Abstracts - Earli

spatial or verbal processing was required. Data were tested by full structural equation modellingwith maximum likelihood estimation procedures using AMOS graphics version 4.01.Creative writing: the relation between students’ processes and final productsTalita Groenendijk, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsTanja Janssen, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsGert Rijlaarsdam, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsHuub van den Bergh, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsThe aim of this study was to examine students’ creative writing processes, and to relate theirprocesses to the quality of the final creative product. Our main question was whether differentcreative processes lead to different results. Our data consisted of 95 poems and stories, written by19 Dutch and Belgian students (11th graders) under experimental conditions. Each student wrote 5texts on the computer, in response to specific tasks. These texts were rated holistically by a jury ofseven experienced judges. Interrater-reliability was high (> .80). During task execution, wecollected data on students’ writing activities by using keystroke logging. The linear output of thekeystroke logging computer programme was coded and analyzed. The occurrence and the durationof processes (e.g., text producing, pausing, several types of revising) were mapped out. Next, weapplied factor analysis to uncover different writing approaches of students (in terms ofcombinations of processes used). Finally, we examined whether students’ approaches were relatedto the jury’s scores of their poems and stories. Findings showed that typical combinations ofprocesses can be found among 16-year old creative writers. We found successful and lesssuccessful combinations of processes, in view of the resulting products. For instance, a linearwriting process with little or no revisions of already written text, tended to result in weak products.Good products, on the other hand, were often the result of much revising and rewriting on the partof the student, especially when the student revised on a global text level (e.g. rewriting wholeverses of the poem, instead of just substituting one word). We conclude that creative productioninvolves much re-thinking, evaluating, and revising. It requires hard work; ‘divine inspiration’ isnot enough. In follow-up studies, we intend to use these findings for developing and testingeffective, process-oriented learning arrangements.Novel avenues for learning: Children’s experiences of co-creation and a Playful LearningEnvironmentMarjaana Kangas, University of Lapland, FinlandThis paper reports the outcomes of a pilot study where children, aged 7 to 12 (N = 68), had anopportunity to study curriculum-based topics in an informal setting. The children’s learningactivities were extended from the classroom to an innovative playground, the Playful LearningEnvironment (PLE), enriched by technological tools. Curriculum-based learning was thusintertwined with play and digital games in the PLE. The children studied topics first in theclassroom: they oriented themselves to the learning content and co-created a fictional "what if"game world for the playground. Next, they played the game on the playground, and then finallyreflected and elaborated on the topic back in the classroom. The objective of this study was toexamine the children’s experiences of the learning activities, especially within the co-creativeprocesses that involved the designed game worlds. From the socio-cultural perspective, cocreationin this case refers to knowledge co-construction that highlights creativity, narrativity, andimaginativeness. This study focuses on learning in an informal setting using novel learningmethods and adhering to the basic idea of the PLE: offering children an increased number ofopportunities for play and bodily activities in the school setting. The study builds on design-based– 330 –