Main Article Content


The paper presents and discusses the Research and Development and related reflective practice process for the design of an approach to STEM school education. It focuses on Future Inventors, an education project of the National Museum of Science and Technology Leonardo da Vinci which aims to design, develop, test, and define an approach for teaching and learning in STEM at junior high school. Through this case study, the authors argue for the need to design for learning activities in which children can learn creatively building on their own potential and, for educators, to develop and maintain a STEM teaching mind-set that recognizes a series of qualities, bodily engagement, emotions, self-expression and open-ended, creative exploration, as having a legitimate place in the science classroom This is an attempt to move beyond the de-contextualised use of technology in learning towards a learning flow that fosters engagement with digital experiences a way to develop children’s thinking, their voice and identity, making them feel able to share and contribute actively.


STEM Learning Aesthetics Approach School Digital

Article Details

How to Cite
Xanthoudaki, M., & Blanton, A. (2021). Creative Learning in STEM: towards the design of an approach between theory and reflective practice. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 17(3), 33-42.


  1. Bateson, G. (1979), Mind and nature: A necessary unity (1st ed), Dutton.
  2. Bevan, B. (2016), STEM Learning Ecologies: Relevant, Responsive Connected, URL: (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  3. Bevan, B. (2017), Research and Practice: One Way, Two way, No way, or New way? Curator: The Museum Journal, 60 (2), 133–141.
  4. Bevan, B., Gutwill, J.P., Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K. (2015), Learning Through STEM-Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice, Science Education, 99 (1), 98-120.
  5. Bevan, B., [AUTHOR] (2008), Professional Development for Museum Educators: Unpinning the Underpinnings, Journal of Museum Education, 33 (1), 107-120.
  6. Biondi, G. (2020), L’innovazione nei sistemi scolastici, IUL Research, 1 (1), 3-4.
  7. Bitgood, S. (2010), An Attention-Value Model of Museum Visitors, Jacksonville State University, URL: (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  8. Brennan, K. A. (n.d.), Best of Both Worlds: Issues of Structure and Agency in Computational Creation, in and out of School, 232, PhD Thesis, MIT Media Lab.
  9. Carr, W., Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action research, Lewes: Falmer.
  10. Chemi, T., Grams Davy,S., Lund, B. (2017), Innovative Pedagogy: A Recognition of Emotions and Creativity in Education, Sense Publishers.
  11. Claxton, G. (2015), Schooling for the Real World: Why Does it Not Happen, Learning Beyond the Classroom, The British Psychological Society, II (1), 85-97.
  12. Dewey, J. (1934/1980), Art as Experience, New York, Putnam.
  13. Duckworth, E. (1972), The Having of Wonderful Ideas. Harvard Educational Review, 42(2), 217–231. URL: (accessed on 1 September 2021).
  14. Eisner, E.W. (1985), The Art of Educational Evaluation: A Personal View, London, Falmer Press.
  15. Eisner, E.W. (1998), The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Merrill.
  16. Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A.J., Oreopoulos, P. (2017), Education Technology: An Evidence-Based Review. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23744, URL: (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  17. Fleming, Patrick. (2008) Personal Communication.
  18. Girod, M. (2007), A Conceptual Overview of the Role of Beauty and Aesthetics in Science Education, Studies in Science Education, 43, 38-61.
  19. Girod, M., Wong, D. (2002), An Aesthetic (Deweyan) Perspective on Science Learning: Case studiesof Three Fourth Graders, The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199-224.
  20. Harris, E., [AUTHOR] Winterbottom, M. (2018), Tinkering and Science Capital: Ideas and Perspectives, URL: (accessed 28 August 2021).
  21. Irvine, W.B. (2015), Aha!: The Moments of Insight that Shape Our World), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  22. Itō, M., ed (2010), Hanging Out, Messing Around and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning With New Media, Cambridge, the MIT Press.
  23. Knobler, N. (1967) The Visual Dialogue: An Introduction to the Appreciation of Art, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  24. Levi-Strauss, Claude (1966), The Savage Mind, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  25. Manjoo, F. (2018), Welcome to the Post-Text Future, The New York Times, February 14.
  26. Mardell, B., Ertel, K. E., Solis, S. L., LeVangie, S., Fan, S., Maurer, G., & Scarpate, M. (2021), More than one way: An approach to teaching that supports playful learning. Pedagogy of Play working paper. Available at:
  27. McNiff, J. (1993), Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach, London, Routledge.
  28. Papert, S. (1980), Mindstorms: Children, Computer and Powerful Ideas, New York, Basic Books.
  29. Papert, S. (1993), The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, New York, Basic Books.
  30. Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., Bevan, B. (2013), It Looks Like Fun but Are They Learning?, in Honey, M., Kanter, D.E, eds, Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, New York, Routledge.
  31. Raffone, A., ed (2018), La Città Educante. Metodologia e tecnologie innovative a servizio delle Smart Communities, Napoli, Liguori.
  32. Resnick, M. (2017), Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play, Cambridge, the MIT Press.
  33. Resnick, M. (2018), Computation Fluency, Medium, September 16, https:/ (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  34. Resnick, M. (n.d.) All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten, MIT Media Lab, URL: (accessed 28 August 2021).
  35. Resnick, M., Rosenbaum, E. (2013), Design for Tinkerability, in Honey, M., Kanter, D.E., eds, Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, London, Routledge.
  36. Rinaldi, C. (2006), In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning, London, Routledge.
  37. Sawyer, R. (2006), The New Science of Learning, in Sawyer, R., ed, The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  38. Schön, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books.
  39. Silver, J. (2010) Personal communication with [AUTHOR].
  40. Smith, M. K. (2017) What is action research and how do we do it?, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. URL:, (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  41. Tickle, L., Sekules, V., [AUTHOR] (1999), Seeking Art Expertise: Experiences of Primary School Teachers, Journal of In-Service Education, 25 (3), pp. 571-581.
  42. Vecchi, V. (2010) Art and Creativity In Reggio Emilia, Routledge.
  43. Vossoughi, B., Bevan, B., (2014), Making and Tinkering: Review of the Literature, Paper Commissioned by the Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences, URL: (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  44. Xanthoudaki, M. (1997), Museum and Gallery Educational Programmes in England and Greece: Their Content, Structure and their Contribution to Art Education in Primary Schools, PhD thesis, University of Sussex Institute of Education UK.
  45. Xanthoudaki, M. (2013), Il Ruolo Educativo del museo contemporaneo e il caso del Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Tecnologia Leonardo da Vinci, Museologia Scientifica, No 1-2 (nuova serie).
  46. Xanthoudaki, M. (2018), Who’s Afraid of the Digital (Learning)? A Reflection on the Potential of Technology to Augment Learning, Spokes Review, 47.
  47. Xanthoudaki, M., Cerutti, P., Calcagnini, S. (2007), Museums for Science Education: Can We Make the Difference? The Case of the EST Project, Journal of Science Communication, 01 June.