CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS FOR PREPARING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS FOR CREATIVE PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES IN THE TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PROCESS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22090965Abstract
The article substantiates the structure and pedagogical mechanism for preparing primary school students
for creative design activities in technology education. The study integrates systemic, activity-based, project-based, competency-
based, and learner-centered approaches. Readiness for creative design is defined through motivational-target,
problem-cognitive, idea-creative, design-operational, communicative-collaborative, and reflective-evaluative components.
The design process is structured as “problem – awareness of need – idea generation – selection of alternatives – planning
– prototyping – testing – improvement – presentation – reflection.” A gradual model of design activity is substantiated:
Grades 1–2 focus on modifying models and creating alternatives, Grade 3 on independently finding solutions to problems,
and Grade 4 on completing the full project cycle. Criteria for assessing students’ creative design activities include problem
awareness, diversity and originality of ideas, planning, practical implementation, improvement, justification, collaboration,
and reflection.
Keywords
technology education, creative design, primary education, creative thinking, project activity, prototyping, reflection, creative competence.References
1. OECD. (2024). PISA 2022 results (Volume III): Creative minds, creative schools. OECD Publishing.
2. Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and
3. exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 93–103.
4. Grönman, S., Lindfors, E., & Rönkkö, M.-L. (2025). Design thinking in early childhood education and care: A literature
5. review and consideration from the perspective of young learners’ craft, design, and technology education. International
6. Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35, 857–877.
7. Zhang, W., Guan, Y., & Hu, Z. (2024). The efficacy of project-based learning in enhancing computational thinking
8. among students: A meta-analysis of 31 experiments and quasi-experiments. Education and Information Technologies,
9. , 14513–14545.
10. Sari, R. T., Angreni, S., Mohtar, L. E. M., Lufri, Asrizal, & Hardeli. (2024). Meta-analysis study: The influence of projectbased
11. learning models on creativity and science learning outcomes of elementary school students. Jurnal Pendidikan
12. Sains Indonesia, 12(3), 726–738.
13. Santos, P., El Aadmi, K., Calvera-Isabal, M., & Rodríguez, A. (2025). Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in
14. science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: A genderperspective
15. study in primary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35, 1293–1319.
16. Miao, F., Shiohira, K., & Lao, N. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO.
17. Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO.
18. World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025. World Economic Forum.
19. Bush, S. B., Cook, K. L., Edelen, D., & Cox, R. (2020). Elementary students’ STEAM perceptions: Extending frames of
20. reference through transformative learning experiences. The Elementary School Journal, 120(4), 692–714.
21. Cook, K. L., Cox, R., Edelen, D., & Bush, S. B. (2025). Elementary student perspectives on STEAM education.
22. Education Sciences, 15(6), Article 689.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
