
 Designing and Structuring 125
The goal was to bring together as many perspectives as possible for the next
phase. Finally, the teacher educator introduced the actual invention challenge:
“How will unhealthy eating habits affect humankind if we ignore our habits?”
The teacher educator used a picture of morbidly obese humans from the
Wall-E movie to evoke thoughts.

Brainstorming, Information Gathering, and Evaluation of Ideas

At the beginning of the brainstorming phase, students throw in ideas, i.e., they try
to produce as many crazy and playful ideas as possible. In this phase, it is worth
utilizing various ideation methods and encouraging students to familiarize them-
selves with previous applications of the research subject (see Chapter 5 of this
book). Information gathering provides new perspectives on ideation. At this stage,
students try to delineate the problem by evaluating the ideas produced and consid-
ering the boundaries set by the teacher for the invention challenge. These can
include the tools or materials available or the conditions set by the teacher in rela-
tion to the teaching objectives.

The brainstorming session began with the automation and robotics ideation
connected to the visions of the future kitchen from the previous phase. The
teacher educator reviewed the most common sensors (e.g., temperature
sensor, motion sensor, light sensor, and touch sensor), and the student teach-
ers became familiar with the operating principles of the sensors. Then a
distant model ideation method was used, and the teams tried to find inspi-
ration for the design problem using distance domains. In this case, the
teams looked at the analogies using the Wall-E robot and its features and
properties.

1. A distance model: In the first stage, the teams produced at least five qualities
from the image of a distant model (e.g., expressive, compassionate, able to
stretch the “hand”).
2. An “insanely fun” idea: In the second stage, the team produced five insanely
fun apps based on their features (e.g., a human-like product that looks nice,
makes good choices, and jokes quite often. It can pick up stuff with telescopic
hands and tell jokes when it brings food).
3. A plausible solution: In the third phase, the teams develop one workable
solution (e.g., a Miracle Machine, which makes the day’s meals and encourages
good eating habits). The plausible solution had to fulfill one condition: The
object of the invention had to be a product from which teams could build a
prototype by using the skills acquired.

Testing and Developing the Chosen Idea

When the team has defined the problem, they evaluate ideas further by experi-
menting, testing, and redefining ideas.They may have one or more ideas before the
group decides on the final subject of the invention.
126 Kati Sormunen et al.
The student teachers had to make a design plan for the invention and a prototype
to test and develop the idea. The design plan must include a sketch or blueprint
and a description of the invention’s functions. The teams also had to plan how
they would utilize the technology in the product and what materials they would
use to make it. Student teachers were encouraged to share tasks (e.g., program-
mer, designer, and prototype builder). Also, the teacher educator introduced the
student teachers to the materials that were available for making the prototype. At
this point, the educator also connected the content of technology education
from the curriculum as conditions. Student teachers were required to use at least
one of the technology dimensions learned in their work (e.g., 3D modeling,
electronic and maker kits, simple machines, electricity, or app development soft-
ware). Figure 9.3 illustrates one student teacher team’s invention idea, the
Empathetic Reminder, with excerpts from one team member’s portfolio entries.

It is worth including digital tools the students are familiar with in the invention
project. Otherwise, a large portion of the time is spent learning the basic use of the
device. When students are already familiar with the tools, materials, contents, and
skills required, they can deepen their knowledge or create something new.Teachers
can also include some new elements, but it is necessary to consider what is being
practiced or learned and what aspects are to be deepened when drawing up learn-
ing objectives. Especially when working with new technology, students benefit
from a one-hour introduction to the tool. For example, if the learning objectives
involve the creative use of a programmable device, the teacher should carefully
teach the students the basic use of the device. As work methods and tools become
familiar, it is natural for teachers to expand on the topics and guide the work.

The Empathetic Reminder

The Empathetic reminder blinks the lights and makes funny moves. It reminds
me to eat every three hours. The device also talks to other kitchen equipment.
p , it makes food
For example, f f
in the future kitchen, that is, fries worms.
Weight at the Weight
tip of the Servo
beak motor

Lever
mechanism

Idea sketch: We could make the mock-up Technical drawing: We could mimic walking with a
with Tinkercad and 3D print it. At school, each servo motor. It could also dance or shake. We could
student could customize the product's look and play Stayin' Alive in the background. This silly and
think about how to make it move. funny reminder gets you in a good mood.

Figure 9.3 A student teacher team’s idea sketch and technical drawing of their invention idea.
 Designing and Structuring 127
Evaluation and Approval of the Plan
Students present their idea to other students in a class or experts during the evalu-
ation phase and receive feedback. Based on the feedback, the teams refine the plan
of the object of the invention. They also collectively accept the final artifact to be
implemented.

Student teachers presented the plan and prototype of their invention idea to
others whom the teacher educator asked to give one piece of positive feed-
back and one development proposal. Positive feedback was intended to help
teams identify workable solutions, while development suggestions helped
teams develop their inventions.

The peer feedback given and received during the invention project helps students
understand their studying (process) and learning (outcome) and identify their skills
and areas in which skills were not yet sufficient. Students also learn to correct their
mistakes and develop their work to achieve the goals set for competence and learn-
ing. Giving and evaluating feedback can be done verbally or in writing.

Modification, Implementation, and Fabrication of the Artifact

The team makes prototypes, models, or products based on their ideas and plans.
These artifacts can be business models, various presentations, or hand-touch prod-
ucts.The value of the models and intermediate outputs is that they make it possible
to look at the solution from a new and different perspective. It makes it easier for
students to detect the solution’s functionality or the need for further development.
Often, the invention process does not proceed linearly from start to finish in stages.
Especially at this stage of implementation, it can be noticed if the chosen solution
does not work, in which case it can be revisited to come up with new solutions
and/or modify the plan.

When working with groups of students, teams would typically set out at this
stage to further develop their inventions based on peer feedback. However,
because the aim of the invention pedagogy course is to apply the invention
pedagogy at schools, the student teachers set out to work on an invention
process plan for students, basing it on their own invention process experience.
The task was to produce a project plan in groups and a related prototype (i.e.,
a model of the final output). The student teachers received support materials
for planning, e.g., project guidance, project topic selection, student-level
brainstorming, planning, design, and technology use. The materials included
both literature and inspiration videos or pictures. The student teachers made
their project plans on a template, which guided them (e.g., setting goals).
The course ended with an invention fair in which students presented their
plans and prototypes to others. One student teacher group elaborated their
innovation idea, the Empathetic Reminder further (Figure 9.3), by developing
an invention project titled Everyday Eco-machine for fifth and sixth graders.
128 Kati Sormunen et al.

The Zero Waste Composting Machine

Elegantly designed composting machine fits in
the kitchen. The machine grinds the food waste
into small pieces in the top tank and adds
composting accelerators to the pulp.
It also separates the excess liquid into a lower
tank, where it is evaporated into water that you
can use to irrigate plants.
The food waste is composted
in two days. The container is
tight, so the machine is
odorless.

Figure 9.4 The prototype of sixth graders’ invention solution: The zero waste composting
machine.

“The idea is that student teams design the future machine that can solve
food and environmental challenges. The machine prototype is built from
recycled materials. In addition, one or more functions or features are modeled
on the prototype on the Adafruit Circuit Playground. A portfolio is compiled
of the stages of the work. Finally, teams will present the inventions at the
Invention Fair.”
(Student teacher’s portfolio entry)

The teacher-student team’s invention solution for the project is presented in Figure
9.4. Pictured is a drawing of artifacts made from students’ recycled materials and an
excerpt from one team member’s portfolio entry.
An invention fair is an event at which students present the invention and its
phases to the audience and receive feedback on their work. The audience can
consist of other students in the class or school, parents, experts, or teams from other
schools in bigger invention fairs. Before the fair, student teams plan the presenta-
tion, prepare an inspiring presentation, and practice presenting it. The invention
process portfolio helps teams in this process. The invention fair can be held either
during or at the end of an invention project. When the fair is held during the
project, the presentation will focus on presenting the prototype of the invention. At
the end of the project, student teams will present both the process and the finished
inventions at the fair. The fair also provides a natural endpoint for the project.

Conclusion
The education of future creators and inventors emphasizes open-ended learning
tasks in which students apply learned knowledge and skills to learn more in col-
laboration with their peers. The teacher’s most important responsibility in these
learning projects is to realize transdisciplinary learning. The goal is that no subject
 Designing and Structuring 129
alone guides the learning process, but they are seamlessly combined into a holistic
unit that is strongly connected to the real world. Often, transdisciplinary learning
projects are driven by a pedagogical model developed in the context of a single
subject or discipline. However, our goal has been to create a pedagogical model
that supports the learning of today and the future in which activities that disrupt
subject boundaries are possible. This chapter introduced the invention pedagogy
process model based on the project-based engineering process and LCD models
highlighting knowledge creation, science, engineering, and design practices. The
end goal is to support the teacher and student teachers in designing pedagogically
meaningful learning activities and engaging and getting the first experience of an
explorative and open-ended process.
According to Smith et al. (2016), teachers have insufficient understanding of
complex design processes and awareness of digital technologies and tools, and con-
sequently, they experience a loss of authority and control of the teaching (Andersen
& Pitkänen 2019; Härkki et al., 2021). We have developed a model of transdisci-
plinary cooperation in which the disciplines provide an inspiring context. The
invention process model makes it easy for the teacher to lead the learning process
in the classroom and provides the possibility to change traditional teaching meth-
ods in the school. When organizing workshops and courses related to invention
pedagogy, we have aimed to empower teachers and student teachers to increase
their understanding of invention pedagogy and related technologies in a way that
strengthens their capability to try and take control of unfamiliar and unexpected
aspects of the design process and to feel more confident applying it in their teach-
ing. Also, the research-practice partnership (Coburn & Penuel, 2016) has allowed
us to involve more teacher practitioners that were initially unfamiliar with the
maker technologies and principles of nonlinear invention pedagogy.This opportu-
nity has made it possible to support teachers during the invention projects we have
initiated together.
It is self-evident that there are plenty of other design or maker-centered learning
process models, such as design thinking (IDEO), that emphasize participatory and
emphatic designing with users (see Chapter 5 of this book).We strongly encourage
teachers and student teachers to familiarize themselves with these models and learn
to find suitable tools to apply in their invention projects. Similarly, we support the
teachers and student teachers in using various design materials and technologies in
the design process.
Guiding open-ended learning assignments is often challenging for teachers,
especially if they are leading the project for the first time. Although the invention
challenge should be connected to the curriculum, at the same time, students should
be given opportunities to work in the direction of their vision. A range of peda-
gogical models facilitate the teacher’s designing and orchestration of work and help
to anticipate challenges that students might encounter. Especially for teachers
guiding a nonlinear learning process for the first time, the model helps outline the
learning entity. For this reason, student teachers must gain firsthand experience
with open-curricular learning tasks and nonlinear learning processes in teacher
education.
130 Kati Sormunen et al.
References
Andersen, H. V., & Pitkänen, K. (2019). Empowering educators by developing professional
practice in digital fabrication and design thinking. International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction, 21, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.03.001
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnership in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45, 48–54. https://doi.
org/10.3102%2F0013189X16631750
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education. Teachers College Press.
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Fisher, R. (2014). Teaching children to think (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Härkki,T.,Vartiainen, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Co-teaching in
non-linear projects: A contextualized model of co-teaching to support educational change.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 97(1),1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103188
Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning
works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 279–292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900302
Kjällander, S., Åkerfeldt, A., Mannila, L., & Parnes, P. (2018). Makerspaces across settings:
Didactic design for programming in formal and informal teacher education in the Nordic
countries. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 18–30. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/21532974.2017.1387831
Krajcik, J., & Delen, İ. (2017). Engaging learners in STEM education. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri.
Estonian Journal of Education, 5(1), 35–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/eha.2017.5.1.02b
Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2019). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., 8th printing, pp. 275–297). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.006
Lavonen, J. (2021). Design and implementation of the national aims for Finnish teacher education
during 2016–2019. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A.Toom (Eds.), Good teachers for
tomorrow’s schools: Purpose, values, and talents in education (pp. 75–90). (Moral Development and
Citizenship Education;Vol. 16). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465008_005
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2019). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the
classroom (2nd ed.). Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Perttula, M. K., & Sääskilahti, M. T. (2004). Product concept development and a conscious
resource. In T. Lehtonen, A. Pulkkinen, & A. Riitahuhta (Eds.), Proceedings of NordDesign
2004 conference (pp. 42–50).Tampere, Finland, 18.–20.08.2004. https://www.designsociety.
org/publication/29227/PRODUCT+CONCEPT+DEVELOPMENT+AS+A+
CONSCIOUS+RESOURCE
Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.). (2019). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., 8th print-
ing). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526
Schwarz, C., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Helping students make sense of the world using
next generation science and engineering practices. NSTA Press.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative
designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9066-4
Smith, R., Iversen, O., & Veerasawmy, R. (2016). Impediments to digital fabrication in edu-
cation. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 7(1), 33–49. https://
doi.org/10.4018/IJDLDC.2016010103
 Designing and Structuring 131
Sormunen, K., Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2020). Maker-centered project-based learning in
inclusive classes: Supporting students’ active participation with teacher-directed reflective
discussions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 691–712.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9
Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interactions processes in
learning lower secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 556–576.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/tea.20134
10 Orchestrating Invention Activities
through Teacher’s Multilayered
Work
Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo

Introduction
The classroom conditions based on the invention pedagogy assume that the design
processes are based on collaboration and anchored on students’ ideas, questions, and
current skills. It follows that the invention processes are often nonlinear, emergent,
and open-ended in nature (see Chapter 2 of this book). In the pedagogical settings,
aiming to develop the process and the object of the design process with the stu-
dents, the outcomes, the content, or the process phases cannot be entirely known
beforehand. The classroom discussion carried on by all participants, and based on
collaboration and shared expertise, is described as improvisational (Sawyer, 2004,
2019).The individual members bring their contributions to the process by discuss-
ing and trying to build on the process turn by turn. Thus, the participants comple-
ment each other’s skills and orientations. Working in such diverse groups offers
several options for differently oriented students. On the one hand, the talented
students can be inspired to take on more challenging tasks in the group, and on the
other hand, working in cognitively diverse groups provides an encouraging exam-
ple to those students who struggle with their learning for different reasons
(Sormunen et al., 2020).
Despite the teachers’ growing understanding of the student-driven design learn-
ing or inquiry processes, the ideal ways to support student participation or create
compatible classroom activities may be challenging (Bielaczyc, 2013). In addition,
a major challenge is the organization of collaborative and nonlinear activities with
different kinds of learners. Even though collaboration relies on positive interde-
pendence, peer support is often insufficient for struggling students. On the one
hand, students need support and advice to function as active participants in the
invention process. In contrast, too much structuring and direction may diminish
their initiatives or ideation. The teachers need to accept openness, but at the same
time provide sufficient structuring and scaffolding for the process (Jenkins et al.,
2003;Viilo et al., 2018). These open-ended settings require creativeness in orches-
tration and teaching (Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011; Sawyer, 2019). The con-
cept of orchestration is used for describing the teacher’s efforts in organizing and
supporting the students’ processes in individual, social, tool-mediated, and chang-
ing learning situations (Littleton et al., 2012).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-12
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 133
This chapter offers a perspective on orchestrating that can aid in understanding
the organization or the procedural and timely guidance needed in the design, mak-
ing, and invention activities. In these settings, the processes are open-ended, and the
working methods are based on collaboration. First, we offer an overview of the
elements within orchestration and distinguish between orchestration design and
dynamic orchestration. Second, we illustrate the orchestration solutions in four
different invention pedagogy settings with a lot of student diversity. Examining
cognitively diverse classes provides an overall understanding of the intensity of
orchestration in relation to the need for student support. Finally, we discuss the
experiences learned from the settings.

Elements of Orchestrating Invention Process

When implementing the ideas of invention pedagogy and designing, the teacher’s
challenge is to engage all students in learning. In collaborative efforts, the teachers’
primary aim is to sustain the practices that involve the students using their own
ideas and organizing their collaborative process (Hakkarainen, 2009). In cognitively
diverse classes, the need for differentiation is necessary because “one-size-fits-all”
education must be changed to methods that support and inspire all students learn-
ing. Orchestration-minded invention pedagogy is convenient in cognitively diverse
inclusive classes because invention activities are adaptable to various kinds of learn-
ers (e.g., Sinervo et al., 2021). To succeed, cognitively diverse student teams need
support to participate in and develop the shared community. Overall, it requires
orchestrating and promoting the collective pedagogical settings in which idea
improvement is the central focus rather than a separate learning task or activity
(Zhang et al., 2018).
Effective participation in design-oriented approaches to learning requires teach-
ers’ timely guidance in several layers of ongoing team, personal, and tool-mediated
processes in changing situations.When describing this multilayered work, the con-
cept of orchestration has frequently been used as a metaphor. It involves managing
the collaborative processes within several ongoing trajectories in complex learning
settings where the tools, materials, and supportive learning technologies are all
connected and mediate the collective process (Littleton et al., 2012). Significantly,
the concept captures the unplanned aspects of the enacted situations and therefore
is well placed in the context of nonlinear settings (Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen,
2011; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2017).
On the other hand, the orchestrated settings can be positioned along a line
between research perspectives highlighting the importance of structuring and
scripting the processes of learning beforehand and perspectives emphasizing the
emerging need for activities (Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011; Prieto et al.,
2011;Viilo et al., 2018). At one extreme, within a classroom based on pre-given and
scripted procedures, the teacher often controls learning despite the student-
centered aims (e.g., Kirschner et al., 2006). At the other extreme, there is a need to
highlight the principle-based emergent knowledge practices that emphasize stu-
dent and teacher invention and ownership (Sawyer, 2004; Zhang et al., 2018).
Therefore, the success of invention pedagogy requires the right amount of
134 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
structure and flexibility, with the teacher balancing between them. Only the
teacher, who is familiar with the students and their needs, can define the suitable
higher-level objectives and apply the strategic guidance of the process based on
contextual knowledge.
When defining the elements of orchestration, it is helpful to distinguish the two
meanings of orchestration, orchestration design and dynamic orchestration, as suggested
by Sharples and Anastopoulou (2012). Designing of orchestration covers the previ-
ous arrangement of the learning setting. Dynamic management defines regulating
and adapting the plans in unfolding activities and enacted practice to achieve pro-
ductive results (Prieto et al., 2011; Sharples & Anastopoulou, 2012). Whether the
aim is to create a structured or open-ended setting, both orchestration phases are
present. However, the desired setting and the local context strongly affect how the
orchestration design or the dynamic orchestration is created.

Creating Orchestration Design

When creating the design for inventory activities, it is essential to plan for impro-
visation and open spaces where teachers can support the students’ ideas and lines
of inquiry. However, sometimes designing orchestration has been associated with
instructional planning (Prieto et al., 2011). The design can model learning activi-
ties, sequencing their time, event, and participant perspectives (Dillenbourg, 2015).
It may include flexible macro scripting that supports the educational practices and
actions of the proposed invention process and a collection of micro scripts to help
the participants perform them. For instance, the invention pedagogy process mod-
els may be considered macro scripts (see Chapter 9 of this book). Nonetheless, the
more explicit and rigid the educational structure or script, the less opportunity
exists for flexible adaptation and improvising and spontaneous solutions present in
genuine invention processes (Sharples & Anastopoulou, 2012). On the other hand,
the teacher must work out beforehand how to help students with different learn-
ing orientations to be active participants in emerging processes. Especially in cog-
nitively diverse classes, the students who struggle with their learning may benefit
from well-designed learning tasks and adaptable approaches to fit different learners
(Norwich & Lewis, 2001; Sormunen et al., 2020).
The overall orchestration design for implementing inventory and emerging
activities can also be approached with the help of the pedagogical infrastructure
framework (Lakkala et al., 2008). The framework suggests four supportive infra-
structures: technical, social, epistemic, and cognitive, designed when creating stu-
dent-centered pedagogical settings. The perspectives are partly overlapping in
practice, but a teacher may use the framework as a thinking tool when creating the
learning setting. In the context of invention pedagogy, the pedagogical infrastruc-
tures framework has also been applied in makerspace studies (e.g., Riikonen et al.,
2020; Chapter 14 of this book).
In the infrastructure framework, the technological arrangements include the
affordances of the tools for promoting design activity and the arrangements for
providing access to and guidance for using the technology and tools (technical infra-
structure). For example, the purposeful usage of technology embedded in students’
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 135
practices mediates the participants’ ideas and processes to team members or the
whole learning collective. It makes the process stages or planning visible (Littleton
et al., 2012;Viilo et al., 2011). Digital technology can also be viewed as a mechanism
for inclusive, differentiated pedagogy that enables the use of multimodal learning
materials, provides access to information and resources, and enhances function with-
out stigmatizing any student (e.g., Cumming & Draper Rodríguez, 2017). It can be
beneficial to struggling students, helping them to meet their curricular goals and to
assist them in gaining social and functional skills (Sormunen et al., 2019).
In invention pedagogy, the social arrangements should entice the participants to
collaborate and create a common ground (social infrastructure).The solutions to be
made include how to foster interaction and collaborative action. Productive col-
laboration may require, for example, explicit rules, agreements, and organizational
structures (Lakkala et al., 2008). Typically, a task that leads to productive interaction
requires cognitive diversity and heterogeneous group structures (Hämäläinen &
Vähäsantanen, 2011). Teachers can also support the collaborative process through
flexible grouping in various forms, such as learning with a partner or in small
groups (e.g., van de Pol et al., 2014). However, cognitively diverse groups often
require teachers’ support when preparing and implementing a project. Also, the
learning task can be designed according to individual students’ differentiation
needs, such as integrating the differentiated academic content (e.g., more demand-
ing aims for the more talented) into a student’s group role (Sormunen et al., 2020).
In the spirit of design learning and invention activities, learners must treat ideas,
plans, and prototypes as epistemic objects (see Chapter 3 of this book) that can be
shared and jointly developed (epistemological infrastructure). In addition, educa-
tors should facilitate the participants’ understanding and reflection on practices and
processes to organize their developmental process (cognitive infrastructure).
Students’ self-regulative competencies and meta-skills for planning, monitoring,
and reflecting on their work should be supported; this could take place through
providing conceptual tools such as guidelines, models, or templates. When creating
orchestration design, the infrastructure framework helps prepare the task structures,
beneficial ways to interact, and other resources to support the process in well-
working combinations. However, defining the best solution of task structuring
between open-ended or structured tasks without contextual knowledge is not
possible. Both ends may develop a sound basis for collaboration and invention
(Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011).

Dynamic Orchestration during the Invention Process

Hämäläinen and Vähäsantanen (2011) have pointed out that the main idea of
orchestration is to combine design and improvisation; this means considering the
unplanned aspects of the ongoing nonlinear invention processes. Dynamic orches-
tration focuses on the need for teachers to maintain the simultaneous ongoing
activities on different planes: personal, group, and class (Sharples & Anastopoulou,
2012). When the orchestration design has been adapted to the local context, and
the emerging occurrences in practice, the teachers’ assessment provides insight into
the progress and adequate adjustment (Prieto et al., 2011). Therefore, the teacher
136 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
and students must iteratively reflect on learning and advancement of invention
activity. However, in a well-orchestrated process, the teacher regulates the various
aspects of the learning situation across multiple time scales: First, longitudinally
from stage to stage adjusting the support as the process develops, and second, in
real-time, during the enacted moments (Prieto et al., 2011;Viilo et al., 2018).
During the dynamic orchestration of the longitudinal invention process, the
teachers cannot concentrate only on what any student or team requires at the
moment, but also on what they believe the collective invention project and attain-
ing its objectives require (Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2005; Viilo et al., 2018). It
means supporting the long-standing efforts to create conditions for advancing the
invention process such as guiding participants to document the advancement of
inquiry, organizing, and planning the design process further (Hakkarainen, 2009;
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2017). It also means that the teachers must
follow and reflect on the process in the background, and design the support needed
based on the participants’ achievements (Viilo et al., 2018).
The dynamic orchestration in real-time involves the features of improvisational
teaching (Sawyer, 2004). The invention pedagogy that aims to support students’
self-regulation, invention, and design activities, entails emergent and improvisa-
tional aspects during the process due to its nonlinear nature. In creative improvisa-
tional teaching, the teacher works with a unique group of students responding to
their emergent needs (Sawyer, 2004). The processes need to be constructed as a
shared social activity in which the students and the teacher manage and participate
in the collective process together (Sawyer, 2004). However, improvisation in teach-
ing should not be associated with unconstrained creativity and personal expression.
The researchers who call for creativeness or improvisation in teaching also call for
purposeful structures (Parker & Borko, 2011; Sawyer, 2019). To succeed, teaching
needs to be anchored on disciplined or guided improvisation that gives students
the freedom to build and create their knowledge while shifting between carefully
chosen elements of structure (Sawyer, 2004, 2019).
The invention process based on students’ plans and designing creates genuine
opportunities and a need for collaboration and sustains collective object-oriented
classroom discourses. However, the emerging classroom collaboration may require
the management of the participatory aspects of social interaction that help partici-
pants contribute so that everyone in the team is participating and listening. The
teacher also must observe and comment on students’ reciprocal interlinkages and
their relations to the materials and objects of inquiry. The genuine need for col-
laboration provides support for practicing collaboration skills through differently
supported learning tasks (Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011). Participants also
need to have enough common ground and an emotionally safe atmosphere in
which diverging beliefs and disagreements are critically examined, but not in a
disputational way (Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011).
The following sections illustrate four cases of orchestrating invention pedagogy
in which the decisions involving the differently balanced structures and freedom
varied. We concentrate on cognitively diverse classes, especially the student teams
including struggling students.The purpose is to recognize the ways of working that
may help all kinds of students’ participation in invention pedagogy processes.
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 137
Context and Analysis
Orchestration of invention activities varies in cognitively diverse classes. We fol-
lowed four invention projects in four classes using a multiple case study method
(Stake, 2005) (Table 10.1).The classes had a similar variation of gender and ethnic-
ity, and some of the participating students had been identified as struggling learn-
ers. In Classes 1 and 3, the struggling students worked among cognitively diverse
teams during the projects. In Class 2, struggling students worked alone or with a
pair and in Class 4 in cognitively similar teams. We only followed a few teams in
each class, although there were many more.
The aim of all projects was to design and invent an intellectually challenging,
aesthetically appealing, and personally meaningful complex artifact that integrated
physical and digital elements. The project name and learning objectives varied
within projects. In Class 1, the student team’s challenge was narrower than others
focusing on a similar output, a scale model house. Other projects sought to find
diverse, inventive solutions to everyday problems. The duration of the projects
ranged from 11 to 14 weekly lessons (90 minutes per lesson).
The data were collected from teachers’ project plans, researcher’s observation
notes, and students’ portfolios. All teachers made detailed project plans in which
they set the learning objectives. One of the authors participated actively in plan-
ning all the projects. During the project, she created detailed observation notes
from each lesson.The researcher’s role is significant, especially in cognitively diverse
classes, in which the researcher must have participants’ complete trust (Stake, 2005).
The observation notes were compared to project plans and students’ portfolios.
The data was systematically investigated through theory-guided content analysis
(Stake, 2005) grounding it on previous studies presented at the theoretical back-
ground. The pedagogical infrastructure framework (Lakkala et al., 2008) and the
improvisational teaching (Sawyer, 2004) served us as the thinking tools when
defining how orchestration design and dynamic orchestration were formed within
the cases (Tables 10.2 and 10.3, first column). The primary aim was to illustrate
how the enacted process took its form into practice by elaborating on the teacher’s

Table 10.1 Background information and data collection of participating classes

Project Grade Number of Teachers Number of

students (assisting staff) co-inventions
(struggling (personal
students) inventions)
Class 1: 6
44 (10) 3 (1) 4 (–)
Scale model house (ages 12–13)
Class 2: 7
6 (6) 3 (2-3) 1 (3)
My invention (ages 13–14)
Class 3:
6
Everyday 47 (9) 3 (1) 13 (–)
(ages 12–13)
challenges
Class 4: 7
7 (7) 1 (1) 4 (–)
Smart product (ages 13–14)
138 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
background organization and guidance during the unfolding activities. Our previ-
ous analyses have defined similar elements (Sinervo et al., 2021; Sormunen et al.,
2020;Viilo et al., 2011, 2018).

Findings
The nature of orchestration varied from highly structured (Class 2) to highly flex-
ible implementation (Class 3), providing information on effective orchestration
practices. In what follows, we describe the main elements affecting the orchestra-
tion design and then elaborate dynamic orchestration of the invention projects
through the teachers’ organization before the lessons and teachers’ guidance during
the unfolding activities.

Orchestration Design
The orchestration design varied in different class settings according to learning
design and support for active student collaboration (Table 10.2).

Learning Design
All projects were pedagogically anchored and were planned to begin with
teacher-led ideation activities and continue through sketching to the production
of functional prototypes. Class 1’s project design was based on maker-centered
project-based learning, unlike the others (Sormunen et al., 2020), following a
relatively linear and structured process from beginning to end. In Classes 2, 3, and
4, teaching and learning were based on nonlinear invention pedagogy. They fol-
lowed the invention pedagogy process model as presented in Chapter 9 of this
book.
Teachers in all classes set transdisciplinary learning objectives for the project,
integrating science and mathematics, crafts, and visual arts, and four or five trans-
versal competence objectives, depending on the project (Finnish National Agency
of Education [FNAE], 2016). Two projects (Classes 1 and 3) included also Finnish
language objectives, meaning that all students practiced reading, writing, or listen-
ing skills during the process. Unlike in other classes, in Class 1, the teachers had
already considered the students’ learning needs at the design stage. They set dif-
ferentiated learning objectives for each student, especially for struggling students
and talented students.
The projects’ learning objectives also highlighted socio-digital (information and
communications technology, ICT) competence as an object or tool for learning
and technology-enriched materials were essential parts of all projects. In the
Finnish curriculum (FNAE, 2016), technology education is a multidisciplinary and
cross-curricular entity that is practiced in science (e.g., engineering), mathematics
(e.g., programming), and crafts (e.g., designing and manual and digital crafting).
Teachers included crafting and engineering elements in their project design, but
more specific technology content was unclear during the orchestration design
phase. However, programming was considered initially because some or many of
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 139
Table 10.2 Elements of orchestration design in four different invention projects

Elements Class 1: Scale Class 2: My Class 3: Everyday Class 4: Smart

model house invention challenges product
Structured Highly structured Highly flexible Flexible orchestration
orchestration orchestration orchestration

Learning design Pedagogy Pedagogy Pedagogy Pedagogy

Maker-centered Invention Invention Invention
project-based pedagogy pedagogy pedagogy
learning Learning objectives Learning objectives Learning objectives
Learning objectives Integrated into Integrated into Integrated into
Differentiated the invention/ the invention/ the invention/
content of design design design
science and challenge: challenge: challenge:
mathematics, science and science and science and
crafts and mathematics, mathematics, mathematics,
visual arts, crafts and crafts and crafts and
Finnish, and visual arts, and visual arts, and visual arts,
transversal transversal transversal Finnish, and
competencies. competencies. competencies. transversal
Technology Technology Technology competencies.
enrichened enrichened enrichened Technology
learning learning learning enrichened
materials: materials: materials: learning
crafting tools, crafting tools, crafting tools, materials:
electronics, electronics, electronics, crafting tools,
multimodal robotics, and 3D designing, electronics,
learning electronic and robotics, 3D designing,
materials, and maker kits. electronic and electronic and
digital maker kits, maker kits,
portfolio. and digital and digital
portfolio portfolio.
Support for active Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement
student Possibility to Possibility to Possibility to Possibility to
collaboration choose an choose an choose an choose an
engaging engaging engaging engaging
learning task learning task learning task learning task
and make a and work Grouping Grouping
wish for independently Interest- and Interest-,
group or collaborate student-led student- and
members Grouping grouping teacher-led
Grouping Teacher-led based on grouping based
Interest-, grouping students’ on students’
student- and based on wishes wishes and
teacher-led students’ teachers’
grouping wishes and knowledge of
based on teachers’ students
students’ knowledge of
wishes and students
intensive
teacher-
support for
teams with
struggling
students
140 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
the programmable devices were new to the students. In Classes 2, 3, and 4, the
invention challenge directed students to use programmable devices. The teachers
designed two to four lessons where students learned the basic skills of these tools.
For example, teachers designed the programming lessons at the beginning of the
project (Classes 2 and 3) or just after students had finished their initial ideation
(Class 4).
Technology was also designed as a tool for process organizing.The digital learn-
ing environment (Office 365) was set up to mediate the process and achievements
between students by organizing the process, giving guidelines and setting tasks
(Class 1), and for reporting the progress of the process after every lesson and shar-
ing it in the digital learning environment (Classes 1, 3, and 4). In Class 2, teachers
chose not to use process portfolios. Teachers felt that the students should focus
more on practical skills than academic ones to build the invention rather than get-
ting frustrated with academic writing.

Support for Active Student Collaboration

Teachers designed support for active student collaboration by focusing on stu-
dent engagement, giving them authority over their own learning, and using
different grouping methods. In Classes 1, 3, and 4, the students were required to
cooperate, and most of the students worked in pairs or small groups based on an
interest-led, student-led, and/or teacher-led grouping. In Class 1, before the
project, students completed an initial survey that mapped students’ interests and
asked them to assess which students in the class supported their learning best.
Teachers grouped students according to their interests, but they also considered
students’ personal needs. Teachers planned struggling students’ grouping espe-
cially carefully because research shows that careful grouping promotes student
collaboration during the project and supports the development of social skills
(e.g., Jenkins et al., 2003). In Class 1, the teachers also agreed on how to support
every student team’s work.
In Classes 3 and 4, teachers supported active student collaboration through
interest- and student-led grouping, which took place after the first ideation session.
In Class 3, the students were allowed to choose the most engaging invention idea
and form teams and select team members by themselves. Also in Class 4, the stu-
dents formed teams based on their interests, but the teacher made the final decision
on each team’s combination. She assessed what would be the team’s chances of
succeeding, reflecting on previous collaborative learning tasks. After teacher-stu-
dent negotiation, some students changed teams.
In Class 2, the teachers encouraged students to collaborate, but also allowed
them to work alone. Teachers based their decision on the fact that working
with another student was particularly challenging for some students. Some
students’ participation was influenced by self-regulatory, socio-emotional, and
other skills needed in peer collaboration. The teachers listened to students’
perceptions and evaluated the meaningfulness of cooperation based on student
knowledge.
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 141
Dynamic Orchestration
The teachers’ dynamic orchestration that maintained the unfolding process was
identified as teachers’ organizing and guidance activities (Table 10.3). Each teach-
er’s organizing included work and support prepared for the lessons. This support
was based on the students’ ongoing process achievements. The maintenance of the
process during the lessons was the teacher’s guidance. It involved flexible responses
to the students’ unfolding work and discussion.

The Teacher’s Background Organization

In each class, teachers planned how best to support the students’ invention pro-
cess advancement during each lesson. Except in Class 2, teachers supported
teamwork between lessons in a digital learning environment, in which they
could provide multimodal learning materials (Class 1).The classes primarily used
the digital learning environment to pursue and share student teams’ process
portfolios (Classes 1, 3, and 4). After each lesson, teachers went through each
team’s portfolios (Classes 1 and 4) and provided written feedback regularly
(Class 1) or a few times during the project (Class 3). Teachers gave feedback on
the content and quality of the process logs. The process portfolio helped teachers

Table 10.3 Elements of dynamic orchestration in four invention projects

Elements Class 1: Scale Class 2: My Class 3: Everyday Class 4: Smart

model house invention challenges product
Structured Highly structured Highly flexible Flexible orchestration
orchestration orchestration orchestration

Teachers’ Digital learning Digital learning Digital learning Digital learning

background environment environment environment environment
organization Checking teams’ Not used Checking teams’ Checking teams’
process Physical learning process process
portfolios and environment portfolios and portfolios and
providing Preparing the class providing anticipating the
written with required written teams’ support
feedback after materials and feedback a few needs for the
each lesson and tools before a times during next lesson.
giving general lesson. the project. Physical learning
or detailed Teacher resources Physical learning environment
instructions to Planning how to environment Preparing for the
teams for the place students Making the scripts next lesson
next lesson. based on for beginning with required
Physical learning previous and ending materials and
environment lesson’s student routines. tools.
Not addressed interaction. Teacher resources Teacher resources
Teacher resources Dividing Dividing guiding Not addressed
Dividing guiding guiding responsibilities
responsibilities responsibilities with teachers.
with teachers. with teachers.
Recognizing
certain teams
that need
intensive
support.
(Continued)
142 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
Table 10.3 (Continued)
Elements Class 1: Scale Class 2: My Class 3: Everyday Class 4: Smart
model house invention challenges product
Structured Highly structured Highly flexible Flexible orchestration
orchestration orchestration orchestration

Teachers’ General guidelines General guidelines General guidelines General guidelines

guidance Reminding to Following actively Starting the lesson Starting the lesson
during check portfolio and scaffolding by reminding by reminding
lessons feedback and to students’ and students of the students of the
fill process teams’ work. routines and routines.
portfolio at the Highly personalized reminding Reminding to take
end of the guidelines them to fill photos during
lesson. Seating students process the lesson for the
Following actively in their places portfolio at the process portfolio.
and scaffolding when they end of the Following actively
teams’ work. enter class. lesson. and scaffolding
Personalized Starting the lesson Following teams’ work.
guidelines with general actively and Personalized
Supporting some instructions and scaffolding guidelines
of the teams to helping them teams’ work. Helping students
organize their to organize Personalized organize their
work at the their work at guidelines work at the
beginning of the beginning Supporting some beginning of the
the lesson. of the lesson. of the teams to lesson.
Leading Modeling organize their
reflective working if work at the
discussion after needed. beginning of
each lesson to the lesson.
guide students’
collaboration
skills and
promote
self-organiza-
tion at the next
lesson.

predict what the invention teams would do in the next lesson, what challenges
they might encounter, and the kind of support they might need during the next
lesson (Class 4).
The preparation of the learning space (physical learning environment) and the
teaching team’s division of labor (teacher resources) were also acknowledged as the
teacher’s background organization. Teachers supported the independent work of
the intervention team by creating posters on the classroom walls that included
step-by-step routines for starting and ending group work (Class 3). In some classes,
teachers brought out the necessary materials just before the class (Classes 2 and 4)
and arranged workplaces for the teams (Class 2) to ensure that students began to
work immediately. In this way, teachers could prevent conflicts between students
when setting up work (Class 2). Also, it was beneficial that teachers discussed each
team’s need for support and agreed on which of them was responsible for guiding
each team before each lesson (Classes 1, 2, and 3). It also seemed appropriate to
anticipatively consider what to do if a student fails to collaborate or make progress
(Class 2).
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 143
Teacher’s Guidance during the Lessons
Depending on the class setting, the teacher’s guidance between the structured
instruction and flexible guidelines varied. The lessons always had a similar start in
all classes, and teachers gave explicit instructions for working during the lesson.
Teachers also made sure that all students’ and teams’ work started. If the students
had difficulties concentrating or regulating their behavior, the teacher moved on to
work with them. In Class 2, it was often the case that teachers’ support was identi-
fied as highly personalized. Typically, a struggling student had challenges, so the
teacher worked side by side with a student doing the same task and modeling the
desired activity. In Class 2, the teaching staff resources were considerable, with three
teachers leading the project and another two or three assistants to support the
students in each lesson.
In other classes, the organization of work was more flexible, and the goal was
to reduce personalized support gradually. Teachers reminded invention teams
about the posters on the classroom wall (Class 3) or commonly agreed (Class 4)
routines, to review feedback or instructions that teacher had written on portfolios
(Class 1), and to work on the portfolio during and at the end of the lesson (Classes
1, 3, and 4). Particularly in Classes 1 and 3, when mainstream students supported
the work of struggling students, teachers emphasized the independence of stu-
dent teams. They sought to personalize the work organization only for some
groups by helping them get started at the beginning of the lesson (Classes 1, 3,
and 4). Efforts were also made to increase the independence of the teams through
reflective discussions at the end of each lesson (Class 1). In these discussions, the
teacher aimed to guide students’ collaborative skills and promote self-organiza-
tion in the next lesson.When all invention teams were ready to work, the teachers
followed their work and provided scaffolding if necessary. The independent stu-
dent teams checked the teachers’ feedback and instructions from the digital learn-
ing environment (Class 1). They could plan the lesson (Classes 1 and 3), divide
tasks (Classes 1 and 3), and complete process portfolios (Classes 1 and 3) without
teachers’ support.

Concluding Remarks
This chapter defines the elements present in orchestration when implementing
invention pedagogy in classrooms. We focused on the cognitively diverse class-
rooms, including students who struggle with their learning, to raise attention to the
ways of working that help all students’ participation. Figure 10.1 summarizes the
appropriate orchestration design and dynamic orchestration that teaching teams
should implement when guiding and scaffolding the co-invention processes of
diverse students. We illustrated how the invention projects orchestration designs
were created in different cases by setting learning design and support for active
student collaboration. We also defined how the teacher’s organizing and guidance
activities maintained the processes in practice.
The case examples presented show that orchestration design has a significant
impact on the success of a nonlinear invention project. The more diverse student
144 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
(setting the invention project)
ORCHESTRATION DESIGN

Pedagogy Engagement
• Pedagogical model for supporting work • Authority to own learning
(e.g., invention process model) • Engaging learning task
Learning objectives Grouping
• Transdisciplinary learning objectives • Familiar groups (student-led grouping)
(knowledge & skills)
Effective peer-support
• Cross-curricula technology use (teacher-led grouping)
(technology-enrichened
learning materials) • Based on the learning task
(interest-led grouping)

Learning Support for

design active student
collaboration

Techers’ Teachers’
background guidance
organization during lessons

Digital learning environment General guidelines

• Providing multimodal learning materials • reminding of routines
• Checking teams’ portfolios • support for independence
• Giving written feedback and instructions (e.g., following students’ work
and scaffolding if needed
Physical learning environment
Personalized guidelines
• Poster on a wall with beginning and
ending routines of the group work • support for some teams/students,
reflective discussions
• Preparation of the learning space before
the lesson (desks and materials) Highly personalized guidelines
Teacher resources • explicit instructions
• Division of labor between teachers • modelling (e.g., working side-by-side)
• Recognizing teams that need support.

DYNAMIC ORCHESTRATION
(during the invention project)

Figure 10.1 Model for orchestrating invention project.

teams are, the more carefully the teacher must plan for orchestration. The projects
were settled by defining the transdisciplinary learning objectives raised from the
curriculum and formed the content area with which the students worked during
the invention process.The pedagogical models and the ideas of invention pedagogy
supported the unfolding activities when developing the objects of the participants’
processes. It is often perceived that struggling students benefit from a highly struc-
tured learning environment. However, our cases show that inventing exercises do
not need to follow any strict order.The developing object determines the stages of
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 145
the process and directs both the activities of the student teams and the guidance of
the teacher. Carefully planned but adaptable orchestration design supports not only
struggling but all students learning in nonlinear settings where invention activities
unfold.
The orchestration design also considered students’ participatory roles among the
community and teams.The invention processes challenge participants to engage in
collaborative discussions and designing. Collaboration and reaching mutual under-
standing require the skills to negotiate, build further on the discussions and the
process, reflect on the process achievements, and make decisions together based on
the current status of the invention process. All these skills and processes must be
supported. In the present processes, the process design involved engaging learning
tasks that gave students authority over their own learning. In addition, the well-
planned and familiar groups and effectively constructed peer support helped the
students collaborate and design their processes further.
Dynamic orchestration plays a vital role in the success of heterogeneous group
invention projects. In the background, the teachers do well when arranging phases
of the process, providing tools, and preparing the learning space for the coming
lessons. It is also fruitful to comment on the student’s processes in the digital learn-
ing environment, offer feedback, and provide additional materials to help their
work. In most cases, organizing an invention project requires close cooperation
between subjects and teachers and collective following of the ongoing process. In
this way, different perspectives and a wide range of expertise are included. During
the project, the presence of several teachers enables the implementation of flexible
and creative teaching arrangements and solutions (see Chapter 11 of this book).
However, dynamic orchestration must be planned between the teachers taking part
in the project.
During the invention activities, it is helpful to rely on the plans created before
the lesson and adapt them according to situational demands. The teachers’ role is
paramount in cognitively diverse classes for providing support and guidance
throughout the process, responding to and sustaining the students’ ideas, and
advancing the design practices. The teachers should promote the groups’ indepen-
dence and interdependence and provide only as much support and structuring as
the students’ learning process and inventing requires. In most of the present classes,
the students could affect their own learning processes, take responsibility for the
process with teachers’ help, and let go of it when the work proceeded.The teachers’
support varied between the highly personalized guidelines to students’ indepen-
dent work. Some students were able to assume more responsibility earlier than
others.
The purpose of this chapter has been to recognize the ways of working that may
help the participation of all kinds of students in nonlinear invention pedagogy
processes. To conclude, when orchestration works, students can assume more
responsibility for their own actions. In successful orchestration, the support
responds to emerging needs helping participants feel how their initiatives are
highly valued. It creates ownership of the collective process and supports all stu-
dents’ belief in their own strengths.
146 Kati Sormunen and Marjut Viilo
References
Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers’ designs of social
infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/42000246
Cumming, T. M., & Draper Rodríguez, C. (2017). A meta-analysis of mobile technology
supporting individuals with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 164–176.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917713983
Dillenbourg, P. (2015). Orchestration graphs: Modeling scalable education. EPFL Press.
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learn-
ing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9064-x
Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on
orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3),
169–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.08.001
Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning
works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 279–292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900302
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006).Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Designing pedagogical
infrastructures in university courses for technology-enhanced collaborative inquiry.
Research and Practice inTechnology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 33–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/
S1793206808000446
Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., & Sharples, M. (2012). Editorial introduction: Orchestrating
inquiry learning. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry
learning (pp. 1–6). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136195
Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2001). Mapping a pedagogy for special educational needs. British
Educational Research Journal,27(3),313–327.https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120048322
Parker, L., & Borko, H. (2011). Conclusion: Presence and the art of improvisational teaching.
In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 279–298).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997105
Prieto, L., Dlab, M., Gutierrez, I., Abdulwahed, M., & Balid, W. (2011). Orchestrating tech-
nology enhanced learning: A literature review and a conceptual framework. International
Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(6), 583–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/
IJTEL.2011.045449
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding:
Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2),
185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048
Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen,T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,
P. (2020). The development of pedagogical infrastructures in three cycles of maker-cen-
tered learning. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25, 29–49. https://
ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2782
Sawyer, K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation.
Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002012
 Orchestrating Invention Activities 147
Sawyer, K. (2019). The creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st-century learners. Teachers
College Press.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2017) Learning by making. In K. Peppler
(Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (pp. 421–424). Sage. https://dx.doi.
org/10.4135/9781483385198
Sharples, M., & Anastopoulou, S. (2012). Designing orchestration for inquiry learning. In K.
Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 69–85).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136195
Sinervo, S., Sormunen, K., Kangas, K., Hakkarainen, K., Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Korhonen, T.,
& Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2021). Elementary school pupils’ co-inventions: Products
and pupils’ reflections on processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
31(4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09577-y
Sormunen, K., Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2020). Maker-centered project-based learning in
inclusive classes: Supporting students’ active participation with teacher-directed reflective
discussions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 691–712.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9
Sormunen, K., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2019). Overcoming learning difficulties with smart-
phones in an inclusive primary science class. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(3), 21–34.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n3p21
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small-
group work: An intervention study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 600–650. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.805300
Viilo, M., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P, & Hakkarainen, K. (2011). Supporting the technology-
enhanced collaborative inquiry and design project – A teacher’s reflections on practices.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.
2011.538497
Viilo, M., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2018). Long-term teacher orches-
tration of technology-mediated collaborative inquiry project. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 62(3), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258665
Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M., Sun,Y., Judson, D., & Naqvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the col-
lective journey of inquiry with idea thread mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3),
390–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1444992
11 Team Teaching in Invention
Projects
Tellervo Härkki,Tiina Korhonen, and Sorella Karme

Introduction
Team teaching an invention project is a pedagogical choice that aims at creating an
inspirational and motivating learning experience for students. For teachers, team
teaching translates into innovation, collaboration, shared expertise, and teachers’
professional development. In Finland, the model of team teaching usually refers to
co-teaching whereby at least two teachers teach in the classroom at the same time
(Cook & Friend, 1995). Another approach emphasizes the various roles teachers
have as a starting point of teaching, and this model consists of three continuum
constituted pedagogically motivated stages: the sequential motif, the distinctions
motif, and the dialectic motif (Wenger & Hornyak, 1999). In particular, the dialec-
tic motif is in line with the pedagogical aims of invention projects, such as risk-
taking, spontaneity, collaborative knowledge creation, and continuous feedback.
However, team teaching in this manner is quite complex, especially in turn-taking
(Wenger & Hornyak, 1999), and it requires both training and collegial support for
teachers to leverage from it (Aarnio et al., 2021).
In Finnish schools, team teaching occurs infrequently, even though the benefits
of team teaching in general are collectively recognized, attitudes toward it as a
pedagogical approach are positive, and the importance of collaboration is high-
lighted in the national curriculum of basic education (Finnish National Agency of
Education [FNAE], 2016; Guise et al., 2017; Saloviita & Takala, 2010). Moreover,
Finnish teacher education does not equip student teachers with adequate team
teaching competence (Aarnio et al., 2021), even if the need to push the traditional
student teaching toward a more collaborative direction has been recognized (Guise
et al., 2017). However, invention projects are student-centered, multidisciplinary,
and phenomenon-based; therefore, team teaching can be seen as essential as teach-
ers’ diverse expertise is required to manage the project in a pedagogically meaning-
ful way.
In our research projects, many teacher teams were simultaneously learning to
teach invention projects and to teach as a team. A large part of the teachers’ energy
was spent on learning pedagogical approaches and novel technologies. Thus, at the
beginning, team teaching practices emerged and developed along with invention
projects rather than being specifically designed in detail in advance. For instance,
many invention projects were multilocal: teaching occurred simultaneously in

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-13
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 149
several classrooms, makerspaces, other internal learning environments, or extramu-
ral school premises. Different schools had different facilities, and the teams tailored
their team teaching approaches according to their capabilities, ambitions, and avail-
able external resources.
Typical for invention projects, teachers’ responsibilities, availability, and division
of workload influences the design of learning tasks and student assessment. For
instance, when done by a team of teachers, student assessment becomes more bal-
anced as teachers can recognize different aspects and nuances of learning (Härkki
et al., 2021). However, not only is the availability of expertise likely to be in simul-
taneous demand by several students, but also the availability of materials, tools, and
learning environments need to be considered. All in all, team teaching in invention
projects is about sharing one’s expertise: knowing the specifics of a disciplinary
topic or technology, pedagogical approaches, presentation, and demonstration
techniques, promoting constructive interaction, motivating students, supporting
student self-efficacy, and organizing supportive learning environments. More
importantly, team teaching is about teachers extending their individual skills to
become collaborative ones, such as shared orchestration, socially distributed meta-
cognition, and socially shared regulation. Additionally, team teaching and the col-
laboration of teachers provide a model that shows students how to cooperate, and
through that, how to excel in invention projects.
In this chapter, we describe team teaching approaches based on the research
literature and our research projects. In the context of invention projects, we discuss
how to organize a team and implement essential activities in different project
phases to build a well-functioning teaching team. The examples of teachers’ expe-
riences come from several research projects. All of these were multiyear, large-scale
projects aimed at developing innovative teaching practices in collaboration with
teachers.The teachers worked either in primary or secondary schools. Some teach-
ers had long-term team teaching experience, while some teachers generated team
teaching practices during the invention projects. The main emphasis is on success-
fully team teaching an invention project, as an extensive literature already exists on
building teams. In this chapter, we also discuss the characteristic activities of a
well-functioning teaching team and provide recommendations for further devel-
opmental steps.

Blended Model of Team Teaching

While team teaching in general refers to a team of teachers planning, teaching, and
assessing together (Thousand et al., 2006), most team teaching models described in
the research literature reflect the teachers’ roles and activities visible in a classroom.
This section describes some of these models that can be applied and blended in
invention projects. In practice, variants and dynamic combinations of these models
that are applied depend on the invention project specifics, the participating teach-
ers, and the school- or district-level policies.
Based on the teachers’ roles and presence in the classroom, White et al. (1998)
separated rotational and participant-observer models of team teaching from inter-
active team teaching. In the interactive team teaching model, simultaneously
150 Tellervo Härkki et al.
present teachers have equal roles and participate in discussions. In the rotational
team teaching model, each teacher visits the classroom only for the lessons related
to their own area of expertise, while a course coordinator is responsible for orga-
nizing the course and communication. In the participant-observer model, teachers
alternate as lead teachers, while the others observe and assist while also making
comments and providing examples.
A range of models assuming the co-presence of teachers focuses on the stu-
dents’ needs and instructional intent. For instance, Thousand et al. (2006)
described four main alternatives: complementary, supportive, parallel team teach-
ing, and teaming. In complementary teaching, teachers enhance each other’s
instruction. For instance, one provides a lecture while the other paraphrases state-
ments and exemplifies note-taking. In supportive teaching, one teacher leads, and
the other teacher rotates among the students to provide support when necessary.
In parallel teaching, teachers teach the same content but can differentiate their
approaches according to the students’ needs. Variations of paralleling include
splitting the class between teachers, teachers being responsible for teaching sta-
tions or experiments, teachers rotating or instructing particular student groups,
and supplementary instruction, in which one teacher works with most of the
students and the other teaches a smaller group to apply the taught content, to
teach more advanced content, or to repeat some earlier content according to
students’ needs. In teaming, teachers equally share the responsibilities for plan-
ning, teaching, and assessing.
When these models are applied in invention projects, they should support the
teachers’ division of labor according to their special expertise. A typical variation
involves teachers teaching in different makerspaces, which means that teachers no
longer reside in the same room. Furthermore, station teaching can be used to provide
independent learning tasks for students who rotate between stations, while teachers
step in only as they notice a need to elaborate or demonstrate some advanced detail.
The teacher teams in the invention projects we studied developed their own
blended models of team teaching. These dynamic models included features of
the models mentioned previously, but they seldom fully represent any of the
models. Teams have different developmental needs and paths, which are also
reflected in which team teaching models are appealing. A fresh team can consist
of old colleagues who know each other well, colleagues who barely know of
each other, or anything in between. Some teams come together for a one-time
project, while some continue working together for years; this translates into dif-
ferent developmental paths as a team. Teachers’ eagerness to try team teaching is
a fruitful starting point, but successful team teaching seldom happens spontane-
ously. It requires conscious efforts from teachers, as well as resources and support
from the school community (Härkki et al., 2021; Thousand et al., 2006). Each
team is unique with unique members in unique circumstances. Therefore, team
teaching is simultaneously a focus of and a context for teacher learning (Rytivaara
et al., 2019). Yet, it is not just the individual teachers who learn and change.
Teams are dynamic entities that learn and develop along the different phases of
invention projects.
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 151
Team Teaching during the Project Phases
The Beginning of the Project
For a successful team-taught invention project, it is essential that all team members
have a realistic understanding of the project’s goals and practices. In addition to
planning the learning goals for students and the necessities of an invention project,
teaching as a team needs to be planned. This forward planning requires time and
effort, yet it is time well invested. Moreover, it is essential that all members are
provided equal opportunities to contribute. Having a kick-off meeting for the
project is a good way to start planning and generate mutual trust.
Learning tasks and invention project schedules are dependent on the available
expertise and other needed resources, such as the learning environments, materials,
and tools. A demand for a specific expertise could be very different in different
phases of the project. For instance, students could benefit from a professional
designer in the early ideation phase, but in the later phases, experience in materi-
alization techniques could become essential. Or an invention project could start
with technological or material explorations, followed by student ideation and
grouping to develop their inventions further. Capitalizing on each teaching team
member’s expertise and availability requires early discussions about the member’s
strengths, skills, and knowledge, as well as their personal goals for the project and
teamwork and their expectations of it. This kind of appreciation for a team mem-
ber’s expertise could result in increased commitment to the team, enhanced moti-
vation, and greater job satisfaction.
Discussing practicalities (lesson plans, student needs, materials, etc.) comes more
naturally to teachers than discussing their personal goals of the invention project
and teamwork and the teachers’ expectations. These goals could include working
within certain pedagogical preferences, introducing certain subject-specific (novel)
contents or a new approach to support the student groups’ agency. Personal expec-
tations could involve professional development needs or job satisfaction and moti-
vational factors. Bringing these topics to the shared planning table should be
explicitly encouraged.Through open negotiations and mutual respect, it is possible
to reach the best pedagogical result, as one of our elementary school teachers
suggested:

There have always been four adults in it, and those are the perspectives of how
to do things. So, it’s not just one person’s idea, but someone throws an idea and
it’s discussed, and it’s supplemented or the other one throws in a different idea
and then we think which is better, and we end up with which one’s better.
After all, it requires us adults to give space to each other, not just to go with
our own mind—to give and take, so to speak.
(Tom, class teacher)

Open discussion about team members’ expectations, opportunities, and limitations

provides fertile ground for planning the project and for constructive interaction
throughout the project. Communication is essential for successful teamwork: who,
152 Tellervo Härkki et al.
what, when, and through which channels. Effective teamwork does not happen by
chance; it is built by conscious choices, clear roles, and communication. A common
challenge for team teaching is the lack of shared planning time during the project
(Härkki et al., 2021). Shared language and effective ways to communicate emerge
from shared planning time; these can make or break teachers’ day and, more impor-
tantly, the students’ learning experience.

During the Project

During the invention project, things happen because inventing challenges the stu-
dents’ skills. Teachers must be aware of and sensitive to the complex, shifting inter-
actions constantly occurring between and among the students and the instructional
activities within their classrooms. Sharing their awareness of students’ learning and
other circumstances facilitates coordinating the team’s efforts to respond appropri-
ately and effectively.Teachers need to consider several limitations—materials, tools,
expertise, schedules—every time they instruct students. At times, unforeseen inci-
dents occur, and teachers need to react and change plans quickly. Flexibility is
essential.
All the teachers are responsible for informing their team members about rele-
vant issues and potential conflicts. Often, time for communicating is limited; brief
exchanges in hallways during a break are frequently used to pass on vital informa-
tion. As necessary as they are for passing the torch of practical matters and securing
smooth(ish) continuation of the students’ projects, these fleeting moments are
insufficient for building an effective team. Instead, as one of our secondary school
teachers emphasized, it is essential to determine the division of labor:

You really have to share those tasks in such a way that one takes care of this
and the other one takes care of that and the third one reminds you of “Hey,
now”, and then you can have recess meetings saying “Hey, are all things
taken care of right now?” Like a clear arrangement. That’s what you have
to do.
(Susan, subject teacher)

The time reserved for communication is important, as is what is communicated

and how it is communicated. In our research (Härkki et al., 2021), three major
factors differentiated the teacher teams in terms of successful collaboration: (1)
shared pedagogical priorities, (2) commitment to project goals and developing
shared teaching practices, and (3) socially shared regulation. The quality, quan-
tity, and content of communication come together in regulation, which refers
to the intentional, adaptive response to new challenges, situations, or failures.
According to Hadwin et al. (2018), regulation involves self-monitoring and
optimizing one’s activities and objectives according to changing situations. In
socially shared regulation, these activities and goals are intentionally shared and
transactively negotiated (Hadwin et al., 2018). A shared mindset and a positive
attitude toward team teaching enhance the chances of succeeding and provide a
fruitful breeding ground for collaboration, as an elementary school teacher
recalled:
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 153
Through experience and reflection, one can immediately find a lot of positive
things in it [team teaching]. I see it as a huge positive asset in the work of a
teacher for both myself and the children. As for myself, I can share things and I
don’t always have to reinvent the wheel, it brings out the best parts of both
[teachers], and one can patch up one’s own weaknesses through the strengths of
the other. And for the kids then, there’s two adults nearby and they get a different
kind of feel for teaching. And I think it enriches [teaching] in that regard too.
Designing and planning with the other is sometimes a little challenging in terms
of time, but most of all, in responding to such personal chemistries and thought
worlds, you have to just fall into those things and principles, and you need to
have the same interests, because that person will rise to a pretty big role at that
point.
(Peter, class teacher)

Our understanding is that socially shared regulation is the key to successful team
teaching. Time and channels for it should be agreed on during the planning phase.
Another issue that should be agreed on is how to evaluate the team’s performance
during the project and after it ends.

Wrapping up the Project

If school days are hectic, term end with the need to submit grades for all the stu-
dents is even more hectic. However, it is important that the teachers find time to
discuss the lessons learned and to evaluate both the innovation project and the
team teaching experience. It can be done in a simple and traditional way, as
described by a teacher working in a secondary school: “When you get some suc-
cess, you stop and write down what went well and what went badly. That is what
has been done now” (Sarah, subject teacher).
In one of the projects, the researchers interviewed the teacher teams at the end
of the school projects. The central idea was to facilitate the teachers’ team building
and ensure dedicated time for shared reflection, despite the busy term end.
Members of one teacher team, subject teachers Vera and Hannah, discussed how to
organize extended team teaching in a way that would support transfer of the stu-
dents’ code-writing skills better:

HANNAH: Math teachers taught the basics of coding, two hours. But it felt that
students know nothing.
VERA: It is interesting. Because they most certainly did learn coding in math. But
the transfer…if students learn something in math, they do not recognize it at
crafts. How to organize team teaching…should one of us [crafts teachers]
stand there in the math class to make the connection visible? This is an inter-
esting question because this is not the only time this has happened. Students
can be like “never heard, dunno what a ruler is, or what to do with one.”
HANNAH: Or maybe the math teacher could have come to our classroom to help
with coding?
VERA: We need to think about how teaching of coding should be scheduled and
organized next year.
154 Tellervo Härkki et al.
Subject teachers Theo and Nita reflected on their long-term teaming experience
highlighting the meaning of trust:

THEO: This project has further developed our collaboration. We have done several
projects like this, and our collaboration develops all the time.We know that we can
work together, and we don’t need to think about what the other is doing.We can
trust that things are under control. It is really valuable that we can trust each other.
NITA: It would be impossible to work without trust. Maybe it is the trust, you
know that the other one wants to do this as good as possible. Personally, this
collaboration and doing together is most important.

They also reflected on how they change projects from year to year, based on what
they have learned.This time, they noticed that specific learning tasks resulted in an
imbalance between the students’ needs and the teachers’ expertise:

THEO: As usual, we’ll make changes, and our next project will be different. This
time, the big change will be [the] emphasis on technologies: we’ll include
coding that both of us can teach.

We also recommend a more formal evaluation of the team’s performance. Designing

the evaluation criteria and scale could be part of a project’s kick-off agenda, but in
any case, the team members should agree on the evaluation at the very beginning of
the project. How the results are collected and analyzed should also be agreed upon
beforehand. Evaluation criteria could include some school-level criteria, some proj-
ect-specific criteria, and some criteria related to the teachers’ personal goals. Moreover,
student learning should be reflected in the evaluation criteria. Evaluation could be
done as a shared discussion or as an individual task by each teacher separately.

Shared and Extended Expertise as the Backbone of Team Teaching

The learning objectives set for invention projects, the technologies that are used,
how the disciplines are integrated, and the teaching methods used can often benefit
from expertise not possessed by the core teacher team. Some of this expertise could
be needed throughout the project, while some could be required for a limited time
at a specific phase of the project. In addition to a more permanent core team, the
extended teaching team could include visiting members. Bringing in experts could
be highly motivating to students, but also rewarding to the core team teachers, as
they could be exposed to new perspectives and the experts’ professional practices.
As one of our elementary school teachers described, having a group of experts
enables large invention projects to be carried out:

This is a lot easier as a team.You don’t always have to do everything by your-

self. When four people are involved, four heads forget a lot less. If you had to
do all this by yourself, it could be quite a big project or would be a big project
to carry out.
(Tom, class teacher)
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 155
External experts can include professional inventors and designers, specialists in
robotics or material technology, and local community members or policymak-
ers. Involving external experts can also take the form of organized visits to
school extramural learning environments, such as museums, laboratories, the
workshops of craft professionals, etc., which is encouraged by the national core
curriculum.These visits could also provide opportunities for students to become
acquainted with various tools, artifacts, and work environments organized to
support experts in their work, as well as authentic communities of practice
(Hakkarainen et al., 2004).
An example of expert roles in an extended teaching team, teacher professional
development, and increased job satisfaction comes from a seven-week-long inven-
tion project for seventh graders.The Proto-lab for Redesigning School Environment
was planned cooperatively by two craft teachers and a professional service designer,
who also facilitated the first two ideation lessons for students. After the ideation
phase, the teachers took over, and later, the student groups visited a nearby design
museum to collect practical tips on specific constructs. We interviewed Mila, one
of the teachers.

For me, working with several adult professionals was the most valuable experi-
ence. I got so many new ideas and food for thought from discussions with Jean
[the service designer]. Jean could have some high-flying ideas, which needed
to be brought closer to earth and simplified, closer to the students’ experience.
However, this project offered versatile learning both for the student and for us
teachers, which was most rewarding. For me it was important to realize that
even if students produce lots of ideas [with the designer], it is not so straight-
forward to choose and narrow down what we can actually do within the tight
course timeframe. In that sense, the teacher has also an important role in
designing.
(Mila, subject teacher)

Another alternative to strengthen the expertise of a teaching team is to use students

as tutors (Tenhovirta et al., 2021). A refreshing way to empower students and moti-
vate them to pursue their interests is to encourage them to engage with special
expertise relevant for the project and invite them to provide tutoring for their
peers as expert members of the extended team. Chapter 12 of this book provides
examples and describes the advantages and conditions of engaging students as
tutors, but as described by an elementary school teacher, it is noteworthy that
shared expertise may expand to the teacher-student level: “It’s been amazing how
some of those kids have in a way risen up alongside us teachers. It has been really
great what kind of skills and enthusiasm can be found there” (Amy, class teacher).
However, having expertise in the team is not enough. For a group of experts to
function as a team, each member needs two main types of knowledge. The first
type involves the team members’ expertise and how that knowledge is related to
the learning tasks and project objectives, essential for socially shared regulation and
shared orchestration of student work and learning. The second type includes situ-
ational, emergent knowledge about evolving circumstances and challenges. This
156 Tellervo Härkki et al.
situational awareness is essential for a team’s success (Jones et al., 2019) and socially
shared metacognition, e.g., in collaborative building and maintaining of socio-
material learning environment that responds to continuously evolving student
needs and facilitates meaningful student participation and learning. This awareness
is developed with less effort when teachers are co-located and can see each other’s
interactions with students; otherwise, it requires good communication and shared
time to emerge.

Team Teaching: A Means of Professional Development

Team teaching could provide a safe and fruitful environment for teachers to
develop and test pedagogical innovations for teaching novel contents and knowl-
edge practices. In invention projects, teachers co-innovate, co-develop, co-reflect
and co-teach. This reflects the very idea underlying Finnish teacher education and
national core curriculum: all Finnish teachers have a master’s level university
degree, which equips them to construe and apply rather than implement the cur-
riculum. Therefore, invention projects are often vehicles of teacher professional
development: experimentation and even seemingly small events can initiate mean-
ingful changes in a teacher’s thinking, beliefs, and practices (Rytivaara & Kershner,
2012). According to one of our secondary school teachers, team teaching can be
seen as a means of professional learning and development: “I feel that it [team
teaching] is also my continuing training” (Sarah, subject teacher).
Invention projects involve unexpected twists and turns arising from the students’
versatile experiments, which requires teachers to be flexible and sometimes, to
improvise. A teacher’s role shifts from being an omniscient authority to being a
facilitator or even a co-learner. Developing instructional approaches in situ con-
textualizes teacher thinking in the instructional dialogues and versatile project
activities. In this way, the connection between teacher learning and new classroom
practices is immediate, unlike in many professional development programs; co-
developed classroom practices are not only learning outcomes but part of the
teachers’ learning process (Rytivaara & Kershner, 2012). Team support can also
encourage a teacher to try novel things and thus support his/her belief in his/her
capability to carry out an invention project, in general. This is seen in the example
provided by an elementary school teacher:

At least I would have had the anxiety straight away: “Help! What’s being
sought here, whether I understood correctly and how can I come up with
it?” And I would have been distressed by the fact that do I even dare to do
this. It would have taken a little courage if I had been alone, and I would
have been a little unsure if I would have dared [to carry out an invention
project].
(Lisa, class teacher)

Experimentation and reflection are essential parts of the teacher learning process,
and learning experiences are unique for each teacher (Rytivaara & Kershner,
2012). However, to teach as a team, teachers need to make their thinking and
learning more explicit as they plan activities and discuss student learning. This
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 157
could be challenging but not impossible, as teachers’ practical knowledge is implicit
and deeply embedded in classroom practices (Rytivaara et al., 2019). Receiving
constant feedback, combined with the teacher’s willingness to adopt and enhance
his/her teaching practices, can be very rewarding. An elementary school teacher
described the professional development happening in this sense:

I’ve been saying all along that I’m in a more delicious position than I’ve ever
been in.Two people who are about to leave us and the quiet information they
have, I’m the winner in that exchange. I wouldn’t have developed this well
professionally if I hadn’t done it on a team. Since you get feedback from other
adults on that team, it also develops your teaching, and you see others’ way of
teaching. The same thing and you think, “No jokes, you can do that in that
way too?” It gives [me]perspective that my way is not the right way, or you can
do things in other ways too; with a little “improvement”, push it in a better
direction.
(Maya, class teacher)

The teaming model, in which co-present teachers co-teach the same student
group, provides teachers with opportunities to directly experience and observe
each other’s teaching styles and pedagogical decisions in an authentic context.
However, there is still the need for individual reflection to develop into shared
reflection. Shared reflection and open communication are central for a team to
develop into an effective partnership (Pratt, 2014), but also for a successful team-
taught invention project.

Elements of Well-Functioning Team Teaching

Common challenges for well-functioning team teaching include establishing roles
based on the balanced use of expertise and skills, insufficient time for co-planning,
communication, evaluation of success in collaborating, and lack of support from
the school community (Pratt, 2014;Thousand et al., 2006). According to Härkki et
al. (2021), the challenges specific for invention projects also include the physical
learning environments, the class student size and integration, teacher competence,
and insufficient in-service training (mostly regarding technologies, but also group
pedagogy and team teaching). Moreover, having different pedagogical priorities
makes it challenging to build an effective longer-term partnership. Instead of
focusing on the teachers’ personalities, similarities, or chemistry, we recommend
keeping the focus on professional practices and priorities: professional courtesy and
creating a working environment in which all the central processes, responsibilities,
roles, and goals have been agreed upon from the very beginning of the project.
Sustainable team teaching is built on communication, shared decision-making,
mutual support, and positive reinforcement (Kodkanon et al., 2018). Seemingly
small actions, such as thanking, encouraging, complimenting, nodding in agree-
ment, being courteous, helping with mistakes, praising, and apologizing, showing
respect and professional courtesy, and providing a behavior model for students,
good communication and professional respect result in mutual trust (Kodkanon et
al., 2018; Pratt, 2014), which is crucial for teaming.
158 Tellervo Härkki et al.
A change from individual teaching to a collaborative culture means not only
expanding individual teaching skills to collaborative ones but also thorough discus-
sions on beliefs and pedagogical priorities. Working together effectively does not
require team members to agree on everything; in fact, different perspectives can
complement each other (Pratt, 2014). Good collaboration can also be built by
recognizing and respecting differences in the team members’ motivations and
expectations of privacy (Thousand et al., 2006). However, differences in pedagogi-
cal preferences need to be discussed if they are relevant for the planned project;
then, careful listening and the willingness to negotiate solutions and compromise
are necessary. Ultimately, the aim is to provide an inspiring and innovative learning
experience for students.
Invention projects clearly benefit from well-functioning team teaching. However,
especially in invention projects, team teaching is a highly situated, dynamically
evolving enterprise, necessarily dependent on the participating individuals’ objec-
tives, timely capacities, and needs. It requires re-conceptualization of roles and
responsibilities (Hackett et al., 2019). According to Härkki et al. (2021), teachers
could overcome the lack of external support if they are motivated to team teach
and are capable of flexible time management. However, individual teachers’ flexi-
bility is neither a recommended nor a sustainable bedrock for organizing teaching.
Rather, organizational-level commitment is essential (Takala & Uusitalo-
Malmivaara, 2012). We argue that implementing (and later nurturing and further
cultivating) team teaching as a beneficial, widely entrenched practice for invention
projects requires supportive structures and systematically aligned activities at the
national, regional/municipal, and school levels. Our experience of beneficial sup-
port structures and skills for team teaching is summarized in Figure 11.1. This
listing is not exhaustive nor fully implemented in Finland either.
The outer levels of this contextualized team teaching model (Härkki et al.,
2021) facilitate and constrain the inner levels. While the national level focuses on
overall aims and policies at all levels of the educational system, regional and school-
level policies and support activities provide details, guidelines, and resourcing spe-
cific to that level. At the school level, it is best to base team teaching practices on
consistent and continuous building of innovative school culture rather than short-
term project-based initiatives. Importantly, national, regional, school, and team
levels should have frequent opportunities for feedback between them, preferably
supported by collectively agreed on performance and quality indicators.

Discussion
Team teaching is an efficient way to respond to the challenges that come with a
teaching job: staying abreast of the emerging knowledge and skills needed to be a
teacher (Thousand et al., 2006). We recommend starting with a short project and
clear objectives. A short invention project provides a good opportunity for teachers
to determine whether team teaching is a suitable approach for them and to test the
waters with novel learning tasks. A short commitment gives teachers a glimpse of
the benefits, and the possible challenges are smaller in a short-term project than in
a longer-term project. Clear objectives from the start help each team member set
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 159

Figure 11.1 Beneficial support structures and skills for team teaching.

realistic yet inspiring personal objectives—and achieve them. This applies to the
school-level implementation of team teaching and to the teachers planning a
team-taught invention project.
Instead of a set of implemented (or pursued) practices, a team-taught invention
project should be seen as a unique learning path taken by a particular team of
teachers.The shift from individual teaching to team teaching and shared orchestra-
tion of student learning is a major undertaking.When team teaching is initiated by
individual teachers who want to develop their classroom practices, it could be
characterized as a first-order change. That level of change fine-tunes their work
160 Tellervo Härkki et al.
routines but does not challenge their values or the wider community. However,
when team teaching is initiated as a school- or (regional/national) curriculum-
wide change, it becomes a second-order change.This level of change entails a para-
digm shift, confronts fundamental beliefs about current practices, and leads to new
goals, roles, and structures, as well as different ways of thinking and working
(Marzano et al., 2005). These two levels of change require different supportive
structures. In Finland, the 2016 national curriculum initiated a second-order
change regarding team teaching. Currently, there are inconsistencies in the ways
regions and schools have been building supportive structures that facilitate emer-
gence and further development of team teaching practices. Moreover, structural,
dialogical feedback channels between the school, region, and national levels are
underdeveloped.
At its best, team teaching serves as the backbone of both short-term and long-
term invention projects. Teachers’ shared expertise in the design, implementation,
and evaluation of invention projects supports the implementation of entities that
go beyond subject differences. It requires creative problem-solving and it supports
the different needs of groups of students.Working in a team also supports continu-
ous teacher professional development as a part of the day-to-day life of the school’s
activities. Above all, working in the team facilitates implementation of multidimen-
sional invention projects in ways that support the student groups’ activities that are
innovative in terms of content and practices.

References
Aarnio, H. E., Clavert, M., Kangas, K., & Toom, A. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of social
support in the co-planning of multidisciplinary technology education. Design and
Technology Education: An International Journal, 26(3), 8–29. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/
article/view/3022
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching. Guidelines for creative effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Guise, M., Habib, M.,Thiessen, K., & Robbins, A. (2017). Continuum of co-teaching imple-
mentation: Moving from traditional student teaching to co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 66, 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.002
Hackett, J., Bang, M., Goulter, A., & Battista, M. (2019). Crossing risky boundaries: Learning
to authentically and equitably co-teach through design and practice. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 86, 102889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102889
Hadwin,A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation
in collaborative learning environments. In D. Schunk, & J. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-reg-
ulation of learning and performance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-6
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (Eds.) (2004). Communities of net-
worked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Elsevier.
Härkki,T.,Vartiainen, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Co-teaching in
non-linear projects: A contextualised model of co-teaching to support educational change.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103188
 Team Teaching in Invention Projects 161
Jones, N. D., Bettini, E., & Brownell, M. (2019). Can collaborative school reform and teacher
evaluation reform be reconciled? The Elementary School Journal, 119(3), 468–486. https://
doi.org/10.1086/701706
Kodkanon, K., Pinit, P., & Murphy, E. (2018). High-school teachers’ experiences of interdis-
ciplinary team teaching. Issues in Educational Research, 28(4), 967–989. https://www.iier.
org.au/iier28/kodkanon.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pratt, S. (2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in co-teaching to
achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.006
Rytivaara, A., & Kershner, R. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional
learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 999–1008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.006
Rytivaara, A., Pulkkinen, J., & de Bruin, C. L. (2019). Committing, engaging and negotiat-
ing: Teachers’ stories about creating shared spaces for co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 83, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.013
Saloviita, T., & Takala, M. (2010). Frequency of co-teaching in different teacher categories.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/088
56257.2010.513546
Takala, M., & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L. A. (2012). One-year study of the development of
co-teaching in four Finnish schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(3),
373–390. http://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.691233
Tenhovirta, S., Korhonen,T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Cross-age peer
tutoring in a technology-enhanced STEAM project at a lower secondary school. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09674-6
Thousand, J. S.,Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006).The many faces of collaborative planning and
teaching. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203764121-6
Wenger, M. S., & Hornyak, M. J. (1999). Team teaching for higher level learning: A frame-
work of professional collaboration. Journal of Management Education, 23(3), 311–327.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105256299902300308
White, C. S., Henley, J. A., & Brabston, M. E. (1998). To team teach or not to team teach—
That is the question: A faculty perspective. Marketing Education Review, 8(3), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.1998.11488640
12 Fostering Invention Projects
through Cross-Age Peer Tutoring
Sini Davies

Introduction
In this chapter, we introduce cross-age peer tutoring, which refers to a pedagogical
approach and infrastructure in which older students with technological expertise
systematically support their younger peers in invention projects. Cross-age peer
tutoring provides valuable support for teachers, especially in long-standing inven-
tion processes and in implementing new digital technologies like microprocessors,
robotics, e-textiles, and 3D printing. It allows teachers to concentrate on the peda-
gogical orchestration of the overall project rather than solving technological chal-
lenges. Furthermore, it offers opportunities to use more advanced technologies, as
teachers do not have to overwhelm themselves with learning to use or even be
familiar with them. On the other hand, cross-age peer tutoring provides ample
opportunities for the tutor students for personal growth and have far-reaching
positive effects on their futures.
Peer tutoring is not a new approach, although it has been implemented and
studied more in tertiary education than at the elementary and secondary levels
(e.g., Ching & Kafai, 2008; Fields et al., 2018; Morrison et al., 2010; Topping et al.,
2017;Willis et al., 2012). It is a point of emphasis in the newest Finnish curriculum
(Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE], 2016). Peer tutoring pedagogies
often focus on transmitting basic skills and promoting positive attitudes to learning
rather than engaging tutors and tutees in emergent, knowledge-creating problem-
solving and learning novel skills and competencies (Topping et al., 2017).
Consequently, many cross-age peer tutoring programs are heavily structured,
involve pre-planned learning activities, and aim at pre-specified learning outcomes
(Karcher, 2005). In our invention projects, we have focused on developing and
investigating cross-age peer tutoring in open-ended, maker-centered learning
projects based on nonlinear pedagogy and emergent technology-mediated inven-
tion activities (Riikonen et al., 2020a; Tenhovirta et al., 2021).
First, we introduce the theoretical aspects of cross-age peer tutoring from the
perspectives of learning and pedagogy. Second, we describe a cross-age peer tutor-
ing model at one of our research–practice partnership lower secondary schools.
The school already had an established practice of older students serving as tutors
for their younger counterparts. Through invention projects, the school aimed at
creating a more systematic approach to cross-age peer tutoring, where eighth-grade

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-14
 Fostering Invention Projects 163
students from a technology-focused class tutored their seventh-grade peers on the
latter students’ invention projects. Here, we present two perspectives of the cross-
age peer tutoring practices developed during the first year that the invention proj-
ect was conducted in the school: (1) how tutors experienced cross-age peer
tutoring and (2) how peer tutoring in invention projects could be to supported
and facilitated. Finally, we discuss the opportunities that cross-age peer tutoring
offers for schools, students, and invention pedagogy.

Theoretical Aspects of Cross-Age Peer Tutoring

The theoretical foundation of peer tutoring is often linked to the concept of the
zone of proximal development, which Vygotsky (1978) defines as “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solv-
ing under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers”. Later studies
emphasize the educational value of peer tutoring as a process of “learning by teach-
ing,” where tutors not only provide valuable support for tutees but also learn them-
selves (e.g., Duran & Topping, 2019). Although peer tutors are not expected to have
the pedagogical competences of their teachers, they may still function as “experts by
experience” who share their knowledge while challenging themselves to develop
new competencies (Mieg, 2006; Olson & Bruner, 1996; Willis et al., 2012).
Maker-centered collaborative invention projects that rely on nonlinear pedagogy
and involve open-ended design challenges, novel technologies, and unforeseen and
emergent stages and outcomes can be challenging for teachers to orchestrate
(Härkki et al., 2021). Neither teachers nor students may be familiar with the tech-
nologies that are slated to be used or may emerge during the projects. However,
students who have previously conducted such projects or have developed significant
digital competencies through informal activities may be much more familiar with
these technologies, so engaging such students in invention projects through cross-
age peer tutoring can be a valuable asset (Härkki et al., 2021; Riikonen et al., 2020a).
According to Hietajärvi et al. (2020), students with high creative socio-digital
competencies developed outside the classroom may lose motivation and become
alienated and cynical at school if their skills are not acknowledged. Through cross-
age peer tutoring, skilled students can be provided with an acknowledged role, as
supporters of their younger peers’ design, invention, and making activities (Ching
& Kafai, 2008; Duran & Topping, 2019). Karcher (2008) points out that the com-
petence gap between tutor and tutee in peer tutoring should not be too big, ideally
no more than two or three years. However, our projects have provided evidence of
highly successful digital technology workshops organized by eighth-grade tutor
students for elementary and secondary school teachers and even university lectur-
ers and professors. Peer tutoring has the potential to shake up the traditional role
of teachers and academics as the only authoritative holders of knowledge in the
school community and even more widely in the academic world. Having their
skills and contribution socially recognized not only promotes peer tutors’ learning
and skill development but also potentially strengthens their sense of belonging and
self-efficacy (Bandura, 2006; Barron, 2004).
164 Sini Davies
According to Barron et al. (2009), socio-digitally skilled students often have
strong informal social networks, both in real life and on the internet. Forming a
functional team of peer tutors requires building an active personal social network
within and outside team members and even beyond their existing friends to gain
access to the knowledge, tools, and competencies they need (Nardi et al., 2000).
Furthermore, peer tutoring is a challenging experience that emphasizes the
importance of having a supporting social network. Some students may develop a
more active and central role within the social network of the tutor team through
their “collective cognitive responsibility” (Scardamalia, 2002), through their
efforts to advance the team’s joint pool of skills, and by forming active and trusted
relationships with teachers. In showcases of our own studies (Tenhovirta et al.,
2021), we defined these “key tutors” as those with a cognitively central role in
providing advice to other tutors and an agentic role within the whole peer tutor-
ing network. Based on our findings, cross-age peer tutoring provides significant
support for implementing practices of maker-centered learning and science, tech-
nology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education at school
(Tenhovirta et al., 2021).

Developing a Cross-Age Peer Tutoring Model at a Finnish

Secondary School
A cross-age peer tutoring model was developed to support invention projects in
which teams of seventh-grade students participated. The inventor teams were
engaged in creating complex artifacts by using digital fabrication and traditional
technologies in a learning project integrating science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) subjects with crafts and visual arts. The school had already
used cross-age peer tutoring in other projects but wanted to develop a more sys-
tematic approach to it. Meanwhile, having tutor students as part of the teaching
team was considered necessary because of the new technologies used in the inven-
tion projects, of which the teachers did not have any previous experience.
The invention challenge given to the inventor teams, “[i]nvent a smart product
or a smart garment by relying on traditional and digital fabrication technologies
or other programmable devices or 3D CAD”, was designed jointly by the teachers
and researchers. The same invention challenge was assigned to teams in each of
three years, so we had three cycles of invention projects. Following our research–
practice partnership principle (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Riikonen et al., 2020a),
the projects were designed in close collaboration between the researchers and the
teachers against the background of the practical constraints of regular school
activity. Two craft and technology education teachers took on primary responsi-
bility for the project; supported by computer science, chemistry, and physics
teachers as needed. The projects were conducted during the spring term of 2017
and involved eight to nine weekly design sessions (90–135 minutes per session).
The student inventor teams were formed by the students’ own choices in the first
year, by draw in the second year, and by teachers’ choice in the third year, follow-
ing our experiences and research findings on invention activities in the teams
(Riikonen et al., 2020b).
 Fostering Invention Projects 165
The first group of cross-age peer tutors was introduced to help in the invention
projects in fall 2016. At first, the plan for the school’s cross-age peer tutoring model
was to have an entire eighth-grade class of 15 students as tutors. They were given
two hours of training on the GoGo Board programming tool by the Innokas
network at the University of Helsinki. GoGo Board is an affordable, multifaceted
digital fabrication instrument based on a visual programming language that involves
numerous robotic elements like sensors and actuators for external devices (Sipitakiat
et al., 2004). It was intended for use in several future invention projects, and the
tutors were encouraged to further explore it themselves. Four students voluntarily
began spending their free time practicing and experimenting with the GoGo
Board and programming. They quickly formed a team of coordinating “expert”
tutors. These tutors who showed exceptional agency were asked to co-plan work-
shops to introduce the GoGo Board to seventh-grade students. In February 2017,
training sessions were organized for each of the school’s four seventh-grade class-
rooms. These workshops proved to be highly effective, so in subsequent years, the
tutors in each cycle organized similar events for the new inventor teams.
After the training sessions, the craft teacher invited a few tutors at a time to sup-
port the seventh-grade students with their invention projects. During those ses-
sions, tutors worked in pairs to help the inventor teams with problem-solving,
troubleshooting, and further developing their ideas, with the expert tutors taking
responsibility for organizing the peer tutoring activity. From these first sessions
onward, the expert tutors took on more and more responsibility for the tutoring;
toward the end of the invention projects, they were the only people who helped
the invention teams in the classroom. As their expertise in both the technologies
and teaching grew, they also started arranging technology workshops for students
in other schools and even for teachers from their own and other schools.The teach-
ers highly valued their expertise and input, and the tutors were soon engaged in all
levels of technology-related activities in the school community, from tutoring and
advisory roles all the way to having input into school-wide technology purchases.
Although functioning in the role of peer tutor was considered motivating and
provided positive pro-social experiences of helping others, most tutors desired
more structured and better-supported, peer-tutoring processes. To that end, they
took an active role in training the next cohort of tutors, selecting six students from
the first tutee group to receive deeper computational training, following which
they taught new groups of students together. Slowly, during spring 2018, the coor-
dinator team started to step back, giving the new tutors more space to learn and
teach when they entered eighth grade.The third cohort of digital tutors took more
responsibility for the entire innovation process in 2019: they were more involved
in the teams’ designing by sharing their expertise in technology, but also by chal-
lenging and encouraging the teams to further develop their inventions.Their moti-
vation was high, and they received more training and opportunities to teach or
conduct workshops for teachers and students in other schools.
Throughout their time as peer tutors, the first cohort tutors took an active role
in developing the tutoring model in collaboration with the teachers and research-
ers. Based on their experiences and ideas, a tutoring cycle model was developed
(see Figure 12.1).
166 Sini Davies

Fa
m

ili
ar
iza
tio
g
rin

n
Mentoring
nto

the new tutors Learning the

Recruiting and Me

Stepping aside skills needed

and going towards for tutoring
new challenges

Good teaching skills Basic understanding

of how to teach
Knowledge and
ability to recruit and Ability to modify the
train the next equipment and the
generation of tutor teaching methods
students independently

ing
each
nd T
Tutoring a

Figure 12.1 Cross-age peer tutoring cycle model.

The cross-age peer tutoring cycle consists of three phases: familiarization, tutor-
ing and teaching, and recruiting and mentoring. During familiarization, the tutors
learn and develop basic skills regarding technologies, teaching, and collaborative
inventing. In tutoring and teaching, the tutors begin to guide the tutee teams and
organizing workshops while they advance their own expertise. Toward the end of
this stage, the tutors also begin to expand tutoring outside the classroom, providing
their expertise to the whole school community and even outside their school. In
the final stage, the tutors recruit a new group of students to become the next year’s
peer tutors. The advantage of having tutors do the recruiting is that they are part
of the school’s student community and can more easily find enthusiastic younger
students who already are or are keen to become experts in new technologies.
Finally, they mentor the new group of tutors, providing them with invaluable sup-
port, insight, advice, and information on being a peer tutor.
 Fostering Invention Projects 167
The effects of this cross-age peer tutoring model on the school’s working culture
and community extended well beyond the invention projects. The tutor students
helped narrow the gap between students and teachers and created a more demo-
cratic working culture in the school, especially regarding maker-centered activities.
They became an asset to the school’s pedagogical team and created mutual respect
between teachers and students. As the crafts teacher and school principal put it, the
“tutoring model enables students’ participation in the school’s operation at various
levels. It creates a positive, appreciative, heart-to-heart atmosphere in our school”.

Tutor Students’ Experiences of Becoming and Being Cross-Age

Peer Tutors
When developing a long-lasting, cross-age peer tutoring model in a school, the
tutor students’ experiences of their tutoring journey and its effects on their learn-
ing and personal development should not be overlooked. In this section, we pres-
ent some of the experiences of the expert tutors from the first cohort of peer
tutoring; they provide valuable insights into cross-age peer tutoring from their own
perspectives. To describe their own cross-age peer tutoring cycle, a time line was
created by the author and expert tutor students (Figure 12.2).
According to the findings of our study of the first cohort of tutor students
(Tenhovirta et al., 2021), they had to learn and cultivate a multitude of skills to
overcome the challenges they encountered as peer tutors. Examples include basic
and advanced technical skills, teaching skills like how to explain things to motivate
the tutees, social skills (especially regarding collaboration), self-regulatory skills like
taking responsibility and exercising self-control, and reflective skills. With only the
brief training they received at the beginning of the initiative, they had to actively
develop these skills on their own.
Initially, the tutor students felt uncertain of what they should be doing and how
to act. They felt that they lacked the skills needed to function successfully as peer
tutors; indeed, they did not yet fully perceive what those skills were. They had no

Spring Autumn Spring Autumn Spring Autumn

2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018
6 new tutors
4 tutors who were eager to continue 6 new tutors
Tutor team 15 tutors mentored
from the initial group of 15 tutors on their own
by the 4

Recruiting
Tutor cycle
Familiarization Tutoring and teaching and
phase
mentoring
New
Feelings about Realization, growing ”I know what learning
Uncertainty, nervousness
teaching skills I’m doing” cycle

Feelings about Feeling ”I do not

”This is not going to work” ”This is fun”
tutoring respected want to stop”

Figure 12.2 The time line of the first cohort of peer tutors.
168 Sini Davies
experience in teaching others and thus felt insecure and nervous. One tutor wrote
the following about the early stages: “The start was hard. We weren’t sure about
what we were doing, and we didn’t know what to think about all of it”.
The tutor students quickly established collaborative practices that supported the
development of their teaching skills. They began to plan and structure the work-
shops they organized in detail and to systematically reflect on their teaching, espe-
cially after the workshops.This process involved making reflective notes and having
conversations after the sessions. In the following interview excerpt, one expert
tutor describes this approach:

We wondered how the session should go and what we should show, in what
order. And after that, usually after the session, we discussed with Joona [one of
the tutor students] how the session went and what I could have done better.
There were conversations…of what we had learned in the last session, and it
always improved a little.

Gradually, the tutors developed their skills, and uncertainty and nervousness trans-
formed into confidence and joy.The tutor students became a well-organized team,
with each having a different role, while working in close collaboration and relying
on one another’s strengths. Based on our experiences and research findings
(Tenhovirta et al., 2021), this team-building process of discovery is very important
and may have long-standing benefits for the tutor students’ self-confidence. One
described this transformation from uncertainty to high confidence and well-orga-
nized teamwork as follows:

We started enjoying what we were doing, finding out new ways of holding the
classes, new things to teach, and new challenges.… We had different unspoken
roles in the group. I did the talking; then, we had one helping out the students,
a coder, and a pessimist who kept our feet on the ground. We all knew what
to do, and we felt secure about it. At this point, without our even noticing, this
tutor teaching had changed all our suspicions to pure admiration, and we were
proud to have the chance to do it. By then, we had developed good teaching
methods and equipment and a great attitude toward tutoring.

In both written reflections and interviews, the tutor students described the role of
the teachers and the importance of the support they were provided by all parties in
the research–practice partnership, emphasizing the independence, responsibility,
and respect they were given. They also felt that they became highly respected
members of the school’s pedagogical team; they also started to respect their teach-
ers even more. This boosted their confidence even further and motivated them to
seek to excel in their positions as peer tutors and to develop their skills. One tutor
student described the significance of the teachers’ role in the following way:

It is important to mention that during all this time, we weren’t on our own.
We had the complete support of the crafts and IT teachers, the principal,
and the university. In particular, our teachers spent a lot of time with us, but
they never tried to act like they were better than we were. Instead, they even
 Fostering Invention Projects 169
backed off sometimes and asked our advice. It became a relationship of
mutual respect, because we tutors started to appreciate the job they did after
trying it out ourselves, and they respected our commitment. I see this as the
key.The reason this was possible was our commitment and also our teachers.
They supported us by letting us decide on our own. If we had always been
guided by one of our teachers, I don’t see any way it could have worked.

The first cohort tutor team recruited a new team of tutors from among their
younger peers and guided and motivated them to continue their work. The tutors
felt that this was an important task and did not want the tutoring model to fade
away.This was also an emotional experience for them because they did not want to
stop being tutors, but they knew that they had to cede responsibility to a new
cohort of tutors and move on with their own studies. Based on our findings
(Tenhovirta et al., 2021) and the tutors’ writings and interviews, the experience and
skills they acquired through their time as peer tutors affected and clarified their
future plans and could have far-reaching effects on their futures. This is a very
important aspect of peer tutoring from the educational point of view. One tutor
crystalized the key effects of peer tutoring on him and his fellow tutors as follows:

The most important lesson we learned as tutors is to believe. Even if some-

times things do not go as planned or you have a rocky start, it is better to try
than to give up. We have also learned to teach and to respect those who teach
us. After having the experience of making our own decisions in tutoring, we
have learned to take more responsibility, to know our limits, and to have the
courage to break those limits.
It has also had a positive effect on our future plans by, for example, clarify-
ing our study paths. For me, it made really clear that I want to follow a path in
technological discovery in medicine, and it made me choose to take the sci-
entific and technological class in high school.

Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter focuses on describing the opportunities provided by cross-age peer
tutoring for collaborative invention projects, for maker-centered and STEAM
learning, and for the tutor students themselves. Over three cohorts of peer tutor-
ing, with the help of the student tutors, we developed a sustained cross-age peer
tutoring model for maker-centered learning projects. Our observations and find-
ings indicate that developing a systematic mode of cross-age peer tutoring to sup-
port invention and maker-centered learning was a fundamental aspect of the
school’s pedagogical approach and provided critical scaffolding structures and prac-
tices when combined with the teachers’ support (Riikonen et al., 2020a;Tenhovirta
et al., 2021). The effects of cross-age peer tutoring on the school’s pedagogical
infrastructure were crystalized through the following four key aspects:

1 Cross-age peer tutoring releases teachers to focus on the overall orchestration

of the class and the project, instead of being diverted by technological and
practical challenges experienced by individual student teams.
170 Sini Davies
2 More advanced new technologies can be used in maker-centered and STEAM
learning when teachers, who already have heavy workloads, do not have to
master these technologies.
3 Cross-age peer tutoring promotes a more democratic school community by
helping to narrow the gap between students and teachers.
4 For the tutor students, cross-age peer tutoring can offer many opportunities
for personal growth and have far-reaching positive effects on their futures.

Authentic invention projects are often nonlinear and engage teams of students in
creating unforeseen solutions for ill-defined, authentic, and complex challenges (Viilo
et al., 2011). However, these projects can be very challenging for teachers to plan and
conduct. Cross-age peer tutoring offers an invaluable asset to support the successful
completion of such maker-centered learning projects.With the support of peer tutors,
the teacher does not have to concentrate on solving novel and often complex techno-
logical challenges, while the tutor students can use their own constantly developing
expertise to introduce more sophisticated new technologies into the invention proj-
ects.With the help of the tutor students, teachers can take a more comprehensive role
in scaffolding the projects and classroom activities. When teachers trust the tutor stu-
dents and respect their expertise—which often exceeds their own—those students
can even be engaged to help plan the procurement of such technologies for the school.
When the school acknowledges the expertise of its students through systematic
peer tutoring that can be expanded to many areas beyond technological expertise,
it promotes a more equal culture between teachers and students. Based on our
observations, even students who do not serve as peer tutors benefit from this build-
ing of mutual respect and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, such an open atmo-
sphere of mutual respect could promote the development of a culture of innovation
in the school, with the teachers no longer the sole holders of knowledge, and the
students no longer passive receivers of it. The educational value of cross-age peer
tutoring should not be overlooked in this respect.
Finally, becoming a peer tutor can have long-standing positive effects on stu-
dents. Cross-age peer tutoring promotes the tutors’ self-efficacy and self-image. It
also offers them abundant opportunities to learn and cultivate a multitude of skills:
technological expertise, teaching know-how, collaboration, taking responsibility,
self-control, and reflective skills. Perhaps the most important aspect of self-devel-
opment among the peer tutor students, based on their own experiences and our
observations, has been to believe in themselves and have the courage to take on
new challenges. Not being afraid of making mistakes and having the mentality to
try again if something goes wrong are some of the more valuable skills to learn in
becoming an innovative participant in today’s society.

References
Bandura, A. (2006).Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-6916.2006.00011.X
Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience
differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/
10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA
 Fostering Invention Projects 171
Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Takeuchi, L., & Fithian, R. (2009). Parents as learning partners in
the development of technological fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2),
55–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0021
Ching, C. C., & Kafai, Y. (2008). Peer pedagogy: Student collaboration and reflection in a
learning-through-design project. The Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2601–2632. https://
doi.org/10.1177/016146810811001203
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Duran, D., & Topping, K. (2019). Learning by teaching: Evidence-based strategies to enhance learn-
ing in the classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1663036
Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y., Nakajima, T., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2018). Putting making into
high school computer science classrooms: Promoting equity in teaching and learning
with electronic textiles in exploring computer science. Equity and Excellence in Education,
51(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1436998
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Härkki,T.,Vartiainen, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Co-teaching
in non-linear projects: A contextualised model of co-teaching to support educational
change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, article 103188. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TATE.2020.103188
Hietajärvi, L., Lonka, K., Hakkarainen, K., Alho, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). Are schools
alienating digitally engaged students? Longitudinal relations between digital engagement
and school engagement. Frontline Learning Research, 8(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.14786/
FLR.V8I1.437
Karcher, M. (2005). Cross-age peer mentoring. In D. L. DuBois, & M. J. Karcher (Eds.),
Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 266–285). SAGE Publications. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781412976664.n18
Karcher, M. (2008). The cross-age mentoring program: A developmental intervention for
promoting students’ connectedness across grade levels. Professional School Counseling, 12(2),
137–143. https://doi.org/10.5330/psc.n.2010-12.137
Mieg, H. A. (2006). Social and sociological factors in the development of expertise. In K.
Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, Robert R. Hoffman (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 743–760). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.041
Morrison, I., Everton,T., Rudduck, J., Cannie, J., & Strommen, L. (2010). Pupils helping other
pupils with their learning: Cross-age tutoring in a primary and secondary school. Mentoring
& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 8(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/713685535
Nardi, B. A.,Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2000). It’s not what you know, it’s who you know:
Work in the information age. First Monday, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v5i5.741
Olson, D. R., & Bruner, J. S. (1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In D. Olson, &
N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning,
teaching and schooling (pp. 9–27). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631211860.
1998.00003.x
Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen,T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,
P. (2020a). The development of pedagogical infrastructures in three cycles of maker-cen-
tered learning projects. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(2),
29–49. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2782
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020b). Bringing maker prac-
tices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’
172 Sini Davies
collaborative making processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 15(3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowl-
edge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98).
Sipitakiat, A., Blikstein, P., & Cavallo, D. P. (2004). GoGo Board: Augmenting programmable
bricks for economically challenged audiences. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A.
Scott Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), ICLS ’04: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
the Learning Sciences (pp. 481–488). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://
dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1149126.1149185
Tenhovirta, S., Korhonen, T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Cross-
age peer tutoring in a technology-enhanced STEAM project at a lower secondary school.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10798-021-09674-6
Topping, K., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From
principles to practical implementation. Effective Peer Learning: From Principles to Practical
Implementation, 1–185. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695471
Viilo, M., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2011). Supporting the technology-
enhanced collaborative inquiry and design project: A teacher’s reflections on practices.
Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice, 17(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602
.2011.538497
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole,
Ed.). Harvard University Press.
Willis, P., Bland, R., Manka, L., & Craft, C. (2012). The ABC of peer mentoring: What sec-
ondary students have to say about cross-age peer mentoring in a regional Australian
school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/138
03611.2011.650920
13 Approaches to Student Evaluation
in Invention Pedagogy
Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen

Rationale behind Evaluation

The concept of evaluation refers to the actions which are supportive of the learn-
ing process and the actions which are aimed at determining the amount and qual-
ity of the learning outcome (Black & Wiliam, 2009). Both types of evaluation are
related to the aims of the invention project. When an evaluation action makes a
judgment related to the achieving of the aims of an invention project or grade of
the performance of a student or a small group of students, the type of evaluation is
summative (Wiliam, 2000). In turn, while supporting the invention project or
appraising students within an ongoing process, the type of evaluation is formative.
These two main types of evaluation require individual or collective interpretation
of the learning aims as well as evidence, which is used as the starting point in
evaluation.
Evaluation of the invention project might be challenging because the aims of
the project are typically set holistically. First, the project supports students in learn-
ing core ideas in the domain through engaging them in scientific and engineering
practices, collaboration, and constructing of an educational artifact (see for example
Chapter 2 of this book). Learning the scientific and engineering practices or skills
needed to complete these practices are also aims of the invention project. These
practices are practices that are similar to experts in the field, such as asking ques-
tions, defining problems, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and
interpreting data, developing and using models, and communicating information
(Krajcik & Czerniak, 2013). An artifact, here the invention, is an object created by
students during an invention project.
Second, there are aims related to the characteristics of an artifact. To be consid-
ered as an artifact, it needs to be lasting, durable, public, and materially present
(Frederik et al., 2011). Moreover, aesthetic aims, such as exceptionality and diver-
sity, ethical aims, and aims related to sustainability, are often emphasized as aims for
the artifact.
An invention project is also an environment for the learning of transversal com-
petencies also called key competencies, generic competencies, or 21st-century
competencies, such as creative and critical thinking skills, collaboration, and prob-
lem-solving skills, skills needed in the use of various tools, such as digital and
manual tools (Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Therefore, aims related to the transversal

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-15
174 Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen
competencies in an invention project form the third group of aims, which could
be evaluated as a part of the project (Pepper, 2011). However, the development of
various skills and competencies through invention or design projects does not eas-
ily reach full potential. For example, aims related to the transversal competencies
are often not shared with the students (Scott & Yates, 2002). Therefore, self-evalu-
ation and peer evaluation that move learners forward do not focus enough to the
learning of transversal competencies.
In an evaluation action of an invention project, the focus is always on both the
quality of the learning process (the formative type of evaluation) and the learning
outcome (the summative type of evaluation) with a focus on improving students’
invention process and outcomes. Therefore, both the teacher and the students use
evaluation data to develop teaching and learning, and consequently, the evaluation
is called enhancement-led evaluation (Atjonen, 2015; Patton, 2011). Consequently,
it is important to support students in using evaluation feedback in the development
of their learning process and learning outcome. This type of orientation to the
evaluation is emphasized in Finnish education policy and practices and is recog-
nized as an orientation to evaluation in this book because the authors are from
Finland. In general, in Finnish compulsory school education, student assessment is
the responsibility of teachers who have pedagogical autonomy in the matter,
although principles of student assessment and assessment targets are defined in the
national core curriculum. Standardized testing has no role in Finnish compulsory
education; instead, students are encouraged to design and assess their own learning
(OECD, 2020).
A quality learning process promotes students’ learning and depends on cognitive
activation, supportive climate, and classroom management (Hattie, 2009). The
quality of the outcome of the learning process refers to how well the competencies
can be used in new situations, such as in problem-solving or in new invention
projects (Dixson & Worrell, 2016).The evaluation provides students and the teacher
with feedback.There are several other aims of evaluation, such as making the learn-
ing process and the learning outcome transparent.The evaluation actions are always
based on the verified evidence and graded according to the criteria. The criteria
come from the general part of the curriculum, such as the description of transversal
competencies and from the subject-specific part, such as the description of engi-
neering and design practices.
The evaluation and the feedback affect how the students learn or work during
the invention projects and get excited by the inventing (Weeden et al., 2002).
Evaluation with encouragement supports a student’s self-concept as an inventor.
This type of encouragement and constructive feedback is supportive in the devel-
opment of students’ self-efficacy, in other words, their belief in their capacity to
execute behaviors necessary to use their creativity and invention process (Bandura,
1997). Self-efficacy reflects confidence in the ability to exert control over one’s
own motivation, behavior, and social environment. It influences confidence in how
the invention project proceeds and results in the invention which is pleasing to at
least its inventors in its newness. Moreover, an invention project has many features
known to improve growth or maker mindset (Nadelson, 2021). Therefore, the
evaluation actions should indeed be constructive and encouraging during the
 Approaches to Student Evaluation 175
learning of invention projects: students need to understand the feedback and,
according to that, direct their learning and working in the desired direction. The
feedback is directed and connected to each student’s actions and outputs. The stu-
dents are directed simultaneously to interpret feedback so that it will be easier for
them to change their own way of operating.

Making Evaluation Relevant

The relevance of evaluation depends on a range of characteristics, such as validity,
reliability, and objectivity. According to the validity characteristics, the evaluation
should focus on the knowledge and skills or competencies that are aimed at learn-
ing within the invention project. The evaluation should focus on essential and
relevant issues, described in the curriculum as aims for learning. Thus, the starting
point for the evaluation should be the aims of the curriculum or the aims empha-
sized in the invention project.
The validity also includes transparency. The evaluation should be open and
transparent, and the participants must know the aims of the invention project and
the evaluation practices. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the aims of
the project, including aims for learning transversal competencies, and the expected
outcomes of the project at the beginning of the invention project: students and
teachers should share the same aims. After sharing the aims, evaluation practices to
be used should be agreed upon at the beginning of the invention project. In prac-
tice, the students should be invited to be involved in the planning of the invention
project and planning its evaluation. It is also important to go through the evalua-
tion criteria with the students’ parents. This is because the invention project is
different from traditional teaching and learning, and it might be difficult for parents
to comprehend all the aims and how they are planned to be achieved during the
project. For example, parents should understand that learning to formulate prob-
lems is one of the aims in invention pedagogy, and the learning task or design
problem is not clear in the beginning of a project.
Validity is also important in the context of enhancement-led evaluation.
Enhancement-led evaluation aims to help students to improve their learning pro-
cess and performance within the invention projects. Therefore, the formative and
summative evaluation and the feedback must support the development of the
learning process and working in the long run also.
The demand for the reliability of the evaluation includes the fact that the tools
of the evaluation do not contain random errors and that every student is given
feedback and support according to their needs and process and product are evalu-
ated according to the agreed criteria in the same way. The objectivity of the evalu-
ation includes the fact that the effect of the subjective factors, values, and
preconceptions have been removed.

Teacher’s Role and Evaluation Tools in an Invention Project

The evaluation gives the teacher’s feedback on the success of the supervision in an
invention project and on the progress of the project. The evaluation also further
176 Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen
directs the development of instruction and supervision practices. The teacher’s
supervision is multilevel during the project: the operation is directed at the level
of an individual, small groups, and the whole group. In the case of a group, the
evaluation information will be interpreted by the group members at an individual
level.
The teacher can influence the internal division of labor of groups and how this
division of labor is realized: the negotiation of the academic and cooperative aims
of the groups, roles of the group members, and individual responsibilities. In the
evaluation, the teacher considers how the needs of the different students have
influenced the personalization of the objectives, process, and outcomes of the proj-
ect (Jahnukainen, 2011) and the level of support of the different students. This
means that the variation in the objectives, invention project, and expected out-
come, are taken into account in the evaluation of different students. Therefore, it is
central to take the special needs of individual students into consideration already at
the beginning of the invention project.
The teacher examines the invention project as a whole and at the same time
estimates their own operation. To be able to do a comprehensive evaluation, the
teacher needs other tools for perceiving the various groups and individual student
invention projects. The invention project consists of many levels of operations, and
it is challenging to keep them all in mind and sometimes because of the long-term
nature of the project, even impossible. Therefore, other visual evaluation tools such
as tables and color codes help a teacher to control the whole project and its evalu-
ation and to facilitate the follow-up. The tools help the teacher to divide the pro-
cess into shorter periods. The teacher strengthens their own development by
anticipating their successes and by thinking what needs to be done better next time.
The teachers do not necessarily have experience with the evaluation criteria and
evaluation of long-term projects, so the teachers often face a new data acquisition
process and information analysis.The traditional ways of evaluation could be mod-
ified to each specific situation, but usually, they should be modified to the group in
question in addition to the control of the students’ actions.

Evaluation Types and Methods

Evaluation and learning are strongly connected when the diagnostic and formative
purposes of evaluation are highlighted. The evaluation methods described in the
following sections form the evaluation in an invention project. Invention is not a
linear process, so diagnostic and formative evaluation are emphasized during the
process. The portfolio evaluation, presented later, includes all three evaluation
methods.

Diagnostic Evaluation: Evaluation before Learning

The aim of diagnostic, declarative or planning evaluation is to find the skills and
perceptions needed by the students in the invention project. Tools for diagnostic
evaluation include various tests, teacher questioning, and observations (Leighton
 Approaches to Student Evaluation 177
& Gierl, 2007). The questions posed by the teacher direct the student to look at
the invention project from a particular perspective. The student’s response tells the
teacher what the student thinks about the topic. For example, a review of the “if-
then” structure used in coding can begin with the question:

What different smart processes have you recognized at home? Or in more

detail, what automatic processes are typical to house heating or cooking with
an electric plate? (An answer: the electric plate heats until the selected tem-
perature is achieved and then the heating stops).Which everyday objects could
benefit from smart processes and what kind?

Or: “Tell us about a situation in everyday life in which you have previously acted
to decide what to do: if you do—then you do it—otherwise…”
While they are being questioned, the students should be given sufficient time to
think about the question. Therefore, it is good sometimes to ask questions on a
whiteboard or via an online environment. Students may be asked to discuss the
questions in small groups, write or draw an answer, and compare answers between
the groups. Answers can also be presented by taking pictures of the environment or
during a school trip. Answers, pictures, or thoughts should be discussed construc-
tively—not through negative evaluations.
A test, Kahoot,1 or Socrative2 activity could also be used to map the students’
conceptions or skills: Which of the processes include the “if-then” structure: (a)
listening to music, (b) heating water in an electric kettle, (c) writing a document.
Teachers can ask questions that they know to be critical for the success of the
students’ work: “How are the results reported?”, “What keywords did you think
you should use in a search?” In a similar way, it is possible to map the way in which
the students have understood the aims of the invention project: “What and how we
are evaluating in the invention project?”, “What sensors/electrical equipment do
you think you will need in your project?” The questions help students think about
aims of the project.
In the context of diagnostic evaluation, students often respond in an unexpected
way because the topic has not yet been studied, and they do not know the concepts
or skills needed in the project. Therefore, it is particularly important to provide
encouraging feedback to students. After the student’s answer, a teacher naturally
continues with a follow-up question. If the answer is vague, the student may be
given an opportunity to modify the answer. The teacher can repeat or slightly
modify the student’s answer, for example, by asking,“Do you mean that…” (repeat-
ing the answer in your own words), “You bring up perspectives A and B, would
there be other perspectives?”, “What do you think about C?” The types of feed-
back given by a teacher can be grouped as follows:

• Encouraging feedback: emphasizing competence

• Evaluative feedback: highlight positive perspectives and ask to look at it from
another perspective, for example
• Guiding feedback: how the objectives should be considered in the future
178 Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen
Formative Evaluation: Evaluation during Learning
Formative evaluation was used during the invention project to support the stu-
dent’s invention project and learning. Moreover, peers could be active in giving
feedback during the process, such as during the communication sessions.Therefore,
it is important to ask students to communicate the phase of the invention project
to other students and the teacher after the students have formulated the problem
or challenge of the invention project, generated ideas, and selected the most appro-
priate ideas related to the invention, and after the prototyping.
The feedback provided by the teacher during the invention project, as well as
the self-evaluations and peer evaluations help the students to understand their
learning and invention project and to identify the development of their skills and
knowledge and areas where competencies are not yet sufficient. The students learn
to correct their mistakes and develop their working so that the goals set for the
project and learning can be achieved. The feedback could be given orally, adding
comments to the portfolio or learning diary or with structured forms.Therefore, it
is important that at different stages of the invention project, students communicate
to the teacher and to each other about the stage and results of the project.
Formative evaluation guides regulate the student’s working and learning toward the
aims set for the invention project. Its primary function is to help students to discover
what they know and how, or are able to do, and what still needs to be learned and in
what way (Webb & Jones, 2009). Formative evaluation helps the teacher to focus his
or her support and supervision on issues that students do not yet know. Formative
evaluation can also support the student’s feeling of competence.The need for compe-
tence is one of the key basic psychological needs or motivating factors in learning.

Summative Evaluation: Evaluation after Learning

Making the achievement of the aims and learning visible is the evaluation of knowl-
edge and skills which have been learned or summative evaluation. Evaluation of
knowledge and skills are based on verified evidence of how well and to what extent
the student has achieved the aims set for the invention project (Doran & Tamir, 2002)
The knowledge and skills achieved in an invention project are rarely evaluated
by a traditional test. Summative evaluation is done more often by an observation
form, a learning diary, a portfolio, or based on a screening test. Documents, reports,
blogs, or videos written or produced by the students could also be evaluated.
Summative evaluation could be implemented through the evaluation of the inven-
tion created in the invention project. A specific evaluation sheet, constructed based
on the aims of the project, could be used in the evaluation of the invention. It is
common to evaluate the invention base on its usability or functionality and based
on aesthetic and ethical criteria.

Self-Evaluation and Peer-Evaluation Methods

Through self-evaluation, the students find out what they have learned, compare
their learning to the set aims, and strive to find out what should still be learned.
 Approaches to Student Evaluation 179
They can also recall how they have worked during the invention project and how
they could work more effectively next time. Self-evaluation is thus like formative
evaluation and intended to support the invention project and learning. It helps
students to become responsible for their project and their learning. Self-evaluation
also supports the development of metacognitive skills, self-confidence, and self-
image. In addition to learning, the use of a self-evaluation method develops readi-
ness for further studies and adult life (Andrade, 2019).
It is known that self-evaluation is challenging for students. Therefore, students’
self-evaluation should be supported by teacher-led discussion, teacher questioning,
or assigning a task.The discussion can be started by asking the student to share their
experiences of the project in general. Next, the student could be asked to look at
their own activity during the project and to think about what kind of problems
they had. Finally, the students could be encouraged to analyze how they can develop
their working and learning. The students’ self-evaluation could be supported, for
example, with a question, “What was the most interesting/surprising/charming
thing about the invention project?” This question guides students to evaluate what
they have learned during the project. Other examples of questions that guide the
self-evaluation process include: “List the three most important things you learned
during the project,” and “What else would you have liked to learn?” Students can
be asked to write the answers on a common page of the project or on other digital
platforms. After writing, they can be instructed to compare their responses and
discuss each other’s experiences. It is important to guide students to evaluate their
invention project asking the students, for example, “How have you succeeded in
your group in collaboration, idea generation, prototyping, and communication?”
“How can you improve your working during an invention project?”
The forms could be used for guiding the self-evaluation.There may be fixed and
open-ended questions on the form (see Table 13.1).
The group can also self-evaluate its own activities using other forms or relying
on a discussion. As the group evaluates its own activities, group members become
aware of how each group member and the group as a whole has worked. In peer
review, a student evaluates working or innovation of another student or a group. In

Table 13.1 Example of self-evaluation form of students’ activities

What can I do? (1 = I need exercise, 2 = moderately, 3 = well)

1. I am able to search for information related to the invention
1 2 3
project.
2. I am able to generate ideas. 1 2 3
3. I am able to evaluate ideas. 1 2 3
4. I am able to make a prototype and test its operation. 1 2 3
5. I am able to work in a group. 1 2 3
6. I am able to communicate during the invention project. 1 2 3
7. I am able to evaluate an invention project. 1 2 3
8. I am able to evaluate an invention. 1 2 3
What was most interesting related to the invention project?
What else would you like to learn about the invention project?
180 Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen
this case, it is important to encourage students to be positive in the evaluation and
to bring up a number of perspectives. Any criticism presented should be done so
constructively. For example, a question about how the robot could be made to
work more smoothly could be asked (Brown et al., 2021).
Several views or aspects of evaluation are highlighted while evaluating the
invention project. Divergent views are discussed and recognized in such a way that
all aims for the invention project are evaluated or the invention project and prod-
uct are evaluated from different perspectives. These perspectives could be found
among the aims of the project, such as the external presentation of the work itself,
the layout of the poster or presentation slide, the use of colors, the interest of the
work, and the meaningfulness of the results.

ePortfolio—a Method for Knowledge Building, Interaction, and Evaluation

The digital portfolio, a briefcase or a folder, refers to the collection of the displays
of student assignments, descriptions of the learning process, and outcomes within
an invention project. The display discloses the student’s diverse abilities and the
reached competence levels depending on the portfolio assignment type: the open
assignment type reveals more detailed and unexpected information than the ready-
to-fill-in type (Kimball, 2005; Parker et al., 2012). The content of the portfolio,
collected documents, consist of the process descriptions, the choices available, and
the self-evaluations/the group evaluations and describe success and recognized
challenges and objectives for further projects (see Figure 13.1).
Alongside the authentic documentation, the portfolio consists of two more basic
elements: reflection and collaboration (Zubizarreta, 2006). (See Figure 13.2). The
portfolio develops in the portfolio process from a container to a reflective report
and even to a dialog (Kimbell, 2012).The content of the portfolio diversifies as the
unexperienced student becomes accustomed to the method and the simplest doc-
umenting is transformed into a more diverse holistic or even abstract narration (see
also Saarinen, 2021). The collected materials can be processed, reflected, immedi-
ately and/or later at an appropriate time.
In turn, the collaboration can be a multifaceted act. It can mean control or com-
munication (of a teacher/with a teacher), producing contents (with peers), or the
division of the learning in the first place. When working with the portfolio method,
the learner’s action develops or is transformed into a critical thinker who has “a dia-
log” of their own learning by themselves. The highest manifold content relies on a
well-developed ability to reflect comprehensively and on student-led freedom to
implement activities (Saarinen, 2021). This development or transformation also
strengthens the experience of the ownership of the portfolio, which engages the
learner to put more effort into their own learning and to make it more meaningful
(Kimball, 2005).
The portfolio can contain a range of types of assessment: It can be shared online
with the teacher when the process feedback is direct and formative by nature. If the
portfolio is shared with peers, the peer feedback can be directed toward content or
criteria, and due to its formative nature, it also supports the process. Finally, the
contents of the portfolio comprise the material for summative assessment purposes.
 Approaches to Student Evaluation 181

Figure 13.1 An extract of ePortfolio in an invention project: Everyday Assistive (Arjen apu)
(sixth grade). A burglar alarm that reacts to movement and protects your prop-
erty and works as a mirror.

Elements of content Learner Elevators

Develops during the process raises the level

Documentation

Development Changes in
THINKER degree of
PORTFOLIO

Abstract freedom:
Holistic Student-led
REPORTER Concrete Shared
Teacher-led

STORER

Collaboration

Figure 13.2 The elements of ePortfolio process and the development levels.
(modified from Saarinen, 2021).
182 Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen
One principle of the portfolio evaluation is that the working and the progress of
it, the best achievements, and failures and coping with them are stored. One’s own
development is examined and with the help of the documentation, reflected either
to construct a statement or the deepest level of reflective thinking (Kimball, 2005).
Then also the mistakes and failures are seen but not emphasized in the same way
as for example in the traditional evaluation which is based on the use of summative
tests. On the other hand, the examination of mistakes and their corrections show
versatile skills and abilities, and therefore it is desirable for the portfolio documen-
tation to contain errors and mistakes. The portfolio evaluation is an attempt to
strengthen learning to learn and self-direction, as well as to develop self-esteem.

Discussion
Both, formative and summative evaluation are needed in an invention project, and
they can be realized through self- and peer-assessment practices. Both types of
evaluation are carried out according to the holistic aims of an invention project.
Formative evaluation supports the invention project and students learning during
the process. Summative evaluation summarizes the student’s invention project and
learning outcomes.Therefore, it is more than grading, and a single grade might not
be enough for summarizing. In this chapter, alternative evaluation tools, such as
self-assessment evaluation, a list of evaluation dimensions, and a collecting ePortfo-
lio method have been introduced. The ePortfolio method enables both the short-
and long-term tracking of learning activities and thus gathers the evidence for
assessing the process and finally assesses summatively the reached level. The ePort-
folio can contain along with self-/group-interpretation views from peers and feed-
back from the teacher.The collected evidence becomes material for evaluation and
gives a broader and authentic picture of the skills and competencies that have been
achieved. Also, the transversal competencies, demanding to verify, can be more
conveniently traced through the authentic evidence in ePortfolio.
However, the invention project and nonlinear learning model demand new ways
of applying evaluation. Evaluation should support the creation of the student’s wide-
ranging creative competencies and capabilities. These open-ended problems with
complex nature settings in invention projects need to be assessed with improvisation
and the evaluation accomplished in a way that facilitates the process, like the ePort-
folio method. Evaluation should be seen as an ongoing process with several itera-
tions, a co-creation with learners, and as a learning event itself, not a vanishing point.

Notes
1 https://kahoot.com/
2 https://www.socrative.com/

References
Andrade H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in
Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
 Approaches to Student Evaluation 183
Atjonen, P. (2015). “Your career will be over”—power and contradictions in the work of
educational evaluators. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45, 37–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.03.004
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. https://doi.org/10.1891/
0889-8391.13.2.158
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education),
21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Brown, T., Rongerude, J., Leonard, B., & Merrick, L. C. (2021). Best practices for online
team-based learning: Strengthening teams through formative peer evaluation. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2021, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20436
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.
Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Doran, R. L., & Tamir, P. (2002). Science educator’s guide to laboratory assessment. NSTA press.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.880337
Frederik, I., Sonneveld, W., & de Vries, M.J. (2011). Teaching and learning the nature of
technical artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 277–290.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9119-3
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-011-9198-8
Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of
the inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 55(5), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.537689
Kimball, M. (2005). Database e-portfolio systems: A critical appraisal. Computers and
Composition, 22(4), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2005.08.003
Kimbell, R. (2012). The origins and underpinning principles of e-scape. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10798-011-9197-x
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2013). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A
project-based approach. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1489
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (Eds.) (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and
applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00072.x
Nadelson L. S. (2021) Makerspaces for rethinking teaching and learning in K–12 education:
Introduction to research on makerspaces in K–12 education special issue. The Journal of
Educational Research, 114(2), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872473
OECD. (2020). Education policy outlook: Finland. OECD Education Policy Outlook series.
OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/country-profile-Finland-2020.
pdf
Parker, M., Ndoye, A., & Ritzhapt, A. (2012). Qualitative analysis of student perceptions of
e-portfolios in a teacher education program. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
28(3), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784687
Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation. Guilford Press.
Pepper, D. (2011). Assessing key competences across the curriculum—and Europe. European
Journal of Education, 46, 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01484.x
Saarinen, A. (2021). Pedagogical dimensions of the ePortfolio in craft education (Publication No.
127) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki]. Helsinki Studies in Education.
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-7722-3
Scott, G., & Yates, K. W. (2002). Using successful graduates to improve the quality of under-
graduate engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(4), 363–
378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790210166666
184 Auli Saarinen and Jari Lavonen
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st
century competencies: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 165–184. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09695940903075925
Weeden, P., Winter, J., & Broadfoot, P. (2002). Assessment. What’s in it for schools? Routledge
Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203468920
Wiliam, D. (2000). The meanings and consequences of educational assessments. Critical
Quarterly, 42(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8705.00280
Zubizarreta, J. (2006). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning. John
Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2006.00261_1.x
Part III

Co-developing Inventive
School Culture

The principles and practices of invention pedagogy can be expanded to school-

level development, in which the aim is to create inventive culture for the whole
school community. Invention pedagogy supports schools in co-developing such a
culture through creative processes that combine research-based knowledge with
teachers’ pedagogical experience and everyday school practices. Central to both
inventive school culture and successful implementation of invention projects is
enabling teachers’ transformative professional development in collaboration with
other school communities and networks.
The third part of the book explores invention pedagogy from the perspectives
of developing learning environments and teachers’ transformative digital agency, as
well as discusses the pathways toward the innovative school 2.0.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-16
14 Learning Environments for
Invention Pedagogy
Leenu Juurola, Kaiju Kangas, Laura Salo, and
Tiina Korhonen

Introduction
Within invention pedagogy, we consider schools to be learning ecosystems com-
posed of the operating culture, collaboration practices and networks, pedagogic
practices, digital and non-digital instruments, and learning environments. Further,
learning environments can be interpreted to include physical, virtual, and epis-
temic-social environments (Nardi, 1999; Nonaka & Konno, 1998). One of the aims
of invention pedagogy is to create learning environments that provide multifaceted
technological (tools) and social (community) resources that enable students to par-
ticipate in creative practices of inventing and making artifacts in schools. Such
environments are usually seen as “makerspaces,” distinct from structured, formal
learning environments (e.g., Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hatch, 2014).
Makerspaces (sometimes also referred to as hackerspaces, hackspaces, and fablabs),
are creative, do-it-yourself spaces where people can gather to create, invent, and
learn. Makerspaces emphasize personally meaningful informal learning and nur-
ture purposeful tinkering and peer-supported inquiry, whereas maker-centered
learning in schools tends to be more preplanned, structured, and guided by teach-
ers (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Sheridan et al., 2014).
Although many researchers are excited about the educational potential of maker-
spaces, maker-centered learning often takes place in informal and non-formal con-
texts, such as museums, libraries, or science centers (Gutwill et al., 2015; Halverson
& Sheridan, 2014; Kafai & Peppler, 2011). Our research efforts in invention peda-
gogy have focused on how learning by making can be integrated into school
environments and practices for systematically educating personal and collaborative
creativity in formal education.
Finnish schools have had a type of makerspace since the 19th century: craft
classrooms. As crafts is a standard school subject in Finland (see Porko-Hudd et al.,
2018), each school has dedicated spaces for crafts, usually one classroom for textile
crafts and another for technical crafts (Figure 14.1). These typically include basic
workplaces and workstations for various craft techniques, such as sewing, seaming,
knitting, and printing in the textile classroom and woodwork, metalwork, plastic
work, electronics, and machine tools in the technical classroom (Jaatinen &
Lindfors, 2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-17
188 Leenu Juurola et al.

Figure 14.1 Examples of technical and textile craft classrooms.

Photographs: Juha Kokkonen.

In recent years, efforts to expand the craft classrooms with instruments of digital
fabrication, such as 3D design and making tools, wearable computing (e-textiles),
and educational robotics, have taken place. In addition, some schools have built
separate makerspaces or created mobile solutions, such as maker toolboxes or
maker vans. Such efforts have been fueled by policies underlining that learning
environments should offer “possibilities for creative solutions and the exploration
of phenomena from different perspectives” (Finnish National Agency of Education
[FNAE], 2016, p. 53) and by research indicating that a holistic makerspace with
well-defined areas of working and paths for moving provides students multifaceted
opportunities for design and problem-solving (Jaatinen & Lindfors, 2019).
Internationally, research on makerspaces has revealed that there is a wide variety
in the composition of makerspaces; the purpose, settings, equipment, users, and
management of makerspaces vary considerably (Mersand, 2021). Carefully designed
makerspaces have proven to support participants’ engagement and innovation
(Sheridan et al., 2014) or students’ literacy (Nichols & Coleman, 2020), among
other things. Further, research indicates that physical re-design of learning environ-
ments may facilitate shifts in how, when, and why students engage in learning
(Hughes & Morrison, 2020), and that “makerspace design should consider the
development of possible encounters between people and things to support unfore-
seen transformations” (Keune & Peppler, 2019, p. 281). However, both internation-
ally and in Finland, research is still scarce in terms of how to develop well-functioning
 Learning Environments 189
makerspaces in formal education, considering the essential underlying pedagogical
conditions that must be designed, implemented, and addressed to foster students’
creative practices of inventing and making.
In this chapter, our aim is to explore the ongoing co-development process of the
Innokas FabLearn Lab, a makerspace concept for Finnish schools, through the
framework of pedagogical infrastructures, that is, the conditions designed and
implemented in an educational setting to support the fundamental learning objec-
tives (Lakkala et al., 2008, 2010; Riikonen et al., 2020). We first provide a back-
ground for the co-development of Innokas FabLearn Lab concept. Then, we
outline the pedagogical infrastructures, i.e., the (1) epistemological, (2) scaffolding,
(3) social, and (4) material-technological infrastructures underpinning the devel-
opment of the concept. We illustrate the co-development process through a case
example, in which a network of technology- and development-oriented teachers
co-created a flexible and modifiable concept for designing a multipurposed learn-
ing environment. We use direct quotes from their interviews conducted in the fall
of 2021. Finally, we provide some conclusions and future directions for the devel-
opment of environments that support learning through inventing and making.

Co-development of Learning Environments for Invention

Pedagogy
Multidisciplinary collaboration by educators, architects, and various experts is
needed when designing school learning environments. Educational activities can-
not be separated from spaces, and users’ active participation in design is important
(Daniels et al., 2019; Frelin et al., 2021; Tse et al., 2019). The ownership of design
solutions should be shared by the users and supported systemically (Higgins et al.,
2005). There is an interrelationship between environments and their users shaping
each other through practice and activity (Daniels et al., 2019). A tendency exists to
underestimate the effects of physical spaces for learning (Lei, 2010), to give inade-
quate attention to materiality in learning (Fenwick et al., 2011), and to move into
new and more innovative spaces (French et al., 2020). An increased knowledge and
understanding of the relationship between architecture and educational practices
would help make more informed design decisions and uses of school spaces
(Deppeler & Aikens, 2020; Gislason, 2010).

Guiding Principles in the Co-development of Innokas FabLearn Labs

The Innokas Fablearn Lab concept was and still is developed collaboratively in the
Innokas Network and is based on the needs and expertise of the members in the
network, the Finnish curriculum, and the research on invention pedagogy.The aim
is to support inventive activities in Finnish schools, considering their diverse start-
ing points and resources. The Innokas FabLearn Lab is a member of the interna-
tional FabLearn Lab network (www.fablearn.org/labs/) developed at Columbia
University by Paulo Blikstein and his team. FabLearn advocates and supports con-
structionist, equitable learning experiences for all students. These experiences
should be accessible to all students, a force for inclusion and diversity, based on
190 Leenu Juurola et al.
rigorous academic research, and shared globally. Further, FabLearn Labs should
include the following principles: activities should be personal, cross-curricular,
meaningful, holistic, and process- and product-oriented.The concept and proceed-
ing should be modeled by teachers and developed in each country based on the
local curricula, needs, and resources.
The Innokas FabLearn Lab development work is situated in the context of
Finnish schools and their curriculum.The work follows the principles of the inter-
national network and is carried out as part of the Innokas Network’s activities.The
development work was originated following the request of several network mem-
bers when they realized there was a need to develop new facilities or mobile solu-
tions to support invention pedagogy. Pedagogical perspectives guide the communal
design of facilities, materials, and tools. The involvement of network actors, user
ownership of the design of solutions, and support by systems and behavioral change
(Higgins et al., 2005) play a focal role in the development work.
It is essential that the design and co-development of the Innokas FabLearn Labs
acknowledge the capabilities and resources of each school to implement learning
environment solutions. Adaptivity is considered in the design of space solutions;
the culture and identity of the user community, the intended activities, the facilities
that are available, and other resources determine the kind of FabLearn Lab model
implemented in the school. Some of the network’s municipalities design space
solutions as part of new schools under construction, some consider how existing
facilities could be modified to support invention pedagogy activities, and some
design mobile solutions such as tool kits with mobile tools and materials. Innokas
FabLearn Labs can thus be separate, purpose-built spaces, combinations of existing
spaces, or other material and spatial solutions that support invention pedagogy.The
common pedagogical goal of developing learning environment solutions is well
described by the following comment by a network member:

The Innokas FabLearn Lab is a learning environment that stimulates creativity,

where technology is utilized, and everyday problems are solved. Working
together and leading oneself are highlighted. Central to the FabLearn Lab are
problem-based learning, learning by doing, collaborative learning, cross-cur-
ricular learning, and entrepreneurship education. School becomes a motivat-
ing place for the student as the work connects to real life.
(Teacher 1: Class teacher, deputy director, medium urban
school with a separate FabLearn Lab since 2015)

Network- and School-Level Co-development

The community-based development of the Innokas FabLearn Lab is an open pro-
cess, through which the structure and the grounds of the concept are defined
together in the network. The key questions in the beginning of the process are:
What basic principles are common to all, and what can be adapted in accordance
with the local user community? A team of interested members of the network
review and develop common guidelines and practices for the Innokas FabLearn
Labs and present them at the biannual network meetings at which the whole
 Learning Environments 191
community is participating in co-development.The co-development work utilizes
the methods of the innovation process (see Chapter 15 of this book). Development
work materials can be accessed and commented on openly by all members on a
joint online platform.
The practices developed and ideated in the developer group and network meet-
ings are tested in schools and further developed based on the needs of schools
across Finland. At the school level, FabLearn Labs are designed with the identity
and culture of the user community in mind, including the age structure of the
community, the emphasis and history of the school, and local strengths, such as
potential business partnerships. At the school level, the design of space solutions is
also influenced by the needs of school actors; that is, they are designed, for instance,
on a project basis, on a user-basis, or based on learning environment development.
It is also important to consider whether only internal or also external users of the
school use the space.
The starting point for school-level planning is the user-driven definition of
practice. It is important that the users describe the projects they would like to
undertake and what tools and facilities would be needed to carry out these proj-
ects. The versatility of the space designed for FabLearn Lab activities is often
important. The space must be flexible for the different stages of invention peda-
gogy projects, including brainstorming and making, as well as presenting and shar-
ing. The design considers whether the available space is fixed or mobile, open or
closed, a separate space, or a combination of spaces. It is also important to consider
the relationship of mobile solutions to other teaching facilities in advance.
At the school level, according to the Innovative School model (see Chapter 16
of this book), a range of actors at the school are involved where possible, including
students, teachers, and other staff, principals, and partners, such as parents.
Participating in the planning and co-development of activities and facilities
strengthens the commitment of the actors and the formation of common practices
for the users of the learning environment solutions. Collaborative development
work is supported by the openness of the process, and practices can be tried out
together in joint workshops for parents and students, for instance:

I have held a 3D printing school for parents and students, student pairs. It
involved training so that I didn’t have a FabLab at the time, but there was a
printer anyway, and the parents and students were trained in 3D modeling and
using these devices, and then they implemented these joint plans at home,
after which the parents and students brought them into the school, and they
were printed.
(Teacher 2: Craft teacher, big urban school with a FabLearn
Lab close to craft classrooms since 2020)

Collaborative planning can also mean involving school networks in the planning
process. Especially in the design of a new space, the school staff typically collabo-
rates with the architects and the municipal environment services responsible for
the design and implementation of the facilities. External expert support is often
needed in the planning of pedagogical activities.
192 Leenu Juurola et al.
Pedagogical Infrastructures in Learning Environments for
Inventing
It is essential in invention pedagogy to provide adequate structural support to
facilitate students’ learning processes and to unleash their full potential during
complex and multifaceted invention projects. From the viewpoint of learning
environment design, this requires recognizing the underlying pedagogical condi-
tions that need to be addressed in the environment to enhance the desired type of
learning. Within invention pedagogy, we have conceptualized these conditions
with the help of a pedagogical infrastructures framework, which was first intro-
duced by Lakkala et al. (2008, 2010) in the field of technology-enhanced knowl-
edge-creation learning. The framework was inspired by Bielaczyc (2006), whose
research on computer-supported knowledge building highlighted the role of the
appropriate social infrastructure around the technical one, that is, the classroom
culture and its established norms and social practices as well as the organization of
physical and virtual spaces. Lakkala et al. (2008, 2010) identified interrelated tech-
nical, social, epistemic, and cognitive infrastructures that simultaneously affect the
educational setting. The infrastructures create the background conditions that
mediate the intended social and cultural practices of a learning environment but
do not strictly prescribe learning activities (Lakkala et al., 2010).
Within invention pedagogy, distinct from more discursive computer-supported
collaborative learning, we have developed a slightly modified version of the peda-
gogical infrastructures framework (Riikonen et al., 2020). While Bielaczyc (2006),
Lakkala et al. (2008, 2010), and also others (e.g., Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) have
underscored the role of conceptual ideas and tools in the learning process, inven-
tion pedagogy also highlights the importance of material artifacts and socio-mate-
rial intertwining (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; see also Chapter 6 of this book).Thus,
instead of “cognitive” infrastructure, we refer to “scaffolding” infrastructure, which
includes not only epistemic but also embodied and tangible support. In addition,
we have used a broader concept, “material-technological infrastructure,” for out-
lining both the technological and material conditions of the educational setting—
the combined non-digital and digital settings that support the invention process. In
this chapter, we use the pedagogical infrastructures framework to describe the
pedagogical conditions underlying the collaborative development of learning envi-
ronments for invention pedagogy. An overview of the modified framework is pre-
sented in Table 14.1.

Epistemological Infrastructure: Co-creating Knowledge through Inventing

The epistemological infrastructure refers to the operational practices that encour-
age teachers and students to share and co-create knowledge (Lakkala et al., 2008,
2010). This requires knowledge to be treated as something that can be shared and
jointly developed (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Creating new
knowledge is seen as a process embedded in shared practices (“knowledge prac-
tice”) that are enacted (Hakkarainen, 2009). A proper epistemological infrastruc-
ture enables knowledge creation in dynamic and innovative processes that involve
 Learning Environments 193
Table 14.1 P
 edagogical infrastructures in the co-development of learning environments for
invention pedagogy

Pedagogical Definition Essential features of the setting

infrastructure
Epistemological Operational practices that Concept of Innokas FabLearn
encourage teachers and Labs in a school context for
students to co-create and open and shared innovation
share knowledge through processes, spaces for co-creation,
inventing cooperation, sharing, and
presenting.Various users: versatile
tools and activities and ways to use
the spaces, with options for short
and long-standing projects.
Scaffolding Epistemic and embodied Pedagogical support for the
scaffolding structures for meaningful use of spaces.
promoting teachers’ and Invention pedagogy teaching and
students’ capabilities of learning materials for teachers and
engaging in invention students. Training sessions and
processes events for teachers and students.
Multiple communication channels
for pedagogical discussions.
Social Arrangements for organiz- Physical and social arrange-
ing students’ and teachers’ ments of spaces for organizing
collaboration, social productive teamwork and
interaction, and shared interaction.
responsibility Team-teaching and tutor-student
practices for supporting invention
pedagogy activities within the
spaces.
Digital arrangements for coordinat-
ing the use of the spaces; fixed
settings, mobile solutions, external
users.
Material- Organization of Co-created handbook for
technological appropriate spaces, materi- designing versatile spaces, places,
als, and technologies and projects, equipment, and tools.
support for applying them

Modified from Lakkala et al., 2008; Riikonen et al., 2020.

several participants with various backgrounds and skills and mediating artifacts
where knowledge is embedded (Paavola et al., 2002). In invention pedagogy, the
epistemological infrastructure enables knowledge creation through long-term,
iterative designing and making processes, where students’ advancement is visible in
their design artifacts, such as sketches, prototypes, and final inventions (Riikonen
et al., 2020).
The long-term, iterative, and socio-material nature of the invention process, as
well as the various participants and versatile activities, need to be taken into
account while developing the learning environments for invention pedagogy.
Innokas FabLearn Labs are used both during and outside school lessons, and the
194 Leenu Juurola et al.
users can be students and their teachers or others interested in inventing and
making. During lessons, a whole class of students with varying levels of motiva-
tion and skills participate in the activities. The environment needs to be designed
in a way that supports teamwork, such as the building up of team spirit and the
co-creation and sharing of ideas. For other users, the space should allow activities
included in self-directed personal projects. Different users and their varying needs
for the environment impact on the design and implementation of spaces and
activities.

If you think that there are students or teachers who have acquired the basic
skills and already know them well and have a lot of interest and innovation to
come here to develop something, something that is their own thing, then it is
a completely different thing in a way or if you are teaching a group that comes
because of wanting to innovate or because of what you can do in a maker-
space, then it is a little different than teaching a regular class.
(Teacher 2)

For all users, the learning environment should enable both short- and long-term
invention projects. Long-standing projects require time, which should be consid-
ered when designing, storage solutions, for example. Ideas, prototypes, and other
artifacts created during invention projects should be visible for everyone visiting
the space, allowing the users to be inspired by projects created by others.

The time needed to work depends on the group of students; if the group of
students is not familiar to others, then it is worth spending time on those
warm-up tasks, probably 45 minutes is suitable. Then, for this initiating or
brainstorming, it easily takes a few hours, maybe even more. It may take up to
five hours, and then you start making the artifact; so it depends entirely on that
artifact, but it may take 5–10 hours and then the marketing and pitches and
sorts; then it depends on how you guide the project, but five hours maybe it
could count to that, too.
(Teacher 1)

Various Innokas FabLearn Labs have been established in different parts of Finland.
In some cities, the Lab is situated in a school, but other schools and nonschool users
can use the space as well (Figure 14.2). In many small schools, the most practical
solution is to set up the space in a normal classroom to provide a low threshold for
invention pedagogy activities. In addition, mobile solutions, such as maker tool-
boxes, enable invention projects in educational institutions short of space or
resources (Figure 14.3).

Scaffolding Infrastructure: Epistemic and Embodied Support Structures

The scaffolding infrastructure includes the epistemic and embodied support struc-
tures that promote students’ and teachers’ capabilities of engaging in the invention
process. These support structures involve both conceptual tools, such as guidelines,
 Learning Environments 195

Figure 14.2 FabLearn Lab Vuores.

Photographs: Juha Kokkonen.

Figure 14.3 Mobile solution of FabLearn Lab Lohja.

Photograph: Panu Pitkänen.

models, and templates that support students’ planning, monitoring, and reflection
of their learning (Lakkala et al., 2008, 2010), as well as material and embodied scaf-
folding that facilitates students’ competencies in designing and making (Riikonen
et al., 2020). In invention projects, the scaffolding infrastructure consists of design
briefs introducing the open-ended invention challenge and related constraints,
196 Leenu Juurola et al.
guidelines relevant for designing and making, and teachers’ and tutors’ real-time
support. The scaffolding infrastructure is often embedded with some other peda-
gogical infrastructure, and particularly the distinction between epistemological and
scaffolding infrastructures is not clear cut (Lakkala et al., 2008).
The establishment of Innokas FabLearn Labs is scaffolded with training sessions
and learning materials based on systematic research and the development of inven-
tion pedagogy. The training and materials are created through research-practice
partnerships (Coburn & Penuel, 2016), through which cutting-edge research sup-
ports the design of accessible pedagogical practices tested in the field.

Our space is intended for use in basic education in our city. In practice, I am
currently offering training here, and when we join the Innokas FabLearn Lab,
I will be involved, and we will have other teachers actively involved in Innokas,
and training will be organized here as well. The aim is to train the teaching
staff and students, especially here at our school.
(Teacher 2)

An essential element of the scaffolding infrastructure is the possibility for interac-

tion and pedagogical discussion through multiple channels. Active members of the
Innokas FabLearn Lab community share best practices and good experiences
through social media and discussion groups. Real-time support for various chal-
lenges and questions in the learning environment design has been especially sig-
nificant for many teachers.

We had already given a little thought to starting FabLab activities in the

Innokas Network, and this device listing was already done. And then, of course,
I started asking others for ideas, and because we have a great network, I got a
lot of ideas through it.
(Teacher 2)

Social Infrastructure: Arrangements for Organizing Collaboration

The social infrastructure includes the agreements and organizational structures that
enable the participants to collaborate and create common ground. It can include
the physical and social settings for advancing students’ and teachers’ teamwork and
social interaction, formulating learning tasks in a way that requires shared respon-
sibility for accomplishing them, and sharing the learning process, as well as its
outcomes (Lakkala et al., 2008, 2010; Riikonen et al., 2020). As invention pedagogy
relies on multidisciplinary team teaching, it is also essential to create a school cul-
ture and practices that support teacher collaboration (Härkki et al., 2021; see also
Chapter 11 of this book) and co-planning of invention projects (Aarnio et al.,
2021), as well as spaces for them.
The premise of Innokas FabLearn Labs lies in collaborative practices: spaces,
tools, and activities are designed to support collaborative making. Projects are
planned in a way that requires teamwork, and each team member has an essential
role in setting up and achieving the goals of the project. Shared responsibility
 Learning Environments 197
supports the development of students’ socio-emotional skills, such as self-confi-
dence, perseverance, and communication skills (see Chapter 5 of this book).

I believe that the skills learned in invention projects are exactly the skills you
will need in the future: working together, creativity, problem-solving, and self-
management, that kind of self-directed work, although it is quite difficult, but
when supported, it works really well.
(Teacher 1)

In Innokas FabLearn Labs, collaboration is often very visible and tangible, and
limited tool resources guide students to create inventions in teams. In addition,
establishing the Lab in a space in which the activities can be seen by people passing
by can be inspiring for many students, teachers, and other possible future
inventors.

The space is between the primary and secondary schools, and we were able to
open it on both sides to have a wall with a window; from there you can see it
on both sides in full swing, and it is used by the whole comprehensive school,
and we have discussed that of course because the high school is in the same
building, so then they will also be able to take advantage of it as well.
(Teacher 1)

Material-Technological Infrastructure: Organization of Spaces, Materials, and

Technologies
The material-technological infrastructure involves the organization of appropriate
materials and technologies and support for applying them in a way that facilitates
students in the invention process (Riikonen et al., 2020). In invention pedagogy,
the material-technological infrastructure is multidimensional. It includes the tools
and materials for designing, engineering, programming, and crafting the inventions,
as well as technologies for documenting, reflecting on, and sharing the process of
creating knowledge through making (Kangas et al., 2022; see also Chapter 8 of this
book). Sufficiently rich material and technological resources are crucial for spark-
ing students’ creative ideas and for testing the usability of ideas and solutions.
Furthermore, diverse equipment, machines, and tools enable students to learn by
doing and to adopt a responsible attitude toward making (FNAE, 2016).
While developing learning environments for inventing and making, the mate-
rial-technological infrastructure is usually the first element addressed. In the devel-
opment of the Innokas FabLearn Lab concept, members of the community started
by creating a list of age-appropriate and pedagogically meaningful tools and mate-
rials. The key questions in this work were as follows: What kind of learning do we
want to support? What learning paths do we want to enable? How can we imple-
ment these? What kinds of projects support students’ innovative capabilities?
Essential in the material-technological infrastructure was to enable creativity,
learning by doing, and student agency, as well as understanding technology as both
a tool and an object of learning. Low-tech and high-tech tools are equally
198 Leenu Juurola et al.
important for supporting students’ understanding of technologies and their devel-
opment from mere consumers to active shapers and makers of the technological
world.
An essential component of the Innokas FabLearn Lab concept is the handbook,
which will bring together the technological tools and materials used in different
types of FabLearn Labs and thus support the operation of diverse labs planned in
different parts of Finland. The handbook will cover all infrastructures of invention
pedagogy in a comprehensive way so that practitioners can get an idea of the
dimensions of the Innokas FabLearn Labs and consider these factors in the design,
implementation, and organization of learning environment solutions.
The aim is that the handbook provides a pedagogical framework for the design
and implementation of a range of FabLearn Lab solutions. The needs-based and
regularly updated handbook responds to the needs of those planning the activities
and working in the spaces: it provides practical tips for the design and implemen-
tation of various collaborative invention projects and the use of tools and tech-
nologies. The handbook opens up the invention process and contains tips for
carrying out the whole process from the ideation stage to the presentation of the
final outputs. It provides support material for teachers to carry out activities with
students of different ages, as well as tips for training provided by the Innokas
Network to support FabLearn Lab activities. The handbook also contains links to
other interesting material related to the topic and, for example, to social media
groups.
The needs-based handbook considers that schools also want practical support
for the implementation of the Innokas FabLearn Labs and the use of digital solu-
tions:What kind of reservation system is needed for the equal use of shared spaces?
Who is responsible for maintaining the space? What are the common rules? How
can technology be used to guide students and support teachers, for example, in
implementing projects or learning to use tools? How can we enable long-term
multidisciplinary projects with limited resources? The regularly updated FabLearn
Lab handbook is openly distributed to anyone interested in FabLearn Lab
activities.

Conclusions and Future Directions

The aim of the ongoing development of the Innokas FabLearn Lab concept pre-
sented in this chapter is to bring together the co-created epistemic, scaffolding,
social, and material-technological infrastructures that should be considered in the
design and implementation of learning environment solutions. The goal is to sup-
port schools and other users in carrying out and further developing invention
pedagogy practices and activities. Knowledge of physical, virtual, and epistemic-
social learning environments (Nardi, 1999) and the integration of these into func-
tional pedagogical entities in a meaningful way with the possibilities of digital
technology are needed to create environments that support students’ creative
activities and future-oriented learning.
Innokas FabLearn Labs are based on the needs of the users; their culture and
identities, as well as the importance of facilities for operations, are considered from
 Learning Environments 199
the beginning of the planning. Diverse spaces serve both short-term and long-
term projects and enable ideation, implementation, sharing, and reflection. In some
municipalities, entirely new schools and Innokas FabLearn Labs are planned, while
some schools consider renovating existing facilities with solutions that support
invention pedagogy. For example, the organization and equipment of classrooms
for crafts, arts, or physics are modified for better enabling creative and collaborative
activities based on invention pedagogy. In addition, mobile solutions are designed
to provide possibilities for schools with limited spaces and resources.
So far, the development of Innokas FabLearn Labs has mainly focused on how
learning by inventing and making can be integrated into school environments and
practices in formal education. However, attention has also been turned to include
other user groups as well. After-school and club activities linked to school, as well
as collaboration with parents or local businesses, are natural ways to develop the
diverse use of the facilities. Moreover, in the future, more emphasis will be placed
on inclusion and diversity, that is, designing learning environments that are acces-
sible to all students. More research is also needed on how the pedagogical infra-
structures can be used to inform the design and implementation of learning
environments. Furthermore, stronger connections with the international FabLearn
network would support the wider sharing of experiences and the international
co-development of innovative learning environment solutions.

References
Aarnio, H., Clavert, M., Kangas, K., & Toom, A. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of social sup-
port in co-planning of multidisciplinary technology education. Design and Technology
Education: An International Journal, 26(3), 8–29. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/
view/3022
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781410612182
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning envi-
ronments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnership in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45, 48–54. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Daniels, H., Tse, H. M., Stables, A., & Cox, S. (2019). School design matter. In H. M. Tse, H.
Daniels,A. Stables, & S. Cox (Eds.), Designing buildings for the future of schooling: Contemporary
visions for education (pp. 41–65). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315148366
Deppeler, J., & Aikens, K. (2020). Responsible innovation in school design—A systematic
review. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 573–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2329946
0.2020.1809782
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research:
Tracing the socio-material. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817582
Finnish National Agency of Education [FNAE]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic edu-
cation. Publications 2016:5. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Frelin, A., Grannäs, J., & Rönnlund, M. (2021).Transitions in Nordic school environments—
an introduction. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2
021.1947625
200 Leenu Juurola et al.
French, R., Imms, W., & Mahat, M. (2020). Case studies on the transition from traditional
classrooms to innovative learning environments. Improving Schools, 23(2), 175–189.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219894408
Gislason, N. (2010).Architectural design and the learning environment. Learning Environments
Research, 13(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-010-9071-x
Gutwill, J., Hido, N., & Sindoft, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in tin-
kering activities. Curator, 58(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12105
Hakkarainen, K. (2009). Three generations of technology-enhanced learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40(5), 879–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00873.x
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://www.hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-
educational-review-volume-84-number-4/herarticle/the-maker-movement-in-education
Härkki,T.,Vartiainen, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Co-teaching in
non-linear projects: A contextualised model of co-teaching to support educational change.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103188
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. McGraw-Hill.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school
environments (pp. 1–47). The Design Council. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.231.7213&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hughes, J. M., & Morrison, L. J. (2020). Innovative learning spaces in the making. Frontiers
in Education, 5(89), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00089
Jaatinen, J., & Lindfors, E. (2019). Makerspaces for pedagogical innovation processes: How
Finnish comprehensive schools create space for makers. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 24(2), 42–66. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2623
Kafai,Y., & Peppler, K. (2011).Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory com-
petencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 89–119.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383211
Kangas, K., Sormunen, K., & Korhonen, T. (2022). Creative learning with technologies in
young students’ STEAM education. In S. Papadakis, & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), STEM,
robotics, mobile apps in early childhood and primary education (pp. 157–179). Lecture Notes in
Educational Technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_9
Keune, A., & Peppler, K. (2019). Materials-to-develop-with: The making of a makerspace.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12702
Lakkala, M., Ilomäki, L., & Kosonen, K. (2010). From instructional design to setting up
pedagogical infrastructures. In B. Ertl (Ed.), Technologies and practices for constructing knowl-
edge in online environments (pp. 169–185). Information Science Reference. https://doi.
org/10.4018/978-1-61520-937-8
Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Designing pedagogical
infrastructures in university courses for technology-enhanced collaborative inquiry.
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S1793206808000446
Lei, S. A. (2010). Classroom physical design influencing student learning and evaluations of
college instructors. Education, 131(1), 128–134. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/
A239813831/AONE?u=anon~b209f387&sid=googleScholar&xid=82caac29
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the
classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Mersand, S. (2021).The state of makerspace research: a review of literature. TechTrends, 65(2),
174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00566-5
Nardi, B. A. (1999). Information ecologies. MIT Press.
 Learning Environments 201
Nichols, T. P., & Coleman, J. J. (2020). Feeling worlds: Affective imaginaries and the making
of democratic literacy classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(2), 315–335. https://doi.
org/10.1002/rrq.305
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba.” California Management Review, 40(3),
40–54.
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1),
433–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL:
A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.),
Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 24–32).
Erlbaum.
Porko-Hudd, M., Pöllänen, S., & Lindfors, E. (2018). Common and holistic crafts education
in Finland. Techne Series—Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science, 25(3), 26–38.
https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/3025
Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen,T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,
P. (2020). The development of pedagogical infrastructures in three cycles maker-centered
learning projects. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(2), 29–49.
https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2782
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014).
Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. https://www.hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-
educational-review-volume-84-number-4/herarticle/learning-in-the-making
Tse, H. M., Daniels, H., Stables, A., & Cox, S. (Eds.). (2019). Designing buildings for the future
of schooling. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315148366
15 Developing Teachers’
Transformative Digital Agency
through Invention Pedagogy
In-Service Training
Tiina Korhonen, Laura Salo, and Markus Packalén

Introduction
Research on teachers’ professional learning and development guides the orienta-
tion of national-level teacher education strategies and practices in Finland. Lavonen
et al. (2020) synthesized these studies and highlighted four factors supporting
teachers’ professional development strategies identified in the previous research:
the long-term nature of the professional learning (Oliveira, 2010), teachers’ active
role in their learning (Garet et al., 2001), the connection between learning and
classroom or practical context, and collaboration and reflection with colleagues
(Avalos, 2011; Van den Bergh et al., 2015). Lavonen et al. (2020) also emphasized
that in the Finnish context, teachers are expected to actively regulate their own
professional learning by setting goals, reflecting, and self-assessing their own learn-
ing processes.
There are various opportunities for professional learning through in-service
training for Finnish teachers. National and regional institutions such as the National
Agency of Education, universities, and private entities provide professional learning
possibilities for teachers. In addition, municipalities are obligated to support teach-
ers’ continuous professional learning. Despite these affordances, participation in
in-service training is occasional and lacks long-term learning plans and continuity
(Husu & Toom, 2016; OECD, 2020). Participation in in-service training is volun-
tary in Finland, apart from a few obligatory training days a year. Twenty percent of
teachers do not participate in any in-service training for various reasons, and par-
ticipation varies across the country. Barriers to participation include organizing
substitute teachers and their funding as well as motivating teachers to undertake
continuous professional learning (Ministry of Education and Culture [MEC],
2016). With regard to in-service training in digitalization, teachers have mostly
participated in training that covers basic information and communications tech-
nology (ICT) skills and the use of specific programs (Tanhua-Piiroinen et al.,
2020). Thus, there is need for training that supports teachers’ creative use of tech-
nology (Korhonen et al., forthcoming) and innovative orientation toward teaching
and learning (Lavonen et al., 2021). As solutions to these challenges, it has been
suggested that in-service training be developed so that it is tied to the everyday
work of schools and utilizes networks and sharing best practices (Lavonen et al.,
2021; OECD, 2020).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-18
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 203
In this chapter, we depict how the invention pedagogy approach supports teach-
ers in their professional learning and learning transformative competencies needed
in the 21st-century era.We first define the concept and the need for transformative
digital agency and draw connections to the aims of the national curricula in
Finland. Second, we depict the Everyday Technology in-service training course
context and development of teachers’ transformative digital agency during the
course and through the implemented invention projects with students. Finally, we
reflect on the course’s impact in the light of Finnish national-level teacher educa-
tion strategies and practices and theory of transformative digital agency.

Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency

The digital transformation of education and society calls on teachers to cultivate
their transformative agency (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017; Stetsenko, 2017), a term
understood here to indicate teachers’ proactive pursuit of pedagogical and profes-
sional innovations. Transformative teachers do not merely cope with changing
environments (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994) but invest in deliberate collaborative
efforts to exploratively develop professional innovations as epistemic objects (Knorr
Cetina, 2001). Integrating novel socio-digital tools with activity requires a develop-
mental process of instrumental genesis (Rabardel & Bourmaud, 2003; Ritella &
Hakkarainen, 2012)—that is, active personal exploration with the goal of appropri-
ating the tools as part of a distributed cognitive system and adapt these tools to one’s
system of professional practices (instrumentation). Teachers explore and try these
creative activities that will later engage students. Such “fiddling” has been proven to
strongly deepen teachers’ level of innovation (Frank et al., 2011). The co-appropri-
ation of novel socio-digital practices and the joint building of an innovation-
oriented educational culture develop teachers’ professional capabilities (Daly, 2010;
Korhonen et al., 2014; see also Chapter 16 of this book). Teachers’ self-confidence
and experience-based empowerment play essential roles because participation in
nonlinear learning processes is challenging for students and their peers. Teachers
should provide students the “gift of confidence” (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2002) to
assist them in trying out their wings before they have learned to fly.
Lund and Aagaard (2020) highlight the digital dimension’s role in teachers’ trans-
formative agency. According to them, technology has been traditionally viewed in
the educational field as a tool that mediates and serves people in certain contexts and
in specific ways. There has been less focus in looking at the change potential that
digital technology has and how to change educational settings and practices. Lund
and Aagaard found that the impact digitalization has on changes in the environment,
social practices, and concept of knowledge and thus to the individual and commu-
nity, create a special need for teachers and teacher-educators to look at transformative
agency through digitalization and the digital realm. They state trends like how phe-
nomena are digitally represented, how communicative spaces emerge, how problem-
solving becomes collective and collaborative, how suspending constraints in space
and time to explain why digitalization impacts our epistemic practices. Digitalization
is here understood as the overall process of moving toward a digitalized society and
using digital technology in changing practices (Tilson et al., 2010).
204 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Moreover, Lund and Aagaard (2020) characterize transformative digital agency
through the competence requirements pertaining to agency. The key issue fac-
ing teachers’ and teacher-educators’ agency is their capability to identify educa-
tionally challenging situations and use digital resources to transform these
situations into constructive teaching. We argue that from the perspective of
teachers and teacher-educators, transformative digital agency plays a central role
in recognizing the epistemic changes brought by digitalization. Equally impor-
tant is recognizing competencies related to digital technology and technology
itself, as well as the adaptive competence of using digital technology pedagogi-
cally in teaching and interaction. How technology is situated in the goals and
aims set for learning and teaching goals is also pivotal. Is technology viewed as
merely a tool for learning, or are technology and digitalization also objects of
learning? We hypothesize that teachers need guidance and support to under-
stand digitalization and the ubiquitous nature of technology so that they can
adapt these elements to their teaching. In this way, they can meaningfully situate
both the instruments and content of these elements into their multimodal
teaching and interaction.
The Finnish National Core Curriculums for early childhood education and
basic education (compulsory education) express two themes that are especially
relevant to teachers’ transformative digital agency in the 21st century: transversal
competencies and multidisciplinarity. Transversal competencies refer to globally
known 21st-century competencies (Binkley et al., 2012;Trilling & Fadel, 2009; van
Laar et al., 2017) that manifest as a set of seven skill areas that prepare students for
their future lives and work (for more, see the current book’s introduction). These
competencies are instructed and evaluated as parts of subjects across the curricu-
lum. In the basic education curriculum, teaching is structured via traditional sub-
ject areas, but the renewed National Core Curriculum breaks from this centuries-old
tradition and includes transversal competences, as well as multidisciplinary learning
modules. Each school is expected to plan and implement a learning module at least
once per academic year that connects a compatible set of content from separate
school subjects as an interdisciplinary project or entity. These multidisciplinary
learning modules are considered good opportunities to teach and learn transversal
competencies.
Although both National Core Curriculums for early childhood and basic edu-
cation are clear on transversal competencies and multidisciplinarity and examine in
detail their underlying pedagogical ideals, they do not provide actual examples,
scripts, or lesson plans to help with their classroom-level implementation. The
Everyday Technology course introduced in this chapter was designed as a platform
for teachers to experiment, design, learn and share new school practices for trans-
versal competencies and multidisciplinary learning modules, thus supporting
teachers’ transformative digital agency. For the participating teacher, the course
provided an opportunity to learn about digitalization and everyday technology,
how to run multidisciplinary learning modules embedding invention pedagogy
and technological content and tools, teach and assess transversal competencies and
learn from—as well as remodel—other participants’ projects.
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 205
The Everyday Technology Course as Teachers’ Professional Learning Context
During the 2019–2020 academic year, the national Innokas Network organized
the Invention Pedagogy: Everyday Technology—professional development course
for early childhood, primary, and lower secondary school teachers. The course was
a blended learning experience that included an online course module, two full days
of face-to-face workshops, a daycare or school project with participants’ students,
and a final reflection meeting online.The targeted learning outcome was expressed
in a single sentence: “Participants are able to plan, implement and evaluate creative
Innovation Pedagogy projects on the topic of everyday technology and understand
how the projects are linked to the Finnish National Core Curriculums.”
A focal aspect of the training was that during the course teachers received an
orientation to digitalization, and they were guided to reflect on the aspects of digi-
talization in relation to their own professional learning, teaching, and students’
learning. Teachers were acquainted with various technologies starting from every-
day technologies (e.g., simple machines, structures and electronics) and ranging to
programmable technologies (e.g., Micro:bit controllers). More than 200 teachers
from schools and daycare centers across Finland participated in the course. Due to
the first COVID-19 outbreak in spring 2020, many enrolled teachers faced chal-
lenges in completing the course. Seventy-one participants ultimately completed
the course and permitted their course materials and questionnaire answers to be
used for research purposes (see Table 15.1).
The course was differentiated based on teachers’ grade levels as Everyday
Technology for primary and lower secondary teachers and Technology Crafts for
early childhood education teachers. For both groups, the course’s objectives, peda-
gogical approach, and structure were similar, but the hands-on technological con-
tent differed slightly: Everyday Technology included programming with
microcontrollers, while Technology Crafts covered simple electric circuits.
The aim of the course was to familiarize participants with the concepts, meth-
ods, and tools of invention pedagogy presented in this book’s introduction.
Technology competence development was supported during the online learning
period by using a variety of independent study and communication platforms (e.g.,

Table 15.1 Participant summary (n = 71)

Background variable Groups n %

Gender Female 59 83.1

Male 10 14.1
Unavailable 2 2.8
Grade level Early childhood education 31 43.7
Primary and secondary school 40 56.3
Region Metropolitan areaa 22 31.0
Southern Finland 6 8.5
Western Finland 11 15.5
Eastern Finland 6 8.5
Northern Finland 26 36.6
aMetropolitan area: The capital of Finland, Helsinki, and its surrounding municipalities, Espoo,Vantaa,
and Kauniainen.
206 Tiina Korhonen et al.
an e-learning platform and videos) and by focusing on everyday technologies dur-
ing the hands-on meeting. The technological environment surrounded us, and
invention pedagogy was approached through video and supplemental materials
about maker culture, the history of technology, crafting and tinkering, curriculum
reflections, innovation education theory and practice (see more in Chapter 16 of
this book), and 21st-century competencies. Additionally, hands-on workshops
included programming and computational thinking. Teachers could then apply
their learning, in a pedagogically relevant way, to their own teaching.
Another central aim of the course was to introduce teachers to the innovation
process model (Figure 15.1), which teachers can use to organize multidisciplinary
invention projects and employ everyday technology tools in their classrooms. The
model relates to the pedagogically oriented invention process models introduced
in Chapter 9 of this book and was co-developed with Innokas Network teachers.
During the hands on part of the course, participating teachers formed small teams
and were guided through the innovation process step by step. They selected a
problem, practiced creative techniques to generate ideas, designed a solution, built
a prototype, and presented it to the other teams. Many participants later observed
in their learning diaries that this practical exercise was the most fruitful part of the
course. It provided a model with which they could start building their own multi-
disciplinary learning modules, and it offered a chance to reflect on and understand
the process from students’ perspectives.
Another important part of the course was participants’ planning, implementa-
tion, and sharing their multidisciplinary projects. Project plans were presented and
discussed among course groups. During the reflection session, implemented
projects were presented and reflected on. Later, they were published as professional
learning material for all teachers via the Innokas website.

Figure 15.1 The innovation process in basic education.

 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 207
Development of Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency during the Course and
through Implemented Invention Projects
Participating teachers responded to surveys about their competence and needs at
the beginning and end of the course. Additionally, teachers wrote structured learn-
ing diaries during the course. These diaries were used to map teachers’ thoughts
and competence development from the course’s themes. Teachers were also asked
to reflect on invention projects that they had implemented with their students. In
the next subsection, we discuss teachers’ development from four perspectives: tech-
nological and invention pedagogical awareness, technological competence, imple-
mented adaptive practice, and teachers’ reflection. Our discussion is based on a
qualitative content analysis (Saldaña, 2016) of teachers’ learning diaries and aug-
mented by the quantitative analysis of our survey results.

Technological and Invention Pedagogical Awareness

Participating teachers depicted and reflected on transformative digital agency as an
increased sense of technological awareness. An essential component of this devel-
opment was the course’s support and guidance regarding the definition of technol-
ogy as a concept and understanding the ubiquitous nature of digital technology.
Teachers also described developing an interest in technology during the course.
Some reported having always had an interest in technology but no time to pursue
it meaningfully. Some also mentioned that they had not previously understood the
broad definition of technology to have a meaning in their own and their students’
technological awareness. Several teachers mentioned that the course materials,
which were pedagogically formulated, guided and motivated them to consider the
challenges holistically and opportunities of digital technology and digitalization in
everyday schoolwork:

The more you did the assignments, watched videos, and read about it, the
more you got into the technological world and thoughts started to form. I felt
motivated to think about the impact of digitalization in my own everyday life
and read about other participants’ thoughts about it.
(Teacher 18)

Teachers reported that the course content clarified how invention pedagogy sup-
ports the realization of curricular goals. Participants got to revise familiar processes
and learn new content. Problem-solving was approached through the innovation
process, and teachers learned how to use programming and robotics tools in inven-
tion projects. Teachers’ technological and invention pedagogical awareness grew.
Moreover, teachers found clarifying parallel concepts related to invention peda-
gogy and the innovation process important:

The most motivating thing was to revise the concept of maker education and
related concepts, such as STEAM [science, technology, engineering, arts, and
mathematics], the innovation process, and invention pedagogy.Thinking about
208 Tiina Korhonen et al.
making from the perspective of my own work was also especially fruitful, and
I got an idea for the spring semester activities from the course assignment.
(Teacher 33)

This increasing technological and invention pedagogical awareness presented vari-

ous options and dimensions to participants. Practical examples of multidisciplinary
learning modules and projects embedded with developed technological awareness
increased teachers’ competencies in realizing invention pedagogy’s possibilities and
dimensions. Several teachers also observed that their increased awareness of the
aims, methods, and implementation of invention pedagogy made them reflect on
their previous practice:

The content about learning by doing and innovation education were a good
reminder for me about how the aims and schedules should be presented
openly. Naturally, I have gone through them with the students at the begin-
ning of the course, but they could also be visible as a reminder in the class-
room throughout the process. Equally important is to have work samples on
display.
(Teacher 35)

Technological Competence
Teachers describe in their diaries that the course had supported the development
of their technological competencies. The support was needs-based and augmented
each participant’s competence gaps. As with technological awareness, teachers here
also brought up the relevance of developing epistemic knowledge. Introducing
new ideas and content to teachers such as health technology innovations or artifi-
cial intelligence supported the development of their technological awareness and
competencies.
Teachers’ academic, artistic, and computational digital competencies were sur-
veyed at the beginning and end of the course (Table 15.2). Here, academic digital
competencies refer to basic technological knowledge-processing and knowledge-
building practices, such as word processing, multimedia presentations, joint knowl-
edge-building, and communication. Artistic digital competencies refer to using creative
and visual technologies or software, such as image processing, video editing, or
animation. Computational digital competencies encompasses creative problem-solving
and designing and implementing complex technological systems and artifacts, such
as building devices in invention projects that use programming, robotics, and
automation.
To examine the extent to which the participants’ self-reported digital compe-
tencies developed during the in-service training, paired samples t-tests were used
to compare the post-questionnaire’s digital competence components one by one
with the pre-questionnaire’s competence components (see Table 15.2). The survey
results show that teachers found themselves to have already been proficient in
academic digital competencies before the course but reported the lowest profi-
ciency in computational digital competencies. There were statistically significant
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 209

Table 15.2 T
 eachers’ academic, artistic, and computational competencies before and after
training on a proficiency scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all; 5 = very fluently)

Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire t df r
Mean SD Mean SD

Academic 4.17 0.76 4.33 0.64 2.90** 62 0.82***

digital
competen-
cies
Artistic digital 3.03 1.01 3.16 0.97 1.48 62 0.76***
competen-
cies
Computational 2.15 0.99 2.50 1.05 4.66*** 62 0.83***
digital
competen-
cies
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

changes (p < .01) in both perceived academic and computational digital compe-
tencies during the course. All mean levels of competencies grew with computa-
tional digital competencies growing the most.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to enable the assessment of rank-
order stability.The correlation for all competencies were strong, indicating that the
participants’ relative level of competence did not change much. This finding may
indicate a homogeneous competence development trajectory.
The teachers’ learning diaries also told a story of competence trajectories. Digital
academic and artistic competencies were mentioned in a few diary entries, but
computational digital competencies and a lack of programming and robotics skills
relevant to invention pedagogy were mentioned the most. Participants felt that the
course’s material and content supported their learning, helping them better under-
stand the connections between computational digital technology and curricular
aims and concepts. Also, participants found the hands-on guidance on combining
technology competencies with invention pedagogy and multidisciplinary learning
modules to be the most valuable. This guidance was realized through the course’s
hands-on activities, project examples, and collaborative work:

The Innokas hands-on meeting was very productive, and I got a lot of tools
for my own work from them as a teacher-educator. Especially visual program-
ming with Adafruit was so interesting and fun.
(Teacher 33)

Bravery and courage were also mentioned in participants’ learning diaries.

Participants noticed that, by following other teachers’ work and hearing examples
from other classes, other teachers faced similar challenges in computational digital
competencies. By revealing teachers’ varying competence levels, the course encour-
aged teachers to consider computational digital competence development as a
step-by-step process for themselves and their students:
210 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Programming is interesting. Directions and guidelines were clear, and through
that, I was increasingly excited. I still can’t write hard and complicated com-
mand sequences, but I take small steps forward. It was truly great to see differ-
ent innovative solutions that teachers had made. They reflected teachers’ own
previous know-how and motivation. It is great that the teachers’ projects were
of different levels. It gave confidence that this can also be started with small
things with students.
(Teacher 35)

Technological awareness, competence and epistemic knowledge about digital soci-

ety established a foundation and motivated teachers to ponder the need for con-
tinuous learning about technology. Teachers recognized that, during the course,
they established a strong foundation on which to develop their technological com-
petence and that, after internalizing the basics it would be important to develop
their digital competence independently:

It was especially important to get motivation and courage to familiarize work-

ing with Micro-Bit and Arduino independently, now that the basics of pro-
gramming are somewhat mastered.
(Teacher 11)

Adaptive Practice
During the course, teachers conducted projects with students using invention
pedagogy and the innovation process. These projects varied in duration from a few
hours to several months, and they related to challenges that arose in students’ daily
lives, such as their learning environment, well-being, sustainable development, or
home activities. Some projects dealt with specific themes, such as climate change
or safety. Other projects were purely based on play or fantasy, and some derived
their content from a specific school subject. All these projects used the innovation
process that participants had become familiar with during the course.Teachers also
targeted multidisciplinarity and crossing subject boundaries when planning and
implementing these projects.
During these projects, and in line with the innovation process, students pro-
duced tangible artifacts such as scale models or miniatures, toys, games, computer
models, escape rooms, or prototypes related to the themes of their projects gener-
ally. These artifacts were either advanced tangible products or product designs in
nature. Students used the technological dimensions described in Chapter 8 of this
book to document their processes and design and implement their artifacts. They
used technology in both designing (3D printing), engineering (levers, cranks, cog-
wheels, syringes), programming (Micro:bit, Adafruit, Lego-robots, Bee-Bot, and
Scratch), and making products by crafting (electronical components, recycled
materials, craft materials). Cloud services and video production served as a means
to document and share during this process. Several teachers also considered evalu-
ating activities when planning these projects. During these projects, teachers guided
students in self-assessments and peer assessments. A few projects used portfolios as
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 211
evaluation tools (see Chapter 13 of this book for more detail). In all projects, teach-
ers conducted continuous assessments.
Through their projects in schools and daycare centers, teachers described under-
standing the practical preparation required for multidisciplinary invention projects
and the way in which students are guided during the innovation process. Equally,
the understanding of the scope of the projects and the size of the target group also
expanded: the experiences shared by the teachers about the projects led the teach-
ers to understand that multidisciplinary learning entities can vary in scope and
duration depending on the teaching objectives and students’ level of competence.
Also, the project does not always have to be aimed at the whole group to be taught,
but can also be tailored to smaller groups as needed.
From a pedagogical perspective, these projects’ innovation process, implemented
with children and students, also supported participants’ technological awareness
and technological competence development during the course. For example, hav-
ing the courage to try was mentioned in this learning diary entry: “Electrical engi-
neering is not rocket science. It can be easily mastered if you just dare to try.” The use of
low-threshold materials is also highlighted. In addition to planning and leading the
innovation process, some teachers described pondering student learning and spe-
cifically the skills students learned during their project. Alongside content knowl-
edge, participants discussed teamwork skills, problem-solving, and teaching students
thinking skills.
Guiding the development of thinking and creative problem-solving skills was
also reflected in the teacher survey results. Even before participating in the course,
participating teachers reported having guided students toward inquiry-based activ-
ities, learning by doing, creativity, and expressing ideas on a weekly basis. To exam-
ine the extent to which the participants’ invention-pedagogy-related adaptive
teaching practices developed during the in-service training, paired samples t-tests
were used to compare the post-questionnaire’s teaching practice components with
the pre-questionnaire’s teaching practice components (see Table 15.3). All mean
levels of teaching practices grew slightly with encouraging students to share their
ideas and be creative growing the most (p < .05). After the course, the teachers
reported they encourage their students’ sharing of ideas and creativity daily as
opposed to weekly before the course.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to enable the assessment of rank-
order stability. The correlation for all practices was moderate, indicating that the
participants’ relative teaching practices did change and there was varying develop-
ment among participants.

Reflective Practitioner
In the survey conducted at the end of the course, teachers pondered the course’s
impact on their previous practice and considered issues related to teaching meth-
ods, teaching situations, tools and materials, and collaboration. They rated items
based on perspectives implementation and perceived importance (Table 15.4).
Almost all responding teachers felt that they were allowed to develop teaching and
teaching methods during the course, and they reflected on their past activities.
212 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Table 15.3 T
 eachers’ invention-pedagogy-related adaptive teaching practices before and after
training on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = less than monthly; 5 = several times a day)

Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire t df r
Mean SD Mean SD

I guide 3.30 1.02 3.41 0.99 1.02 63 0.64***

students
toward
inquiry-
based
activities
I use the 3.70 0.94 3.81 0.87 1.21 63 0.69***
principle
of
learning
by doing
in my
teaching
I encourage 3.77 0.94 4.02 0.93 2.12* 63 0.49***
students
to share
their ideas
and be
creative
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

Table 15.4 T
 he implementation and perceived importance of transformative digital agency
during the course

Item I was able to do this (% of I felt this was important (% of

“yes” answers) “yes” answers)
I developed my teaching 98.4 100.0
and teaching methods
I pondered and reflected on 96.9 98.4
my previous practice
I solved problems relating to 90.6 98.4
new teaching situations
and tools
I used new tools and 87.5 95.3
materials
I collaborated with other 75.0 85.9
teachers
I supported other teachers 68.8 85.9

Both the implementation and importance perspectives were viewed positively

(100% and 98.4%, respectively).Teachers were able to solve problems in new teach-
ing situations and use new tools. Moreover, teachers felt that their ability to use
these new tools was important. Cooperating with other teachers and supporting
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 213
other teachers were also considered important, but they had been carried out
slightly less than other transformative activities (75% and 68.8%, respectively).
Teachers also considered the themes presented in Table 15.4 in their diary
entries.They reflected both on their conception of teaching versus earlier concep-
tions and their ways of developing their teaching and related emotions. Respondents
described their transformative role through their enthusiasm and desire to learn (or
desire to learn more), and they identify factors that supported transformations dur-
ing the course.
Changes to teachers’ conceptions of teaching were influenced by both their
newfound or strengthened epistemic awareness of technology and of invention
pedagogy, as well as related theory and practice (including practical examples).
Teachers’ thinking was particularly influenced by the nonlinearity of invention
pedagogy and its permitting trial and error:

I also recall (the idea of) a non-linear working process from the videos, as I had
never heard of that term before. I understood it to mean a process of working
that is unique and no one can know the exact result in advance. From the
examples given by others’ projects and the views shared by the professor, it is
possible to draw ideas and thoughts about teaching in general and not only
about projects and multidisciplinary learning entities.
(Teacher 18)

The course’s practical examples of multidisciplinary learning entities prompted

several teachers to consider the opportunity to implement the entities they had
previously found to be too challenging in their own schools. Daring to try and a
playful attitude were mentioned in this discussion. The course content related to
invention processes made participants reflect on their own teaching concepts and
methods, contributing to hesitation as to whether their own skills and courage to
try something new would be sufficient to incorporate similar projects in their own
teaching:

Maker culture seems inspiring and interesting.The internet seems to be full of

materials, but at the same time, I am struck by being spoiled for choice and the
fear that my own skills might not be enough to guide the students. It seems
that such an experiment would require the ability to just dive into it and not
think about the end result, as well as tolerate the fear of failure.
(Teacher 36)

Teachers also described their doubts about increased awareness and sharing experi-
ences from a perspective based on students’ skills or schools’ operational structures.
Some teachers wondered whether students’ competencies would suffice to work
on the artifacts that were an essential part of the course’s invention projects. Issues
were also raised related to the structure of school activities, such as adapting a
subject-based syllabus to multidisciplinary, multihour, or longer-term projects or
allowing teachers time for joint planning. Participants also discussed the evaluation
of multidisciplinary learning modules using invention pedagogy. Teachers
214 Tiina Korhonen et al.
wondered how to build encouraging feedback that supports learning into their
process so that students have opportunities to reflect on their own activities and at
the same time, receive feedback from their teachers that can guide and develop this
learning process.
The course also led teachers to reflect on their own teaching methods, practices,
their development, as well as how to apply the knowledge and skills they learned
in new ways across different contexts. Good examples of this reflection were given
in a wide range of subjects; adapting and brainstorming were not only related to
STEAM subjects and interdisciplinary learning but also to physical education, reli-
gion and ethics, and special needs education. Increased epistemic awareness of
technology—and applying this new awareness and competence to one’s own stu-
dents—was also discussed. The experience of defining things previously taken for
granted during the course made one participant consider their own teaching
activities from the same perspective:

Defining technology—understanding what is being done. When considering

the definition of technology, I found that, in many cases, it can be surprisingly
challenging to define / explain exactly the obvious. This is also good to
remember in teaching. It is easy for a teacher to assume that students under-
stand something that is difficult for the teacher themselves to define or explain.
(Teacher 46)

During the course, and as part of the invention projects, several teachers reflected
on tolerating uncertainty, failure, and trying by mirroring their own transformative
agency. Diving into new challenges and the permission to fail were viewed from
perspectives based on both teaching situations and students’ skill development:

The teaching situation must be seen as a training ground where there is an

opportunity for failure. You can’t learn something new without trying it, in
comparison to a children’s soccer practice, in which a player who avoids mis-
takes minimizes their own involvement and learns nothing.
(Teacher 34)

A reminder of how throughout my career, I have already been ready to dive

into the new and unknown; this needs to be maintained, and the promotion
of children’s thinking and creativity needs to be more boldly integrated into
every lesson.
(Teacher 26)

Collaboration with other teachers and peer learning rose to occupy a special posi-
tion in participants’ learning diary entries. According to these teachers, the orga-
nized sharing of competencies with peers or colleagues during the course played
an essential role in their development of transformative agency. Discussions about
course content and the projects implemented in schools and daycare centers, as
well as the joint planning sections of the course projects and the encouraging
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 215
feedback received from fellow participants, deepened teachers’ epistemic knowl-
edge, self-efficacy, and ability to direct their own activities. The joy of working
together and the importance of successful experiences were also mentioned as
factors that influenced participants’ desire to learn something new and develop
their own teaching activities:

The joy of working together, sharing information, and discussing what you
learn really deepens learning.
(Teacher 46)

In the smallest steps, both the instructor and the student start in cooperation
with the teachers. Doing things together and helping others, sharing informa-
tion, these things accomplish a lot. Students in our schools have a lot of com-
petence, as long as it is presented in a meaningful way, all the while inspiring
and supporting the student.
(Teacher 29)

Conclusions
The implementation of the Everyday Technology course and teachers’ experiences
of this training reflect the factors presented in the introduction of this chapter and
support professional development of teachers: the long-term nature (Oliveira,
2010) and teachers’ active role in their professional learning (Garet et al., 2001), the
connection between learning and classroom or practical context, and collaboration
and reflection with colleagues (Avalos, 2011;Van den Bergh et al., 2015). Teachers
also regulated their own learning by setting goals, reflecting, and assessing their
own professional learning process (Lavonen et al., 2020). The course was designed
as a long-term entity emphasizing teachers’ own agency and teacher interaction,
alternating between course content and jointly planned classroom experiments.
Participants’ experience revealed that interaction and peer learning, organized dis-
cussions, and hands-on co-development—as well as the opportunity to plan proj-
ects at schools and daycare centers with colleagues—were important factors
supporting teachers’ professional development.
Additionally, teachers’ awareness of digitalization, technological development,
technology itself, and invention pedagogy as a method were important factors that
supported participants’ innovation orientation and professional development. The
increased awareness and increased competence in innovative technologies inherent
to invention projects led participants to reflect on their epistemic knowledge and
capabilities as instructors in invention projects. Some teachers expressed having the
courage to try and developed a new or strengthened sense that they were also
allowed to fail and, through failure, learn something new. Some participants, in turn,
reflected on their own and students’ competence levels, considering whether their
own skills or their students’ skills were sufficient to carry out invention projects.
Teachers’ course experiences (recorded in their learning diaries), hands-on
project experiences, and reflections on teaching, self-efficacy, and student
216 Tiina Korhonen et al.
competence seemed to reflect Lund and Aagaard’s (2020) main goal for transfor-
mative digital agency: the ability to identify educationally challenging situations and
utilize digital resources to transform these challenges into constructive situations. The sur-
vey results, for their own part, supported these results.They also strengthened our
view of digital and epistemic knowledge’s relevance to teachers’ transformative
agency. Ever-evolving digital technology and digitalization require teachers to
have a strong awareness of both technology’s development and its impact on our
actions. It appears that epistemic knowledge of digitalization is among the factors
that enable teachers’ transformative digital agency while simultaneously serving
as a cornerstone of invention pedagogy. Awareness and competence development
will enable teachers to understand the relevance of invention pedagogy projects
from the perspective of both curricular objectives and necessary skills for the 21st
century and will support them conduct invention pedagogy projects.
Finnish teachers are viewed as autonomous implementers of the curriculum
who make independent decisions about teaching methods and tools. Some bound-
aries are set at the municipal level, but implementations vary extensively (Lavonen
et al., 2020). Teachers’ experiences with the Everyday Technology course rein-
forced our earlier understanding that autonomous and highly educated teachers
need more tailored, participatory training that includes embedded, practice-
oriented activities alongside guidance in understanding digitalization and inven-
tion pedagogy’s opportunities to support students’ 21st-century learning.
However, the teachers who participated in the course and provided data for this
chapter represent a very small sample of Finnish teachers. We need more extensive
research into factors that influence the development of teachers’ transformative
digital agency. From the educational equality perspective, we should find ways to
motivate the teachers who are less eager to participate in training in invention
pedagogy or technological competencies to also develop their innovative orienta-
tion toward teaching and learning. Through a comprehensive study of educational
institutions’ entire teaching staff, we will obtain more information on factors that
hinder the development of teachers’ transformative digital agency, and this infor-
mation will enable us to target support measures for teachers more effectively. Our
aim is to give Finnish students more equal opportunities to learn 21st-century skills
by supporting teachers and inspiring their participation in invention projects.

References
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over
ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2010.08.007
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
Daly, A. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Harvard Education Press.
https://doi.org/10.1086/667702
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture and the problem of agency.
American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411–1454.
 Teachers’Transformative Digital Agency 217
Frank, K., Zhao, Y., Penuel, W., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends:
Experiences that transform knowledge. Sociology of Education, 84, 137–156. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0038040711401812
Garet. M., Porter. A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes profes-
sional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Education Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
Husu, J., & Toom, A. (2016). Opettajat ja opettajankoulutus—suuntia tulevaan: Selvitys
ajankohtaisesta opettaja- ja opettajankoulutustutkimuksesta opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjel-
man laatimisen tueksi. [Teachers and teacher education—new directions for future: A
report on current teacher education research for the teacher education development
programme]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja No. 33.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practices. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von
Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780203977453
Korhonen, T., Lavonen, J., Kukkonen, M., Sormunen, K., & Juuti, K. (2014). The innovative
school as an environment for the design of educational innovations. In H. Niemi, J.
Multisilta, L. Lipponen, & M. Vivitsou (Ed.), Finnish innovations and technologies in schools
(pp. 97–113). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-749-0_9
Korhonen, T., Reinius, H., Tiippana, N., Salonen,V., Lavonen, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (forth-
coming). Teachers’ digipedagogical competences and mindset.
Lavonen, J., Mahlamäki-Kultanen, S.,Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., & Mikkola,A. (2020).A collabora-
tive design for a Finnish teacher education development programme. Journal of Teacher Education
and Educators, 9(2), 241–262. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1076319
Lavonen,J.,Mahlamaki-Kultanen,S.,Vahtivuori-Hanninen,S.,& Mikkola,A.(2021).Implementation
of a national teacher education strategy in Finland through pilot projects. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education (Online), 46(10). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n10.2
Lund, A., & Aagaard, T. (2020). Digitalization of teacher education: Are we prepared for
epistemic change? Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3–
4), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3751
Mahn, H., & John-Steiner,V. (2002).The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions.
In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st Century. Sociocultural perspectives
on the future of education (pp. 47–58). Blackwell.
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowl-
edgeable action, and actionable knowledge. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4
Ministry of Education and Culture [MEC]. (2016). Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisen suunta-
viivoja. Opettajankoulutusfoorumin ideoita ja ehdotuksia. [Guidelines for developing teachers’
pre- and in-service education. Ideas and suggestions.] Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön
julkaisuja 2016:34. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-426-9
OECD (2020), Continuous learning in working life in Finland, getting skills right. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2ffcffe6-en
Oliveira, A.W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through
professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tea.20345
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmen-
tal perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0953-5438(03)00058-4
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K (2012). Instrument genesis in technology mediated learning:
From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11412-012-9144-1
218 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
Stetsenko, A. (2017). The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and
education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511843044
Tanhua-Piiroinen, E., Kaarakainen, S. -S., Kaarakainen, M. -T., & Viteli, J. (2020). Digiajan
peruskoulu II [Comprehensive schools in the digital age II]. OKM. http://urn.fi/
URN:ISBN:978-952-263-823-6
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Digital infrastructures: The missing IS
research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
isre.1100.0318
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley.
Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard. D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a con-
tinuing professional development programme: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education,
47(1), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.002
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017).The relation
between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in
Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
16 Toward an Innovative School 2.0
Tiina Korhonen, Leenu Juurola, and Laura Salo

Introduction
In this chapter, we expand invention pedagogy to include the systemic develop-
ment of schools. We depict the theoretical background and characteristics of the
Innovative School Model and innovation education developed in the national
Innokas Network in Finland. The model is a result of 20 years of development
work with Finnish schools. As a case example, we portray the work done during
2019–2021 in a project focusing on the development of the Innovative School
Model and practices with eight schools from several parts of Finland. At the end of
the chapter, we reflect on the Innovative School Model and co-development pro-
cess with the schools and envision the next version of the model, Innovative School
Model 2.0.
The multifaceted nature of the systemic and innovative development of schools
is well illustrated by the complex adaptive systems theory (CAS). The theory helps
build an understanding of the complexity of the school system and the relation-
ships between the factors influencing it. The nature of systems is characterized by
emerging consequences that are formed from the relationships between the sys-
tem’s structures (Morrison, 2002). “Emergence” can be described as an internally
led change and adaptation process that is realized through self-organization and the
formation of a new order. An emergent and unanticipated new order can be
formed at the macro-level through collective micro-level interaction. This new
order cannot revert to its founding parts. It can be thought that the new order
present at the macro-level is a new model, way of thinking, or working culture that
is formed in the process and is present throughout the system.The emergent result
is described to be more than the sum of its parts (Mitleton-Kelly, 2006; White &
Levin, 2016). In school practice, this means, for instance, a new and established way
of acting and being in interaction. Here, we speak of a new school culture that is
being built.
The results of these emergent processes that shape schools’ working cultures can
be compared to the unpredictable results of the innovation process. Innovation
processes are also associated with unforeseen and undefined creative processes.
Schools’ working culture is examined from the perspective of innovation processes
by innovation-driven theories such as the theory of the diffusion of innovations
(Rogers, 2003), the theory of educational change (Fullan, 2015), and the Innovative

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-19
220 Tiina Korhonen et al.
School Model (Korhonen & Lavonen, 2017). The Innovative School Model
(Figure 16.1) builds on the theories outlined by Fullan and Rogers and brings
them to practice through development work with Finnish schools aimed at sys-
temic change. In the Innovative School Model, all actors in the school context are
viewed as participants and innovators: students, teachers, principals, parents, and
other stakeholders. Collaboration is encouraged at all levels with peer-to-peer
learning among students, teamwork between teachers, and in home and school
collaboration, and within various partnerships.The model is supported by research
indicating that participant involvement in innovation implementation and rein-
vention increases the probability of the continued use and development of the
innovation.The creative and versatile use of technology in learning and teaching is
a leading and cross-cutting theme of the model. The model extends the notion of
innovation from hands-on learning innovations typical for invention pedagogy to
operational innovations renewing school-level practices, such as teaching practices,
school-day structures, and teacher collaboration (Korhonen & Lavonen, 2017). As
CAS theory points out, the probability of change can be strengthened through
smart system regulations by either changing the system, removing parts of it, or
co-development (Mitleton-Kelly, 2006; White & Levin, 2016).
The design and co-development of the Innovative School are approached by
applying design-based research (DBR) and by being aware of the elements impact-
ing the school’s systemic development under CAS theory: interactions between
stakeholders, the structures of joint practice, and circumstantial opportunities and

Teachers, students, principals, parents, and other partners as innovators

Learning
and learning Teachers’
environments professionalism Leadership Partnership
• What, where, when • Subject matter • Shared leadership Collaboration
and how do we learn and pedagogical and management
• Home and school
knowledge
• Different learners • Teams and
and their needs • Skills for collaboration teamwork • Nearby community
and problem-solving, • National and
• Active learning • Goal orientation
creative skills international
and interaction
• Learning, teaching, networks
and assessment • Quality assurance
methods

Versatile use of technology in teaching, learning, and collaboration

Educating the active learners of the 21st centuryt

Figure 16.1 The Innovative School Model.

(adapted from Korhonen et al., 2014)
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 221
limitations, as well as factors affecting the organization and formation of a new
order of each school’s interests and epistemic spaces (Mitleton-Kelly, 2006; White
& Levin, 2016). A key principle in applying DBR is that Innovative School actors
and researchers collaborate through research-practice partnerships (RPP, see more
in Chapter 1 of this book), identifying the best practices and the challenges of the
Innovative School. The development work is iterative, following cycles that cover
the design, implementation, and evaluation (Edelson, 2002; Plomp & Nieveen,
2013) of the model and process activities. Co-development produces three types of
outcomes: knowledge of Innovative School activities, knowledge regarding itera-
tive co-development processes, and knowledge of successful design solutions, that
is, educational innovations (Edelson, 2002).
The key guiding principle in co-development is Dewey’s idea of a shared activ-
ity. In a shared activity, all participants have the same interest in the accomplish-
ment of the activity (Dewey, 1916/1980). “Shared activity”, in the context of
educational DBR, means that school actors and researchers design, implement, and
evaluate educational innovations together. This requires interaction and building
shared knowledge and understanding between school actors and researchers. Biesta
and Burbules (2003) characterize communication not as a process in which school
actors simply react to a researcher’s movements and vice versa but as a process of
the mutual coordination of action. Dewey’s thoughts are connected to this with
the concept that successful coordination requires school actors to react to what the
researcher intends to achieve with their activities, just as the researcher reacts to
what school actors intend to achieve with their activities. Successful coordination
requires that the interacting partners try to anticipate the other’s actions (Biesta &
Burbules, 2003). By engaging in shared design, by being exposed to similar experi-
ences in the learning environment, and by anticipating each other’s intentions,
school actors and researchers can reach a stage at which they experience a shared
world. New knowledge concerning teaching and learning is constructed through
reflections with others who share the same world.
The central concepts in the systemic development of innovative schools are
‘educational innovation’ and ‘innovation education’. Innovations, especially educa-
tional innovations, are formed through emergent processes, which support 21st-
century school education. Here innovation is understood broadly: it is the product
of a creative process that is new to the innovating person or community. A charac-
teristic of the creative process is combining previous knowledge in a new innova-
tive way (Fisher, 2005). Educational innovations are purposefully designed
innovations aimed at developing school practice (Nicholls, 1983). Creative pro-
cesses result in solutions that can be further combined and evaluated to form a
feasible innovation that enriches teaching and learning, collaboration as well as the
whole school.
The aims of innovation education in the Finnish and invention pedagogy con-
text are twofold (Korhonen & Lavonen, 2017). On one hand, the aim is to guide
and inspire children and youths to learn 21st-century competencies by developing
tangible learning innovations through invention pedagogy. On the other hand, a focal
dimension of innovation education in our model is that it also guides all school
stakeholders to develop operational innovations that renew school practices and
222 Tiina Korhonen et al.
structures with all school stakeholders: students, teachers, staff, parents, and partners.
The Innokas approach has a similarity to Shavinina’s (2013) characterization of
innovation education, the aim of which is to promote societal actions preparing
children to become adult innovators. Our approach highlights all students as inno-
vators, whereas Shavinina’s model focuses more on the education of gifted students
as future innovators. In addition, innovation education in the Finnish and inven-
tion pedagogy context views all school actors as innovators and aims at systemic
change at the level of the whole school.

Co-creative Development of the Innovative School

The development of the Innovative School Model started at the beginning of the
century at a single school in the metropolitan area of Finland. The model has since
expanded and been developed through the years in collaboration with researchers
and various schools in the Innokas Network (Korhonen et al., 2014; Korhonen &
Lavonen, 2017). A central working method has been co-creative development:
collaboration between schools and researchers in an RPP. In an Innovative School,
development is viewed positively, and it is seen as a continuum and part of every-
day schoolwork in a digitalizing society. The idea of school stakeholders as innova-
tors and inventors is central to the practices of the Innovative School and at the
center of the Innovative School Model is the courage to think and act differently.
The subjects of development are learning and learning environments, teachers’
professionalism, leadership, and partnerships (see Figure 16.1).
The Innovative School Model was purposefully developed further in the
Innovative School project in 2019–2021.The project was organized by the national
Innokas Network, and eight Finnish schools of varying sizes from several parts of
Finland participated in the project (see Table 16.1). The schools’ activities were
guided and supported by the project coordinator in collaboration with local net-
work coordinators. Teams consisting of two to six teachers and the principal were
responsible for school-level activities. The project’s aims were an RPP with the
project’s schools to (1) develop the ways innovative schools operate, (2) reflect on
and develop the Innovative School Model, and (3) wrap up the developed opera-
tions of the innovating school and development process for dissemination.
The schools’ activities were guided by DBR methods. The development work
was initiated with a status and needs survey targeting teachers and principals in the
fall of 2019. The analysis of the questionnaires formed the basis for the develop-
ment work at schools. The questionnaire was built around the principles and prac-
tices of the Innovative School Model. The results of the questionnaires were
presented to the school staff and reflected on with them. Based on the results and
collaborative reflection discussions, each of the school teams chose a development
project to work on.
In all schools, teachers’ teamwork and technology utilization in developing and
sharing teachers’ digi pedagogical competence were raised as core themes of devel-
opment. In five of the schools, this development work was tied to ongoing or
recently initiated processes or upcoming changes in learning environments, such as
new school building projects that required a change in working cultures. In
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 223
Table 16.1 Schools and development projects of the Innovative School project

School Number of Grade School-specific School size Region

students levels development project and area
1 650 + 210* 0−10 A model for Big Urban Central
developing digital
competencies
2 730 0−9 A technology- Big Urban Eastern
oriented multidis-
ciplinary learning
module for
secondary school
3 627 1−9 STEAM learning Big Urban Northern
path
4 588 1−6 Student agent Medium Eastern
activities Urban
5 500 1−9 Implementing the Medium Capital
steps for digital Urban
skills and a digi
passport
6 450** 7−9 Space and ways of Medium Western
working for maker Urban
education
7 240 1−6 Co-planning and Small Eastern
competence- Rural
sharing principles
for teachers
8 160 0−6 A collaborative Small Western
model for sharing Rural
innovation and
project learning
* Three school units, the project unit with 210 students
** 450 until August 2021, 900 after August 2021

addition, based on the results of the survey and conversations, each school chose
one or more specific themes for development. In schools 3 and 5, a consistent
learning path was developed ranging from the first school years to the end of lower
secondary school. School 3 had an emphasis on students’ STEAM (science, tech-
nology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) skills, and school 5 had an emphasis on
digital skills. At two of the schools (schools 4 and 5), the students’ role as peer
mentors for digital skill development was the focus. In these schools, a group of
students took the role of either tutor students or so-called digi agents. In four of
the schools (schools 1, 2, 7, and 8) teachers’ competence development and knowl-
edge sharing formed the core of the development work. At school 6, the focus was
developing a makerspace and related practices.
After the initial need surveys, analyses of the surveys and selection of the devel-
opment project plans were altered by the COVID-19 outbreak in spring 2020.
Schools moved to distance education, and this period in Finland lasted from March
to May 2020. The changed circumstances significantly impacted the development
work done at school and the teachers’ opportunity to take part in the work.
224 Tiina Korhonen et al.
The project plans were altered under the new situation. Some of the planned sup-
portive measures, such as workshops for teachers and a joint project meeting
scheduled for the spring, were canceled. Distance meetings and interviews were
organized for each participating school to map the situation.
Schools returned to face-to-face teaching in fall 2020, and the project work
resumed accounting for the new circumstances. The schools’ development work
was supported by local regional Innokas Network coordinators and researchers.
Co-development was supported during 2020–2021 on multiple levels: (1) among
project experts and project teams in school-specific meetings, (2) among school
teams, (3) among the whole school staff and students in joint training or develop-
ment days, and (4) among all project stakeholders in joint development meetings.
Supportive measures targeting all project stakeholders included joint project meet-
ings, training, and shared project tools such as a project plan template and a checklist
for a successful development project. During the joint project meeting, the focus was
the schools’ subprojects, allowing for sharing competence and experiences, sparring,
and co-development among all stakeholders. School-specific meetings focused on
the development of each subproject with the aid of the project experts. In these
meetings, schools were given practical guidance in using project tools, strengths and
challenges were identified, and solutions were sought together. In the meetings, the
teams ideated supportive measures such as training for the whole school staff. The
work of the project teams was built according to the structures of each school.
In the final project year, during joint meetings, project teams were guided to
recognize the developments made: the processes, practices, and needed structures
and resources. Based on reflections, the school teams planned and produced videos
depicting their schools’ work on the different dimensions of the Innovative School
Model. The videos served as a tool for sharing expertise, as well as modeling and
disseminating project results.
At the end of the project in fall 2021, the school teams and Innokas Network
regional coordinators were interviewed. In the interviews, the experiences of the
Innovative School Model and project were gathered from the perspective of both the
schools and the project activities. Additionally, the interviews sought to find ways to
further utilize the developed models and practices in schools beyond the project’s lifes-
pan. Schools were encouraged to keep up with development work by further working
on structures that support competence development in everyday school practices.

Experiences of the Innovative School Model and Development Process

Teacher and principal interviews administered at the end of the project illuminated
the project’s development process and the dimensions of the Innovative School
Model in practice. In the following sections, we describe the experiences of teach-
ers and principals in the Innovative School project by mapping the main elements
of the schools’ development themes and by building on reflections of previous
knowledge from research and development work related to the Innovative School
Model (Korhonen et al., 2014; Korhonen & Lavonen, 2017). We elaborate on the
experiences from the viewpoint of the four main stakeholder groups: students,
teachers, principals, and partnership networks.
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 225
Students as Active Co-creators
Our previous research and development projects have shown that in an innovative and
inventive school, student participation and agency have a central role in the develop-
ment of an Innovative School (Korhonen et al., 2014; Korhonen & Lavonen, 2017). In
an Innovative School, students work as co-innovators in collaboration with teachers
and other stakeholders. In addition to making learning innovations, they are encour-
aged to influence the whole school by developing needs-based operational innova-
tions such as the practices of their own class, grade level, or even the whole school.
Student innovations include recess clubs, recess tool rentals, tutor-student activities,
and internships within the school. The innovation skills learned in actual invention
projects are geared to a more abstract level through operational innovations.
Promoting students’ participation was the developmental focus in three
Innovative School projects. In all three schools, a version of student peer-to-peer
teaching aimed at sharing student expertise through newly developed structures
and practices was developed. These structures included designated teachers and
resources for tutor-student activities, time allocated for collaborative work, student
training solutions, and student tutoring scheduling systems. In addition, attention
was paid to motivating and committing students to activities through making a
tutor-student pledge, designing a shirt, or giving a diploma, for instance. For exam-
ple, students designed a logo for tutor students and participated in building a digital
passport with steps for competence development (see Figure 16.2). In one school,
the backpack hooks on students’ desks were not working properly, and new hooks
were designed and manufactured with a 3D printer as a collaborative effort
between students and teachers.

1st grade

Basic computing skills

• I can turn the computer on and off

• I have practiced using the keyboard and mouse

Digital image skills

• I have searched for images through the browser

Programming skills

• I have familiarized with programming through play

• I have tried programming with Beebots

Online skills

• I remember my own password

• I have tried to play digital learning games

Figure 16.2 First graders’ digital passport (school 5).

226 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Team Structure and Teaching as a Backbone for School-Level Collaboration
Instead of weekly meetings common to all teachers, many innovative schools hold
team meetings according to grade level, subject group, or theme areas. For example,
in team meetings, the implementation and evaluation of cross-curricular invention
projects are planned so the expertise of all teachers in the team is utilized. It is
essential for the development of a systemic school that teamwork is designed on a
structurally sustainable basis and as part of the school’s daily activities. Key ques-
tions from the perspective of a functioning team structure include which need-
based themes the activities of the teams are built around, how the activities of the
teams are built into the system of the operation and development of the school,
and how the activities of the teams are scheduled. The aim of the activity is to
establish common teamwork methods that utilize technology and to make opera-
tions transparent.
In addition, it is important to decide where the questions and decisions that have
emerged from the teams should be presented: For example, is the leader of each
team part of the management team, or are the practices developed shared in peda-
gogical cafés? There is also a need to consider how teams will be evaluated and
developed. When these questions are answered collectively and with the commit-
ment of the work community, so-called pseudo-teamwork is often avoided, in
which the goals and structures of the teams’ activities are unclear. Jointly planned and
goal-oriented team activities serve the objective of an inventive, Innovative School
(i.e., to support students’ learning and growth and, at best, also the endurance of
teachers).
The development of practices related to team structure and team teaching also
became one of the areas for development in all schools of the Innovative School
project. For example, at one school a team outlined the tasks for their STEAM
team members and another team constructed a process model for purchases in a
new school (see Figure 16.3).Teamwork was already familiar to some of the schools
in the project but less familiar to others. Five of the project’s schools were offered
team teacher training tailored to their wishes and needs, which supported the
schools in developing team-teaching practices through research-based knowledge
and experience from previous development work. Among other things, the train-
ing dealt with the models and structures of team teaching and the factors that
challenge and enable it. An essential role in the training was the teachers’ reflective
discussion about team structure and teaching in their own school and the mapping
of developmental needs and ideas.
Collaborative discussions with other project schools and training affected the
development of teamwork in schools to varying degrees. At some schools, the
structures and operating models of team teaching became increasingly supportive
of the school’s overall activities during the project. However, at some schools, the
importance and potential of team teaching were better identified as a component
of holistic school development activities but did not yet lead to changes in ways of
working. The results of the development activities were also influenced in part by
the attitude of the school management to team teaching.
In the interviews, the teachers at a few schools considered the future of team
teaching, continuous competence development, and sharing after the end of the
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 227
The tasks of the STEAM team

Familiarizing with other schools’ Creating a maker

makerspaces and pedagogics working culture

Mapping making
Designing maker
competences and
space solutions
training

Purchasing and maintenance Starting maker

of equipments an tools tutor activities

Designing a maker
education learning path

Discussion

External
expertize
Counsellors

Classroom
teachers

Resource
teachers
Purchase Updates and Co-creative Presentation,
proposal team feedback, changes
Special
education
teachers

Subject
teachers

Principal

Figure 16.3 The tasks of the STEAM team members and a process model for purchases
(school 7).

project. At the end of the project, their schools had begun to consider supporting
a continuum of holistic development, and it had been decided that the Innovative
School project team could continue to support the joint development of the
school’s activities as a permanent team after the end of the project. It is also
important to consider personnel changes in securing the continuity of team
activities. One of the project teachers described the challenge posed by staff
exchanges well:
228 Tiina Korhonen et al.
There have been difficult times when we have felt that we [with the other
project teacher] have been trying to run things together. Now, we see the light
at the end of the tunnel again because a new person has been recruited to the
team.
(Subject teacher, School 2)

Using technology in the development and sharing of competencies, which has

been the subject of development in all schools, also came to the fore in connection
with the activities and sharing of the competencies of the teams. One of the
school’s six teachers describes the options for using technology from the perspec-
tive of a large school:

We have started using Google Tools and have introduced Google Classroom
to all the sharing activities we do. Now that we have a new school, it is easy to
say that this is how things will proceed and these are the ones we’ll try at first.
New school, new tricks. So now we’ll test electronic platforms—how to get
things done together and share work.
(Subject teacher, School 6)

Leaders as Co-creative Enablers

Developing the elements of an Innovative School Model as part of everyday school
activities requires strong and participatory leadership. The school principals and
management team, through their own actions, enable the operation of an Innovative
School. The change in ways of working and the commitment of actors to com-
munity activities require a clear vision built with stakeholders and long-term sup-
port. From a leadership perspective, the most important factor is to identify and
recognize the strengths of the actors at the school and give them equal opportuni-
ties to implement development activities. In most cases, enabling holistic invention
at various levels requires leaders to have the courage to act in new ways and share
their own responsibilities. Working in a team also gives leaders the opportunity to
practice the skills required by teachers and other actors.
Principal teams or management teams can be considered good operational
examples of leadership innovations. In them, the tasks related to the management
of the school are divided among people so that each handles the school’s participa-
tory development activities. For example, one member of the leadership team may
be responsible for teacher teamwork and participatory practices for students. In
practice, that member of the management team directs those activities within the
bounds of resources as part of the school’s daily activities.
In the Innovative School project, the management of all schools was involved
during the initiation phase of the project and, to varying degrees, during the proj-
ect. At three schools, a member of the management team was closely involved in
the project work throughout the project, while at two project schools, more
emphasis was placed on trust in the self-direction of the project team. However, in
the final interviews, all project teachers in the schools stated that management sup-
port had been obtained for the development work.
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 229
A big thank you [goes out] to the management for making it possible for
us to start such a job. Without the involvement of management, this would
not be possible in any way. Yes, time and resources are needed to develop
this.
(Project teacher, School 3)

The principal of one project school pointed out that the new technologies for
competence sharing introduced during the project strengthened self-direction and
reduced traditional top-down leadership, transforming the school little by little
into a learning community. Information is equally accessible to all, and the infor-
mation produced by different teams can be used more easily and flexibly, which, in
turn, increases the efficiency and transparency of activities. Simultaneously, the
activity becomes more communal.

The courage to act and take a stand has increased. Things have become more
agile, and decision making has become easier.
(Principal, School 7)

The principal also emphasized the role of the project as part of the design and
construction process of the new school building underway at that school. The
project had been a natural part of the change process in the school; it had been
implemented considering the skills of the teachers and workload.Thus, the project
has become successful and “looks like us [the school]”. The principal of the school
in question was particularly interested in co-development as a working method of
the project. The principal felt that the activities of the project supported his activi-
ties as a leader at both his own school and the municipal level.

The project has also supported my work, and I have been able to develop
things not only at the school level but also at the municipal level.
(Principal, School 7)

Network Actors as Collaborative Partners

The Innovative School as an inventive community also pays special attention to
partnerships. The most important partners of the school are the parents. An essen-
tial role in the activities of an Innovative School is the opportunity for parents to
participate in and influence activities, for example, through class committees and
the parents’ committee. New ways of working together are ideated with students
and parents. For example, a traditional parent–teacher meeting can be turned into
a Saturday school day: Parents take the role of students in class activities as students,
together with teachers, guide parents through the evaluation phase of an invention
project. Building trust between home and school through inclusive practices that
consider the diverse backgrounds and situations of parents is one of the corner-
stones of an Innovative School.
The Innovative School project activities were visible to parents at several schools
through development activities related to students. Several schools also
230 Tiina Korhonen et al.
communicated about the project to homes as it started in the winter of 2019–2020.
For example, students’ enthusiasm for the new role of digital agent received
delighted feedback from parents. Project activities were also reflected in homes
through school social media channels. However, the involvement of parents in the
actual development work did not materialize at the project schools. This was
because of the crisis communication to homes caused by COVID-19 in the early
phase of the project in spring 2020. At that time, crisis communication became
more emphasized, which shifted the focus away from other communication and
cooperation between home and school.
The school’s other partnerships with nearby actors such as libraries and kinder-
gartens, experts, or companies in various fields also support the operation of the
inventive school. In the Innovative School project, the development of invention
pedagogy played a significant role at several schools. The theme is naturally linked
to entrepreneurship education, and local companies were a natural partner at some
schools:

When we got companies involved in the first year, it brought a slightly differ-
ent perspective when we started to get information from elsewhere as well.
And that is certainly too what the students have been longing for.
(Subject teacher, School 2)

All the schools involved in the project also had other existing networks, such as
a regional tutor network or other regional partnerships. The development work
based on the Innovative School Model, therefore, encouraged the identification of
existing networks and their better and more diverse use as part of the school’s daily
activities. Most of the project schools already had plans to utilize networks outside
the school. Although the implementation of these plans was interrupted during the
COVID period, network cooperation was not completely abandoned; rather, the
implementation was postponed.

We have succeeded very well in the goals of the project, in that we have
involved all the actors in our own school. All the teachers are positive, and the
students like this. The outside-school activities are, of course, not yet realized
due to COVID. I am holding a larger meeting for vice principals and other
schools that want to join in the future.
(Class teacher, School 8)

In the final interviews, most teachers and principals found that one of the best
outputs of the collaborative work with other project schools (networking) was the
realization that the challenges schools faced were similar and that the solutions
found were applicable and useful regardless of the school type or area. The support
provided by the Innokas Network was also emphasized in the project work. During
the project, the schools could take advantage of both the research-based support
provided by the university and the support of the regional coordinator in their
area.
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 231
I’ve asked the regional coordinator many things and the coordinator has
always had time to respond. The coordinator has been our biggest support in
daily life.
(Class teacher, School 1)

From Projects to Everyday Innovative School Co-creation Practices

The cyclical and iterative nature of DBR activities of the Innovative School project
guided the school actors to co-develop both in their own schools and in coopera-
tion with other project schools. All interviewed project stakeholders emphasized
the importance of the participatory RPP process and novel shared activities
between practitioners and researchers. Participants found that committing to a
recurring, scheduled, and joint planning time built into the school’s timetable
when co-creating was crucial for the development work. In the final interviews, it
was brought up that the project schedule and yearly time line influenced the work
of the project teams significantly.The scheduled joint meetings and related tasks set
important deadlines for the school-specific teams, and during the joint meetings,
the participants were forced to present and depict their own development work to
others. The financial resources available through the project also enabled the allo-
cation of human resources and the purchase of equipment and software to support
the development of the school’s activities.
Project activities and results often live for some time as part of school activities.
However, without the identification and recognition of enabling and challenging
factors influencing development activities, the operational innovations achieved
during the development work and then the continuation of the development work
as part of school life may end. One key goal of Innovative School work is to
achieve results that transfer to everyday practices. With that in mind, in the last
phases of the project, we directed schools to think about the future of day-to-day
development work beyond the life span of the project in their schools. In the fol-
lowing, we summarize our previous research work and experiences from Innovative
School projects with the elements that support the holistic development in every-
day school life as observed in the project during 2019–2021.
Co-creation Structures. To ensure the continuity of development work, it is useful
to create permanent participatory structures for schools. It is important to consider
and design permanent structures tied to the school’s yearly plan for iterative com-
petency development cycles and evaluations guiding development work in col-
laboration with all school actors. It is also good to think about in what situations
and when development work needs are mapped, how co-creation is organized,
how and when its results are presented, and how they are communicated to actors.
Well-thought-out structures make development work part of everyday life, so one
need not reinvent the wheel whenever a new development theme starts. It is essen-
tial to include the evaluation of development work in the structures. Both the
development process and the results of the work should be evaluated systematically,
and the results of the evaluation should be taken as a natural part of development
work.
232 Tiina Korhonen et al.
Giving space, time, place, and appreciation to presenting the innovations devel-
oped, and the challenges also plays an essential role in the process of co-develop-
ment and the sharing of competencies. Invention fairs, team meetings, pedagogical
cafés, or Saturday school days with parents are examples of knowledge sharing
enabled and implemented within school structures. These regular and inclusive
meeting opportunities for the different actors in the school are needed to form an
inclusive community.The communal presentation of developed learning and oper-
ational innovations also serves as a stimulus for innovations as a continuous part of
school activities.
All actors as innovators. An essential role in the planning of development work as
part of the school’s everyday activities is how the involvement of all school actors
is considered in the needs assessments, in the activities themselves, and in the evalu-
ation that guides the activities. The idea of all actors as innovators should be regu-
larly opened to school actors through practical examples in a variety of contexts.
In this way, new participatory approaches gradually become known, while enabling
co-development and innovation in the freshest and most creative way possible.
Both the results of our previous research before the COVID-19 period and the
results of the Innovative School project suggest that in the future it will be impor-
tant to co-create and share even more operational innovations for promoting stu-
dent and parent participation as part of the practices of the Innovative School.
Enabling and increasing the participation of students and parents also guides teach-
ers and principals to new ways of working. It is important to discuss and decide
among the work community who takes the responsibility for developing these
participatory activities. Meanwhile, it is useful to note that leading and organizing
these activities and truly being sensitive and open to students’ and parents’ ideas and
needs require a time and a place in school structures.
Shared responsibilities. When starting development work, it is important to con-
sider how the work is to be organized and to agree on the people to be responsible.
In connection with the needs assessment, it is good to map not only the develop-
ment needs but also the competence and willingness of teachers and other actors
in the school to lead the development. Using existing expertise and recruiting
those interested in development work to be responsible for change creates oppor-
tunities for an inclusive and inspiring development spirit. In several innovative
schools, the areas of development are divided among responsible teams, with each
team having responsibility for a certain part of the development work. It is also
significant to consider the diverse skills of team members, their interests, and dis-
parate roles. For example, it is often useful to involve both classroom and subject
teachers or special education teachers in development work, ensuring continuity
and considering different learners.
Continuous support. School actors need support and tools to involve Innovative
School actors in development work. New, creative, and technology-based ways of
engaging play a key role. The toolkit must include tools that motivate and are easy
for the actors in the school to use, reducing rather than increasing the workload.
Diverse and regular support tailored to the needs of the school is crucial. Some of
the support directly targets the development team and resembles job coaching.
Support can also directly target students, a specific group of teachers, the whole
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 233
school staff, or school management. Notably, besides experts and researchers, other
innovative schools, their development teams, and experts and networks from their
own schools can provide support. Development work often helps to better identify
the school’s competencies. Moreover, new, innovative practices for sharing compe-
tencies within one’s school emerge during the development work. Participating in
national and international networks, either as a listener or as a presenter of innova-
tions, also broadens the perceptions of both students and school staff about the
opportunities and importance of developing school activities and sharing knowl-
edge. Activities outside the school or municipality help people to understand the
activities of an innovative, inventive school through new perspectives and spark the
development of one’s own school community.
Reallocated resources. The lack of time and financial resources is often perceived as
an obstacle to the development of operational innovations in an Innovative School.
Leaders at several schools have set out to plan the use of the school budget and the
planning time traditionally allocated for joint meetings of all teachers in new ways.
Considering the use of the school’s annual budget in collaboration with teachers,
such as by enabling grade-level teacher teams to use their own budget has often
made it possible to make different purchases than before. Time spent on joint
meetings has been cut to once a month, and the other time slots freed for weekly
teacher team activities. It is also possible to consider what opportunities the school
must finance, for example, a mentor teacher for one day a week to support the
activities and development of the whole school.
Versatile use of technology. In the Innovative School project, most schools focused
on developing new solutions to use technology as an object of and support for
learning. However, it is also good to consider the role of technology as part of the
organization of school activities, the interaction of school actors, and support for
development work. New solutions utilizing technology at two Innovative School
project schools were also reflected in both the school’s internal communication
and the ways teachers’ knowledge was shared. In sharing these solutions and good
practices as part of the day-to-day running of an Innovative School, it is important
to learn to make extensive use of technology and to dare to bring new technologi-
cal solutions to different levels of school activity and increase opportunities for all
actors’ participation.

Building the Innovative School 2.0

The joint development of the Innovative School Model and activities in coopera-
tion with eight Finnish primary schools strengthened our understanding that the
development of schools is a complex and multidimensional emergent process
(Mitleton-Kelly, 2006). Identifying the complex dimensions in the systemic devel-
opment of schools of various sizes and cultures and utilizing the identified dimen-
sions to support school activities require a strong commitment to DBR, RPP, and
shared knowledge co-creation from both school actors and researchers.
The development work with the project schools brought to life the Innovative
School Model we have developed over the years. The operational innovations
developed by project schools related to students as co-creators, team teaching and
234 Tiina Korhonen et al.
structures, leaders as co-creative enablers, and network actors as partners are exam-
ples of needs-based co-development in schools. These operational practices that
guided the learning of digital technology and supported the cooperation and shar-
ing of knowledge between teachers are artifacts that are characteristic of DBR
development work (Edelson, 2002; Plomp & Nieveen, 2013).
We are on our way to an Innovative School Model 2.0. In version 2.0, we are
moving from describing the activities and operational innovations of the Innovative
School Model to asking what factors enable all actors to be innovators and imple-
ment both learning and operational innovations. Essential factors in enabling inno-
vation and iterative needs-based development activities are based on this
development and research work: the co-creation structures of development work
described in the previous section, shared responsibilities, continuous support, real-
located resources, and the versatile use of technology. Innovative School 2.0 builds
on the school’s actors and the basic elements of its activities to the elements that
guide and enable activities. These recognized and overlapping elements relate to
the factors that guide self-organization in CAS theory: interactions between stake-
holders, the structures of joint practice, circumstances, and each organization’s
interests (Mitleton-Kelly, 2006; White & Levin, 2016) that in turn influence the
organization of joint activities and the new order of the Innovative School.
Adapting CAS theory to the Innovative School Model and invention pedagogy:
In self-directed, innovative schools, systemic development can be seen as a design
challenge that requires the same skills to work as to create inventions. The design
challenge is an open and complex problem that takes shape and becomes more
precise as solutions evolve. Actors’ development needs can be contradictory, and
the level of competence and motivation of the actors varies. Indeed, the ability to
manage ambiguity and the courage to create something new are key characteristics
of an Innovative School actor. Persistence also plays an essential role; that is, the
development of ways of working in each school in a step-by-step organized man-
ner, regularly identifying needs and evaluating the results of the development work.
We will continue the work of developing the Innovative School in collaboration
with schools through DBR-based research and development. Our aim is to sup-
port schools to be innovative communities that see continued development work
as part of their daily practice in the 21st century. The ideal situation is that the
school, as an inventive community, develops its activity with curiosity, following its
time and considering the challenges and opportunities of the digitalizing society.
The school encourages innovation from all stakeholders at various levels. At their
best, working with challenging invention and innovation processes, school actors
are filled with excitement, grit, and drive while learning to take responsibility for
their environment and community.

References
Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1916/1980). Democracy and education. In A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works
1899–1924 (Vol. 9). Southern Illinois University Press.
 Toward an Innovative School 2.0 235
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research:What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105−121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think. Nelson Thornes.
Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Korhonen, T., & Lavonen, J. (2017). A new wave of learning in Finland: Get started with
innovation! In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva, & R. Vinz (Eds.), Educating for the 21st
century perspectives, policies and practices from around the world (pp. 447–467). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1673-8_24
Korhonen, T., Lavonen, J., Kukkonen, M., Sormunen, K., & Juuti, K. (2014). The innovative
school as an environment for the design of educational innovations. In H. Niemi,
J. Multisilta, L. Lipponen, & M.Vivitsou (Eds.), Finnish innovations and technologies in schools
(pp. 97–113). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-749-0
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2006). A complexity approach to co-creating an innovative environment.
World Futures, 62(3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020500509553
Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203603512
Nicholls, A. (1983). Managing educational innovations (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781351040860
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research. SLO.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge international handbook of innovation education.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387146
White, D. G., & Levin, J. A. (2016). Navigating the turbulent waters of school reform guided
by complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education,
13(1), 43−80. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct24566.
17 Conclusions
The Cornerstones and Future Directions of
Invention Pedagogy
Kaiju Kangas,Tiina Korhonen, and Laura Salo

The Four Cornerstones of Invention Pedagogy

In this book, we introduced invention pedagogy, a Finnish research-based approach
to maker education, in which students and teachers engage in nonlinear, multidis-
ciplinary, creative technology-enhanced design and making processes in formal
educational settings. In the book, the pedagogical approach has been explored from
three perspectives: learning by inventing, facilitation of the invention process, and
co-development of inventive school culture. Invention projects are emergent and
socio-material in nature and focus on knowledge-creating learning through sus-
tained and iterative generation of shared epistemic objects. Facilitation of this kind
of learning is based on careful and dynamic orchestration of the invention process
as well as on teachers’ transformative agency. The focal features of invention peda-
gogy can also be used for the school-level development of inventive culture—that
is, reconsidering the infrastructures and practices of the school in a way that enables
and supports the inventive activities of the entire school community.
The invention projects presented in this book vary in their contents and imple-
mentation; however, they all share certain key elements, which we introduced at
the very beginning. Such invention projects (1) require and develop an inclusive
innovator mindset, (2) are based on multifaceted real-world phenomena, (3) call for
co-creation of knowledge and artifacts, and (4) use technology-enriched tools and
materials. These key elements have been identified as being central to students’
knowledge-creating learning (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2021) and the facilitation of
such learning. At the same time, they are also important in the school-level devel-
opment of inventive culture, which provides the necessary backbone for estab-
lished-yet-emergent inventive practices throughout the school (Korhonen &
Lavonen, 2017). Thus, the four key elements of invention projects also form the
cornerstones of invention pedagogy, each functioning in conjunction with the oth-
ers and cutting across the various levels of the pedagogy. The intertwined and
cross-level nature of the four cornerstones is illustrated in Figure 17.1, which
depicts the cornerstones at the levels of learning by inventing (inner circle), facili-
tation of the invention process (middle circle), and co-development of an inventive
school culture (outer circle).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003287360-20
 Conclusions 237

Figure 17.1 The four cornerstones of invention pedagogy across the levels of learning by
inventing, the facilitation of the invention process, and the co-development of
inventive school culture.

Inclusive Innovator Mindset

Invention pedagogy requires and develops a certain type of mindset in students,
teachers, and the other actors in schools. From the perspective of learning, an
inclusive innovator mindset is needed from the students for them to be able to
create innovative solutions to open-ended challenges; work with others who may
have varying perspectives, competencies, and backgrounds; and see themselves as
active creators of the future world. Such a mindset has mainly been studied in rela-
tion to students (e.g., Chu et al., 2015), but recent research has highlighted that
teachers’ development of this mindset is essential to the successful implementation
of creative learning activities (Jones, 2021). Facilitation of an invention process
requires tolerance of the partly unpredictable and ambiguous nature of nonlinear
learning, courage to create and test new ways of teaching and learning, and trust in
every student’s creative potential.
238 Kaiju Kangas et al.
At the school level, an inclusive innovator mindset considers all school infra-
structures, practices, and resources as something that can be improved. Thus, in
invention pedagogy, mindset is not considered to be something that exists only
inside an individual’s mind; instead, it emerges and develops through social rela-
tionships mediated by the material–technological environment and regulated
through cultural traditions. In that sense, it is related to the “makerspace mindset”
(Thestrup, 2018), which complements and extends the maker mindset by under-
lining the culture of the makerspace and acknowledging the opportunities and
challenges associated with working with others (Culpepper & Gauntlett, 2020). In
invention pedagogy, which is situated in formal education, such a mindset is com-
mitted to the continuous and joint development of a school culture that promotes
inventive activities.

Multifaceted Real-World Phenomena

In invention pedagogy, the starting point for learning is multifaceted real-
world phenomena that are approached through students’ own questions, co-
creations, and solutions. Therefore, learning objectives or activities cannot be
fully determined beforehand, as the goals, contents, and methods of an inven-
tion project evolve as the questions and solutions become more defined. New
knowledge and skills are applied to the phenomenon, questions, or solutions
at hand; thus, they have immediate utility value that is evident in the learning
situation. This kind of learning supports students in gaining comprehensive
understanding and deeper knowledge of the phenomenon under study
(Silander et al., 2022). Although invention pedagogy is situated in formal edu-
cation and binds to curriculum objectives, its emphasis is on developing stu-
dents’ and teachers’ capabilities to navigate in undetermined contexts and
utilize the affordances of those contexts rather than focusing only on reaching
predetermined goals.
However, invention projects are not characterized as unconstrained exploration
(see Sawyer, 2021); rather, they are carefully guided through facilitation that con-
stantly seeks a balance between openness and structure. Facilitating an invention
process means giving students the freedom to construct their own ideas and exper-
tise within the boundaries of carefully formulated tasks and with appropriate con-
straints and materials (Sawyer, 2018; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2022).The underlying
phenomenon is formulated, and the invention process is structured in a way that
enables student-centered creative pursuits but is not too overwhelming for the
students. Teachers provide purposeful structures and address students’ emergent
needs in parallel (Beghetto et al., 2015; Sawyer, 2021), providing opportunities for
all students to flourish and learn. Dealing with multifaceted real-world phenomena
also extends beyond individual projects and classrooms to school-level develop-
ment. Reconsidering and recreating school structures and practices is a similar
process of navigating in the unknown; the developers of an innovative school cul-
ture determine questions and create innovative solutions related to school-level
phenomena.
 Conclusions 239
Co-creation of Knowledge and Artifacts
Inventing something new is a complex and multifaceted process that may go in
directions that are unfamiliar to both students and teachers.This is likely to be very
challenging and requires collaboration of several people with varying competen-
cies and expertise and systematic joint efforts for externalizing ideas and construct-
ing various types of intangible and tangible artifacts (e.g., Paavola et al., 2004).
Whether students are creating inventions in teams, teachers and tutors are collabo-
rating in the facilitation of an invention project, or actors are participating in
school-level development work, all participants need to be committed to the
shared goals, activities, and division of labor that supports the collaborative achieve-
ment of those goals.
Invention pedagogy follows and extends the line of research conducted in the
fields of arts and design education (e.g., Davis, 2008; Hetland et al., 2013; Sawyer,
2018) and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics) education
(e.g., Daugherty, 2013; Sousa & Pilecki, 2018), suggesting that creative approaches
to education have their own learning heuristic. In art and design, as well as in
invention projects, experience-based practices are used for problem-solving, inves-
tigation, discovery, and learning. Such practices include envisioning mentally what
cannot be directly observed or imagining possible next steps, expressing ideas or
personal meanings, exploring playfully without a prestructured plan, and embrac-
ing mistakes as learning opportunities.This kind of learning relies on co-construc-
tion of epistemic objects that guide and direct the process (Knorr Cetina, 2001;
Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009). An epistemic object in an invention project can be
described as a cluster of concepts that gradually unfolds through questions and
ideas generated by the team members (Mehto et al., 2020); similarly, the develop-
ment of school-level inventive culture leans on the questions and ideas raised in the
community. Experience-based practices enable participants to engage in, persist in,
and commit to a project. Furthermore, they promote empathic intelligence
(Arnold, 2005), that is, a sustained system of psychological, cognitive, affective,
social, and ethical functioning, which enhances participants’ connectivity, emo-
tional engagement, and ability to relate to others. Emphatic intelligence is becom-
ing increasingly crucial as the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity in classrooms,
communities, and workplaces continues to grow. Furthermore, it enhances aca-
demic and labor market prospects, as jobs that require empathic intelligence are less
likely to be replaced by technology (see Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development [OECD], 2019).

Technology-Enriched Tools and Materials

Working with and around various high- and low-tech tools is at the heart of
invention pedagogy; technologies are regarded as both objects and tools of learn-
ing, depending on the context.The focus of learning is on how to use technologies
for creative and academic purposes, for developing students’ and teachers’ inven-
tion competencies, and for narrowing down the “creative participation gap”
240 Kaiju Kangas et al.
(Jenkins et al., 2009). In invention projects, technological tools provide students
with the means to externalize and experiment with their ideas, to transform their
initially vague ideas into more clearly articulated solutions and artifacts (Kangas et
al., 2022; Riikonen et al., 2020).Various technological activities related to design-
ing, engineering, programming, crafting, and documenting both constrain and
enable students’ inventive activities; furthermore, they provide diverse access points
for students to become interested in and inspired by the possibilities provided by
technologies. Learning to use technologies for creative purposes follows “the
developmental trajectory of creativity,” which Glâvenau (2013) describes as “first
becoming able to observe and make use of affordances in the surrounding environ-
ment and then mastering this use and altering affordances, adapting what already
exists and creating new artifacts with new affordances” (p. 76).
Such a trajectory concerns not only students but also teachers facilitating the
invention process and all other actors participating in the development of an inven-
tive school culture. Creative use of technologies changes the underlying social and
cultural systems in schools. For example, teachers and principals innovate new ways
of using technology in organizing school practices and interaction with partners,
such as parents and networks. Invention pedagogy underlines teachers’ transforma-
tive agency (i.e., the proactive pursuit of pedagogical and professional innovations).
Teachers’ professional development and continuous learning are fostered through
appropriating and creating novel technological practices together with colleagues
and students and the joint development of an inventive school culture (Korhonen
et al., 2014).

Research–Practice Partnerships Supporting the Continuous

Development of Invention Pedagogy
The classroom- and school-level invention pedagogy principles portrayed in this
book have required both researchers and practitioners to build a joint understand-
ing of the various methods of co-development and to commit to improving teach-
ing and learning in partnership with each other. This development is done not
only from the point of view of developing invention pedagogy practices but also
of developing research–practice partnership (RPP) processes. In accordance with
characterizations of RPPs (Coburn & Penuel, 2016), our collaboration with teach-
ers and schools has been built over several years and through multiple projects, and
it has involved co-creation among researchers and practitioners. It has focused on
a variety of problems related to practice, the joint testing of solutions for improving
teaching and learning and achieving systemic change at the school and municipal-
ity levels. We have worked on several invention pedagogy initiatives, from single-
classroom cases to school-level development, bringing these developments into
discussion and decision-making also at the municipality level.
As researchers in collaboration with school practitioners, we have found RPPs to
be a promising path through which we can develop novel ways of working.
Simultaneously, we recognize that we must further learn from and study RPPs to
realize their full potential. By reflecting on Henrick et al.’s (2017) dimensions of RPP
effectiveness, we recognize that we have found routines for collaborating that work
 Conclusions 241
well in the Finnish educational context.We have also learned the meaning of shared
expertise, through which the viewpoints and competencies of each partner are val-
ued. Additionally, research results have been reflected on with practitioners in a way
that suits the needs of everyday school practice (e.g., mode of presentation, schedul-
ing in accordance with school timetables, and presenting key findings in a clear
manner). Finally, the dissemination and sharing of the results has been organized on
the school partnership level as well as on a broader, national or international level.
Despite having identified well-functioning ways for organizing and realizing
RPPs, we recognize several issues pointed out by Henrick et al. (2017) that can be
further developed. The comprehensive use of RPPs as a mechanism for educa-
tional improvement is still a relatively new phenomenon in Finland. Through our
research and development work with schools, we have found that collaboration
could be strengthened through a more balanced negotiation of goals and strategies
relating to both practice and research on all levels. Furthermore, it is essential to
study RPP processes, organizations, and interactions as a whole to gain a holistic
understanding of the circumstances and interconnections through which the co-
development of invention pedagogy is realized. This would support practitioners
and researchers in recognizing RPPs as a strategy for continuous professional
learning through collaboration that can lead to sustainable ways of teaching and
learning 21st-century competencies.
Our book depicts invention pedagogy practices in RPPs in the Finnish K–12
educational context. At the classroom level, the aims of invention pedagogy are
similar to those of global maker education. The Finnish approach to maker educa-
tion is unique in that it is situated in the formal education context and developed
holistically, in addition to the classroom, school, and municipal levels. It strives to
use RPPs to build a multilevel process in which the complexities and related
aspects of teaching and learning are considered.This means that all actors, teachers,
principals, and administrators are guided toward understanding the goals and cor-
nerstones of invention pedagogy, enabling them to support initiatives for develop-
ment and implementation. The Finnish classroom- and school-level invention
pedagogy approaches presented in this book have been developed for over 20 years
and have made an impact on how invention pedagogy is manifested in schools and
classrooms. In the future, more effort will be needed to build municipal-level part-
nerships to solidify these educational practices further and provide equal opportu-
nities for students across Finland to participate in inventing and being empowered
through innovation.
Another aspect of our work that should be explored further is the research and
development in invention pedagogy through global partnerships—making con-
nections, sharing classroom practices across countries, and deepening the under-
standing of our practices in the global context. These initiatives could include
multinational teacher and student partnerships in developing teaching practices to
educate global citizens and innovators of the future. This could include developing
competencies that reach beyond inventing and extend to working together with
participants from other backgrounds and nationalities. These endeavors can build
on and draw from established local and global networks, such as the Fablearn net-
work, the European Schoolnet, Nation of Makers, and Innokas Network. We
242 Kaiju Kangas et al.
suggest that when developing these practices on a global level, the principles of
RPP processes should be taken into consideration in the development and research
of global inventive maker initiatives.

References
Arnold, R. (2005). Empathic intelligence.Teaching, learning, relating. UNSW Press.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the common core
classroom. Teachers College Press.
Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the
maker: A means-to-an-ends approach to nurturing the maker mindset in elementary-
aged children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 11–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Culpepper, M., & Gauntlett, D. (2020). Making and learning together: Where the maker-
space mindset meets platforms for creativity. Global Studies of Childhood, 10(3), 264–274.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610620941868
Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The prospect of an “A” in STEM education. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 10–15. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.
php/JSTEM/article/view/1744
Davis, J. (2008). Why our schools need the arts. Teachers College Press.
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design:The role of visual representations
as‘epistemicobjects.’OrganizationStudies,30(1),7–30.https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014
Glâvenau,V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review
of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528
Henrick, E. C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W. R., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing research-
practice partnerships: Five dimensions of effectiveness. William T. Grant Foundation. http://
wtgrantfoundation.org/new-report-assessing-research-practice-partnerships-five-dimensions-
effectiveness
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real
benefits of visual arts education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Wiegel, M. (2009). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for 21st century. MacArthur Foundation.
https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/jenkins_white_paper.pdf
Jones, W. M. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of a maker-centered professional development
experience: A multiple case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
31(4), 697–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09581-2
Kangas, K., Sormunen, K., & Korhonen, T. (2022). Creative learning with technologies in
young students’ STEAM education. In S. Papadakis, & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), STEM,
robotics, mobile apps in early childhood and primary education (pp. 157–179). Lecture Notes in
Educational Technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_9
Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In K. Knorr Cetina, T. R. Schatzki, & E. von
Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780203977453
Korhonen, T., & Lavonen, J. (2017). A new wave of learning in Finland: Get started with
innovation! In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva, & R. Vinz (Eds.), Educating for the 21st
century. Perspectives, policies and practices from around the world. Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-1673-8
 Conclusions 243
Korhonen, T., Lavonen, J., Kukkonen, M., Sormunen, K., & Juuti, K. (2014). The innovative
school as an environment for the design of educational innovations. In H. Niemi, J.
Multisilta, L. Lipponen, & M.Vivitsou (Eds.), Finnish innovations and technologies in schools
(pp. 97–113). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-749-0
Mehto,V., Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Kangas, K. (2020). Sociomateriality of
collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker centered learning.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 26, 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2020.100209
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). OECD learn-
ing compass 2030: A series of concept notes. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-
project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge com-
munities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Trialogical learning and object-oriented collaboration.
In U. Cress, C. Rose, S.Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer supported
collaborative learning (pp. 241–259). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3
Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Bringing maker prac-
tices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’ col-
laborative making processes. Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(3),
319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6
Sawyer, R. K. (2018). Teaching and learning how to create in schools of art and design.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 137–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.
1381963
Sawyer, R. K. (2021).The iterative and improvisational nature of the creative process. Journal
of Creativity, 31, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2021.100002
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2022). Creative expansion of knowledge-creating learning. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 31(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2029105
Silander, P., Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022). Learning
computational thinking in phenomenon-based co-creation projects—Perspectives from
Finland. In S. C. Kong, & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education in K–12:
Artificial intelligence literacy and physical computing (pp. 103–120). MIT Press. https://doi.
org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0008
Sousa, D. A., & Pilecki,T. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: Brain-compatible strategies and lessons
that integrate the arts (2nd ed). Corwin. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544357393
Thestrup, K. (2018). We do the same, but it is different. The open laboratory & play culture.
BUKS—Tidsskrift for Børne—og Ungdomskultur, 62(35), 47–60. https://tidsskrift.dk/buks/
article/view/107339
Index

Pages in italics refer figures; pages in bold refer tables; pages followed by n refer notes.

Aagaard, T. 203–204, 216 Clark, T. 240–241

acquisition-oriented instructionism 18 climate change 80, 87, 89, 92
Adafruit Circuit Playground Express 106 Cobb, P. 240–241
Alho, K. 163 cognition 96–97
Anastopoulou, S. 134 collaboration 70, 89, 92–93, 214, 220
anticipatory competency 82 collaborative multidisciplinary module:
Apple BookCreator 108 context and participants 84; data and
artifact-mediated knowledge creation 29 analysis 86–87; phases of 85–86;
artifacts 119, 121; aesthetic aims 173; students’ inventions 87–92
characteristics 173; and co-creation of Common Worlds Research Collective
knowledge 237, 239; implementation (2020) 77
127; material mediation 44; complex adaptive systems theory (CAS)
technology-enriched tools and 219–220, 234
materials 239–240 computer-aided design (CAD) 102
computer-supported collaborative learning
Bandura, A. 61 (CSCL) 29, 41
Barrairo-Gen M. 81–83 co-regulation 43–45
Barron, B. 164 COVID-19 2, 205, 223, 230, 232
BBC micro:bit 106 crafting 98; hand 99; hybrid 100; machine
Beghetto, R. A. 61 100; simple 99
Bereiter, C. 17, 19, 21 crafts 4, 187; classrooms with instruments
Bielaczyc, K. 192 188; materiality of 71; teaching and
Biesta, G. J. J. 221 instruction in 71; technical and textile
Birkie, S. E. 93 classrooms 187, 188; technique 99
Blikstein, P. xi–xvi, 18, 23, 189 creative epistemic practices 20–21
Bosch, N. xviii, 56–67 creativity 56; classroom culture for 62–65;
Bouckaert, M. 65 creating to learn 65–67; creative
Brabston, M. E. 149 confidence for 61–62; in designing 52;
Braidotti, R. 74, 77 learning competencies for 57–60
Burbules, N. C. 221 critical thinking 3, 57, 59, 66, 82, 173
cross-age peer tutoring: cycle model
Cambridge English Dictionary 16 164–167, 166; effects of 169–170; first
circular economy (CE) 81; phases of cohort of tutor students 167, 167–169;
multidisciplinary module 85–86; new digital technologies 162; perspec-
reconceptualization of waste 92; and tives of 163; self-efficacy and self-image
sustainability education 80–81; 170; theoretical aspects of 163–164
transitions 81, 85–87, 87–88, 89, 92–93 Cross, N. 121
Clapp, E. P. 24 cultural sustainability 80, 92
 Index 245
curriculum 4–5, 7, 52, 62, 65, 74, 81, 84, reliability 175; self 178–180, 179;
96, 117, 126, 129, 138, 144, 155–156, summative evaluation after learning
174, 204, 206, 216, 238; Finnish 178, 182; tools and teacher’s role
National Core Curriculum for Basic 175–176; validity 175
Education 3, 118
FabLearn Lab: handbook 198; model 190;
Davies, S. xviii, 28–37, 40–53, 95–110, solutions 198
162–170 feedback 85–86; constructive 85, 174;
Delen, I. 119, 120 types of 177
de Luca, F. 65 Feldmann, A. 93
Dershirmer, R. C. 102 Fernández-Barrerra, M. 65
design-based research (DBR) 220–221, Finnish: compulsory school education 174;
233–234 curriculum 65, 96, 162; education 2,
design brief 58–59, 64 40, 71; language lessons 85–86; national
designing: competencies 101; functional core curriculum 83–84, 204; research-
prototypes 102; scale drawings and based approach 236; teachers 216
projections 101–102; sketches and Fortus, D. 102
mock-ups 101; technical elements 100 fourth industrial revolution (4IR) 95
design/maker-centered learning process
models 129 gamification 89
design outcomes 92 Gericke, N. 81
design thinking 57–60 Glâvenau, V. P. 24, 240
Dewey, J. 119, 221 González-Sancho, C. 65
digital fabrication technologies 31, 41, 188
digital learning environment 140 Hadwin, A. F. 43, 152
digital prototype application 84 Hakkarainen, K. xviii, 15–24, 40–53, 120,
documentation and reflection: pictures and 157–158, 163, 192
videos 107–108; portfolios, cloud Hämäläinen, R. 135
services, web pages, and social Hanson, M. H. 24
media 108 Harel, I. 19
Double Diamond design model: creating Härkki, T. xviii, 148–160
solutions 59–60; defining challenges Hegel 19
58–59 Henley, J. A. 149
drawings and projections 101–102 Henrick, E. C. 240–241
Hietajärvi, L. 163
ecological sustainability 80, 92
economic sustainability 80–81, 92 Ilomäki, L. 192
empathy 82–83, 89 iMovie 108
Engelbart, Douglas C. 24 information and communications
Engeström, Y. 17, 19 technology (ICT) 202
engineering 102; electronics 104–105; Innokas FabLearn Lab 193–194;
simple machines 104; structures 103 co-development of 189–190;
epistemic objects 19–20, 28, 37; and collaboration 197; community-based
knowledge creation 29–30; model of development 190–191; concept 198;
knowledge dimensions and themes 33, development 197–199; establishment of
33–36; prototype of banana light team's 196; implement 198; premise of 196
31, 32, 35, 35 Innokas Network 222, 224, 230, 241;
ePortfolio 181, 182 national Innokas Network in
EV3 robotics 105 Finland 219
evaluation: action 173–175; diagnostic Innovative School: co-creative
evaluation before learning 176–177; development 222–224; everyday
digital portfolio 180–182, 181; and co-creation practices 231–233
feedback 174; formative evaluation Innovative School Model 2.0 219;
during learning 178, 182; objectivity building 233–234; design and
175; peer-evaluation methods 178–180; co-development of 220, 220–221; and
246 Index
development process 224; leaders as Jackson, K. 240–241
co-creative enablers 228–229; network Jacotin, G. 65
actors as collaborative partners Järvelä, S. 43, 152
229–231; students as active co-creators Juurola, Leenu xviii, 148–160, 219–234
225–228 Juuti, K. xviii–xix, 80–93
interpersonal competency 83
invention 16; education for 15; embodied Kafai, Y. B. 18
collaborative process 18; epistemic Kahoot activity 177, 182n1
objects of 19–20; pedagogical process Kangas, K. xix, 1–8, 56–67, 70–77,
for 118–121 95–110, 117–150, 187–199, 236–242
invention-driven knowledge creation 23 Karcher, M. 163
invention pedagogy 15; approach 81, Karme, Sorella xix, 148–160
85–86, 93; co-creation of knowledge Karwowski, M. 61
and artifacts 237, 239; course design Kelley, D. 61
123; cross-age peer tutoring 6; Kelley, T. 61
democratization of invention 24; Knorr Cetina, K. 19, 30
educational approaches 4; feature of 4; knowledge-creating learning 16–17, 21,
inclusive innovator mindset 237, 24, 236; and epistemic objects 29–30;
237–238; knowledge-creating learning features of 18–19; open-ended
16–18; multifaceted real-world invention/design 36–37; student agency
phenomena 237, 238; process model and initiative 22
121–123, 122; protocol 84 knowledge-creation metaphor 16–17
invention pedagogy process phases: Korhonen, J. 93
brainstorming phase 125; evaluate/ Korhonen, T. xix, 1–8, 95–110, 117–129,
invention idea 125–126, 126; 148–160, 187–199, 202–216, 219–234,
evaluation and approval of plan 127; 236–242
information gathering 125; invention Kosonen, K. 192
challenge 124–125; invention solution, Krajcik, J. S. 102, 119, 120
zero waste composting machine 128;
modification/implementation 127; LabVIEW visual programming
orientation phase 124 language 107
invention process 92; creative epistemic Lakkala, M. 192
practices 20–21; material/item-related Lavonen, J. xix, 56–67, 173–182, 202
transitions 89; mechanisms of influence learning: collaborative 53; competencies
89–90; orchestrating nonlinear and for creativity 57–60; to create 56–57;
21–23; outcomes of 87, 87–88; phases CSCL 29; knowledge-creation
85; productive participation 15; shared metaphor 16–17, 29; matters 77;
regulation of 43–45 open-ended complex problems 15;
invention projects 19; co-creation of self-regulated 43
knowledge and artifacts 6; collaboration learning by collaborative design (LCD)
in 6; collaborative designing 21; model 119–121, 120, 129
ePortfolio 181, 182; inclusive innovator Learning Compass 2030 2–3, 28
mindset 5; joint development of learning environments: co-development of
teachers and researchers 7–8; Innokas FabLearn Labs 189–190;
knowledge-creating learning 21; network-and school-level
making phase 60; method of data co-development 190–191; pedagogical
analysis 45–46; object-centered social infrastructures in see pedagogical
interaction 41–42; participation in 24; infrastructures
at primary level see shared responsibility Lego Mindstorms EV3 robots 107
at primary level; real-world Lego Technics 104
phenomenon 5–6; at secondary school Lipponen, L. 16
see secondary school of invention Lonka, K. 163
project; students 23; technology- Loukomies, Anni xix, 80–93
enriched tools and materials 6–7 Lozano, R. 81–83
Iversen, O. 129 Lund, A. 203–204, 216
 Index 247
Mahlamäki-Kultanen, S. 202 Organisation for Economic Co-operation
makerspaces 187; composition 188; and Development (OECD) 3
Innokas FabLearn Lab, concept of see Osbourne, R. 104–105
Innokas FabLearn Lab
Making-Process Rug method 45–46 Paavola, S. 16, 192
Mamlo-Naaman, R. 102 Packalén, Markus xx, 95–110, 202–216
Martinez, S. L. 118 Panadero, E. 43
Marvel application 84 Papert, S. 17–19
Marx 19 Patrikainen, Sanna xx, 80–93
Marx, R. W. 102 pedagogical infrastructures: in co-
material(s): agency 72–74; attentiveness to development of learning environments
76–77; belt grinder 75, 76; hands-on 192, 193; epistemological infrastructure
exploration with 57; mediation 44; 192–194, 195; material-technological
unscripted making 76 infrastructure 197–198; scaffolding
materiality: acting with uncertainty 74–76; infrastructure 194–196; social
of crafts 71; learning environments for infrastructure 196–197
crafting 71; in making 70–71; relational pedagogical processes for invention 118;
materialism 70; vignette about striped learning by collaborative design model
fabric 72–74 119–121, 120; project-based
materialization 72, 74 engineering process 119, 120
Matilainen, Jenni xix, 40–53 Peirce, C. S. 17, 19
matter 70, 72, 74, 76–77 Penuel, W. R. 240–241
meaning of materials 6 Peppler, K. 18
Mehto, V. xx, 70–77 personal benefit 89–90
metacognitive skills 43 Piaget 17
microcontrollers 31, 106 Popper, K. 17, 19
Microsoft MakeCode language 107 programming: hybrid tools 107; languages
Mikkola, A. 202 106–107; microcontrollers 106; robotics
Miller, M. 43, 152 kits 105–106; software 105; visual
mobile solutions 194, 195 languages 107
Mol, A. 72 project-based engineering process (PBL)
multidisciplinary module for primary school 119, 120, 121, 129
see collaborative multidisciplinary module Proto-lab for Redesigning School
Muukkonen, H. 192 Environment 155
prototyping tools 101
national core curriculum 83–84
Nevin, A. I. 150 Raspberry Pi 106
Nonaka, I. 17 raw materials: circulation 81; consumption
Nuur, C. 93 of energy and 93; non-renewable 80
recycled materials 81
object-centered social interaction: Redman, C. 82, 93
collaborative interaction 41; research-practice partnerships (RPPs) 7–8,
co-regulation processes 41; initiation 110, 233, 240–242
and leadership 42; social settings 42; Resnick, M. 18
student collaboration 42 robotics kits 105–106
open-ended learning assignments 128–129
orchestration: background information and Saarinen, A. xx, 173–182
data collection 137, 137–138; cognitively Salmela-Aro, K. 163
diverse classes 134–135, 137, 143; Salo, Laura xx, 1–8, 95–110, 187–199,
concept of 132; creating design 134–135; 202–216, 219–234, 236–242
dynamic 135–136, 141–143, 141–142, Sawyer, R. K. 56, 67
144, 145; elements of 133–134 Scardamalia, M. 17, 21
orchestration design 143–145, 144; elements science, technology, engineering, arts, and
of 139; learning 138–140; support for mathematics (STEAM) 2, 18, 164, 169,
active student collaboration 140 207, 214, 226, 227, 239
248 Index
secondary school of invention project: sustainability dimensions: cultural 80, 92;
cross-age peer tutoring model at ecological 80, 92; economic 80–81, 92;
164–167; joint commitment and evaluation of design outcomes 92; social
engagement 50; model making 50; 80, 92; in UNESCO Agenda 2030
student teams and inventions 49, 49; 80, 89
topic of process organizing 51–52 systems-thinking competency 82
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. xx, 15–24,
40–53, 117–129, 120, 157–158 Takeuchi, H. 17
self-efficacy 15, 149, 163, 170, 174, 215 teacher(s): education course 123; in
shared responsibility at primary level: joint nurturing creative confidence 61–62;
decision-making and co-regulation professional development 156–157,
47–48; reconciling tensions and 160; and the researcher 62–63; in team
dilemmas 48–49; student teams and teaching 149–150; transformative digital
inventions 46, 46–47 agency see teachers’ transformative
Sharples, M. 134 digital agency
Shavinina, L. V. 222 teachers’ transformative digital agency
Shin, N. 120 203–204; adaptive practice 210–211;
sketching 101 course experiences 215; everyday
Smith, R. 129 technology course 205–206; everyday
socially shared regulation of learning technology in-service training 203;
(SSRL) 43–45 national core curriculum 204;
social regulation 45; and collaboration 41; participation in in-service training 202;
at the secondary level 49–52; students’ reflective practitioner 211–215;
participation in 41 technological and invention pedagogical
social sustainability 80, 92 awareness 207–208, 215–216;
socio-digital competence 138 technological competence 208–210,
sociodigital technologies 15 215–216
socio-emotional skills 3 team: activities and division of labor 52;
sociohistorical theory 43 motivation and interest 53
Socrative activity 177, 182n2 team teaching: blended model of 149–150;
Sormunen, K. xx–xxi, 40–53, 117–129, professional development 156–157;
132–145 during project phases 151–154; shared
Stager, G. S. 118 and extended expertise 154–156; short
students: collaboration 42; group work project and clear objectives 158–160;
outcomes 90, 90; invention processes skills for 158, 159; well-functioning
19, 23; inventions 87–92; material 149, 157–158
knowledge 71; socio-digitally skilled 164 technological competence: dimensions of see
students with special educational needs technological competence framework; in
(SEN) 40–41, 45–49 invention project planning 109; teaching
student team’s epistemic object: invention and learning 95–96
project and data gathering 30–31; technological competence framework
knowledge dimensions of banana light 96–98; crafting 98–100, 109; designing
team 33–36; methodology and analysis 100–102, 109; dimensions of 98;
31–33; video data and observations 31–32 engineering 102–105, 109;
sustainability: challenge for inventions 93; programming 105–107, 109; reflecting,
circular economy see circular economy; documenting, and sharing 107–109
in curriculum 81; education 80–81; in technological landscape 95
Finnish national core curriculum 83–84; Temel, M. 81–83
nature of skills 82; nudging 83; students Thousand, J. S. 150
inventions 81; value-laden concept 82 3D: drawing 102; models/modeling 35,
sustainability competencies 93; anticipatory 101, 191; printers 101
82; interpersonal 83; transversal competencies 173–174, 182
systems-thinking 82 Tsing, A. L. 72, 74
 Index 249
UNESCO Agenda 2030 80, 89 Villa, R. A. 150
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Vincent-Lancrin, S. 65
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2 visual arts classes 85
United Nations’ (UN) Sustainability Vygotsky, L. S. 17, 19, 22, 43, 163
Goal 1
Urgel, J. 65 Wall-E movie 125
we-can-do attitude 57, 62, 67
Vähäsantanen, K. 135 We Design & Make invention project
Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S. 202 57–60; classroom culture for creativity
Vartiainen, H. 157–158 in 62–65; competencies for creativity
Veerasawmy, R. 129 65, 66; creative process in 58
Vidal, Q. 65 White, C. S. 149
video data 45–46, 49 Wiek, A. 82, 93
Viilo, M. xxi, 120, 132–145 Withycombe, L. 82, 93