Participate and share: Poster 
The research is primarily based on Piaget's theory of cognitive development and constructivist theory.
Piaget's theory of cognitive development proposes that children go through significant changes in cognitive structures as they progress through stages such as the sensorimotor stage, preoperational stage, and concrete operational stage. These changes influence their understanding of the world and their learning methods. The intelligent building blocks in this study can serve as a tool to support children's learning and development at different stages of cognitive development. In the sensorimotor stage, children explore the world through sensory and motor activities. These blocks can engage children by recognizing their orientation and triggering sensory and motor responses (Lefa, 2014). For example, when children arrange the blocks, the blocks can transmit real-time orientation information to a mobile device, allowing children to observe and adjust the position of the blocks, thereby enhancing their observational and motor skills. In the preoperational stage, children begin to form simple concepts and symbolic representations. The block's orientation recognition feature can be combined with children's conceptual development. By observing and comparing blocks with different orientations, children can gradually understand concepts of direction and spatial relationships, such as up and down, left and right. They can deepen their understanding of these concepts by comparing them to images on a mobile device. In the concrete operational stage, children begin to develop skills in manipulation and problem-solving. Through interaction with a mobile device, children can engage in more complex manipulation tasks. For example, they can adjust the orientation of the blocks according to instructions on the mobile device to solve spatial layout or maze problems. This interaction can promote the development of children's problem-solving abilities and manipulation skills (Singer et al., 1997).
Constructivist theory places the student at the center of learning and emphasizes students' active exploration, discovery, and active construction of meaning from their learning experiences. It diverges from traditional teaching, where knowledge is merely transmitted from the teacher's mind to the student's notebook. Constructivism values students' creative expression (Yu Shengquan et al., 2015). Through these building blocks, learners can freely combine different orientations to create their own stories and scenarios. During block play, students will encounter a series of decisions and problems. They need to consider the placement and height of buildings, the direction of roads, traffic flow, the distribution of trees, and the effects on urban landscapes, among other factors. By arranging the blocks, students can explore and experiment with different designs and layouts, observe their impact on the cityscape, and actively participate in the construction of knowledge. They understand and apply principles of urban planning and design through practical operations, trial and error, and adjustments. Students can express their ideas and viewpoints, discuss and communicate with peers, draw inspiration from others, and continuously improve their designs. Moreover, such activities can promote students' spatial cognition and geometric thinking. Students need to consider the shape, size, relationships between blocks, and their spatial layout on the plane. They can understand and apply basic geometric concepts such as shape, size, symmetry, etc., through observation and manipulation of blocks. By changing the sequence and combination of orientations, students can create unique scenarios and expressions. This approach is suitable for dealing with real and complex learning content and aims to cultivate students' proactive learning attitudes and abilities. It requires a diverse, open, and challenging socio-cultural learning environment. In this model, the assessment process emphasizes ongoing evaluation and self-reflection in learning. It promotes progress by regulating the learning process. Additionally, the model encourages students to build cooperative relationships with each other, achieving mutual progress through cycles of collaborative interaction. The cyclical nature of cooperation and interaction helps students explore and reflect on complex, nonlinear, and interconnected learning content. Students integrate their experiences and prior knowledge to construct new knowledge within a rich socio-cultural context. In this process, they engage in language communication with peers and instructors to ensure mutual understanding and accurate interpretation of others' actions and words. Through appropriate collaborative and interactive learning, they develop problem-solving abilities. This educational model emphasizes learners' cooperative creative abilities and promotes learning and creativity through problem-driven, content-oriented collaborative cycles.
(|) Scoring Criteria
Torrance created the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) as a method for assessing creativity, dividing it into fluency, flexibility, and originality (Ye Pingzhi and Ma Qianru, 2012). Three sets of tests were developed from different perspectives, including verbal tests, drawing tests, and tests involving sounds and words, to quantitatively evaluate creativity. The TTCT not only identifies individuals with innate talent but also encourages and discovers creativity in everyday people. The Torrance scoring manual established the following scoring criteria: fluency refers to the number of valid responses made within a specified time, with each valid response receiving 1 point; flexibility pertains to the number of different types of responses made within a specified time, with each category earning 1 point; originality measures the quantity and range of unique responses generated within a given time frame, with scores ranging from 0 to 3. The appearance frequency of different images in drawings is scored based on chance occurrence, with scores of 0 for appearances exceeding 10%, 1 for 5% to 10%, 2 for less than 5%, and 3 for no appearance. In this study, the researcher found that the number of valid results within a fixed time frame reflects fluency, the number of different types of results within a fixed time frame reflects flexibility, and the number of unique responses generated within a certain time frame reflects originality. Based on this, the researcher designed the tasks as follows: 1) Within a fixed time frame, several pictures of pre-assembled building blocks are provided, and participants are required to assemble these building blocks. The number of valid results completed can reflect fluency. 2) Within a fixed time frame, some scattered building blocks and partially assembled building blocks are provided, and participants are required to complete the assembly. The number of different types of results can reflect flexibility. 3) Within a certain time frame, a fixed number and shape of building blocks are provided, and participants are required to assemble multiple shapes. Special performances during the assembly process can be used to evaluate originality.
(II) Usage Instructions
In Block 1, the "triangle" faces upward, and this data is also visible in the app. Each face has a different pattern, and the researcher specifies that participants should imagine different patterns for each face, such as imagining △ as a car and □ as a road, etc. Participants are asked to use the intelligent building blocks to create a city landscape on a flat surface. They can use building blocks of different shapes and colors to represent elements such as buildings, roads, and trees. Participants need to think and decide how to arrange and combine these building blocks to create an interesting and reasonable city landscape, thereby exercising children's imagination and creativity. After completing the construction, they need to describe the relationships among the 6 building blocks they envisioned and compare the placement results with the database's results. They should also provide targeted creative suggestions.
The researcher selected a sample of 10 preschool students from M Kindergarten and conducted the tasks described above, as shown in Figure 9. The experimental results for different participants were recorded separately, and creativity levels were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 based on the rankings. Based on the collected and analyzed data, the researcher initially constructed a model and determined the creativity levels of some students, as shown in Figure 10. We also administered the original TTCT drawing test to these 10 subjects, and the ranking results were consistent with the rankings obtained from our modified test questions.
Subsequently, another experiment was conducted in which the students were asked to arrange six building blocks, each with different patterns on every face. It was observed that students with higher creativity levels tended to create arrangements with lower pattern similarity, while those with lower creativity levels produced arrangements with higher pattern similarity. Afterward, the students were provided with six pre-made intelligent building blocks and asked to imagine each face as a car, brick, tree, road, sky, and person. They were then instructed to create five flat arrangements and observe the final results. Based on the frequency of occurrences and the creativity levels of the arrangers, if a student with a high creativity level created arrangements with fewer pattern repetitions, it was considered that children with higher creativity levels tended to produce such arrangements. These results were stored in a database for future use by the software.
To validate this software, the researcher recruited another 10 preschool students from M Kindergarten to build with the building blocks, demonstrating the software's completeness of functionality.
In contrast to traditional teacher-dependent methods, the intelligent building blocks developed in this study offer a convenient, measurable, and systematic self-assessment tool for students. These blocks promote creativity by providing children with the freedom to create and encourage problem-solving skills. They also foster cooperation and communication among children, resulting in engaging and challenging learning experiences.
The positive learning experiences gained through creative activities and problem-solving processes stimulate children's interest and motivation for learning. This research underscores the significance of intelligent building blocks in early childhood education, particularly in nurturing creativity. It offers new perspectives and approaches to early education, ultimately enhancing children's learning interest, motivation, and sense of accomplishment.
Looking ahead, the researcher plans to further enhance the functionality of intelligent building blocks by incorporating sound and light elements, ensuring diverse and engaging learning experiences. Additionally, the researcher aims to expand the participant pool to refine the scoring system and conduct long-term studies to track changes in children's creativity levels. This ongoing work contributes to the advancement of the education field through continuous exploration and innovation.
[1] Amabile, T. M., Collins, M., Conti, R., & Phillips, E. (1996). Creativity in context. Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, Colorado.
[2] Cagiltay, K., Kara, N., & Aydin, C. C. (2014). Smart toy based learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 703-711.
[3] Gardner, H. (2006). The development and education of the mind: The selected works of Howard Gardner. Routledge.
[4] Jiang, Q., & Qinglin, Z. (2006). CREATIVITY AND PRIMARY-PROCESS THINKING. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 4(1), 66.
[5] Kara, N., Aydin, C. C., & Cagiltay, K. (2013). Investigating the activities of children toward a smart storytelling toy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 28-43.
[6] Kara, N., & Cagiltay, K. (2020). Smart toys for preschool children: A design and development research. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, 100909.
[7] Lefa, B. (2014). The Piaget theory of cognitive development: an educational implications. Educational psychology, 1(1), 1-8.
[8] Liu, X., & Luo, H. Q. (2014). Research on the harm mechanism and related standards of children's toys. Advanced Materials Research, 1037, 565-568.
[9] Rui, W., Jian, L., Xinwen, B., Xiaoying, M., Yan, L., Lihong, M., ... & Guanxing, X. (2020). The Research Design of the 5Cs Framework for Twenty-first Century Key Competences. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 38(2), 20.
[10] Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
[11] Singer, D. G., & Revenson, T. A. (1997). A Piaget primer: How a child thinks. International Universities Press, Inc., 59 Boston Post Road, Madison, CT 06443-1524.
[12] Yang, Z., Chen, M., Wang, S., Song, H., Wu, S., Yang, Z., ... & Gao, Y. (2021, June). Interactive Games for Improving Pre-school Children's Linguistic Awareness: Design and Field Application. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) (pp. 31-35). IEEE.
[13] Yeh, T. L., & Chang, J. H. (2017). The Influence of Toy Design Factors on Children’s Problem-Solving Skills. In HCI International 2017–Posters' Extended Abstracts: 19th International Conference, HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 19 (pp. 199-206). Springer International Publishing.
[14] Ye, P., & Ma, Q. (2012). The characteristics and laws of the development of creative thinking of children 2-6 years old. Studies in Early Childhood Education, 8, 38-43.
[15] Yu, S. Q., & Hu, X. (2015). STEM Education and Its Model for Interdisciplinary Integration. J. Open Educ. Res, 21, 13-22.
Return
Trips and Tours