FAQ

Studio pedagogy consists of several components:

• a) learning by designing, creating and constructing, not consuming facts:
  we work in the creative studio model (design-studio model). It comprises design, i.e. creating products – which always have customers – so that they meet their requirements. It is an externalization of one’s own ideas, but within the expectations and challenges of users. (I) The student starts with ill-defined design challenges (i.e. those that do not have one good solution: ill-defined problems). (II) The student then moves on to learning about similar design precedents and the creative canon that is the subject of the project. He or she learns about design problems and limitations as well as the practitioners’ workshop. (III) Then, he or she gets to know his or her users deeply, empathizes with them and begins to understand their pains and struggles. Analyzing these data, as well as how others in the world address similar pains, the learner finally defines a narrow problem that he or she would like to address, and which is also important to him or her personally and through the prism of his interests. (IV) Then, in the process of brainstorming, he or she comes up with potential solutions and chooses the most promising ones. (V) The student communicates his or her solution by externalizing the idea, fabricating and constructing it, creating a physical or digital prototype. (VI) Then, he or she tests them with users, streamlines, changes, improves and (VII) presents the final solution to users and a panel of experts.
• b) the culture of deep reflection:
  since each educational project is based on a challenge that does not have a single good solution, the student’s task is to create an innovative solution that will address the needs of the recipients of the challenge in the most optimal way. In this creative process, the student follows design paths that are new and often unfamiliar – and thus original, but also stressful – to him or her. At various creative stages, he or she participates in numerous pedagogical critiques, and also tests his or her prototype solutions with their later users. This kind of a studio “pedagogical scaffolding” is designed to stimulate the student to go beyond his or her comfort zone, as well as to move his or her idea and solution forward within the framework of creative and design canons. This creates a culture of frequent and repeated revisions, and often of evolving, challenging, and changing the original assumptions. The purpose of this is to teach the skills of more and more optimal design and meeting the needs of users. This is often a very uncomfortable process, but it teaches the student that failures and mistakes are an indispensable and needed creative ingredient. It is also the basis of critical thinking and reflection habits that foster creativity.
• c) space for your own ideas and development of interests:
  the student is the boss of his or her ideas and coming up with them is based on his or her interests. Testing interests, he or she often confirms them and develops them further, but just as often (if not more often) he or she constructively changes them. The more frequent this process is, the more the student broadens his or her horizons and discovers his or her interests.
• d) interdisciplinarity and application of knowledge in practice:
  in the traditional school, knowledge is taught in isolated “silos” of knowledge invented over 100 years ago: mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. In contrast, in the design studio, the student carries out educational projects that involve many fields of knowledge at once, in a mixed way, often presenting them in an interdisciplinary, more practical way. A student is not judged for what he or she knows, but for how he or she uses what he or she knows.
• e) demo lectures and “on-demand” knowledge:
  building a foundation of knowledge is needed even in project-based learning. But unlike traditional pedagogy, where the teacher transmits knowledge to the students’ heads, in the studio, students learn the knowledge and context relevant to their projects through demonstration lectures thematically related to the topic of a given project. In other words, they get to know the knowledge and, at the moment of doing so, they understand why they need it. e) Demonstration lectures serve to inspire students to take creative approaches to their own projects, as well as familiarize them with the canon of creative work in the given field in which the program is taking place. In addition, students receive mini-lectures on request if the context of their own project requires them to acquire new knowledge.

Project-based learning (PBL) is a method of delivering school knowledge through real-life projects. PBL has been popularized mainly in the context of academic teaching and has been gaining popularity in US schools in recent years. The pioneer of this method is the network of High Tech high schools, whose pedagogy is 100% based on project teaching. In a broad generalization, project learning consists in assimilating knowledge by reflecting on the experiences that the student gains during real educational projects. Knowledge given in this way is usually transferred in interdisciplinary projects, unlike in traditional instructional pedagogy, where knowledge is divided into subject “silos”, such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc. When teaching in accordance with the PBL method, subjects or courses often cease to be a collection of isolated facts, and become interdisciplinary challenges, the subject matter of which often connects many school areas, and the glue that binds them together is the plot and theme of the project, very similar to real life. It is worth mentioning that project learning, i.e. learning from experience, has been known for years in other, extracurricular contexts where people gain knowledge. For example, artistic professions, or even architects, are educated in design as part of the studio pedagogy. It was only when these assumptions were adapted to the context of school education that the terminology “project-based learning” was born. The PBL method is becoming more and more pronounced year by year, and is no longer just a loose pedagogical approach, but a specific framework within which educational projects are built. Such a framework, or you can say “the gold standard”, of this method was developed at the School of Education of the University of Pennsylvania and it contains four flagship principles. Namely, educational projects created in accordance with the PBL method should:

• (1) be authentic to students;
• (2) require collaboration among project participants;
• (3) cover and discuss specific program components;
• (4) require iteration, improvement of results, and deep reflexivity.

STEM is a teaching model based on combining science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It consists in experiential learning, which has proven itself perfect in the USA and Great Britain. STEM has a high potential for effectiveness, because thanks to this system, students absorb knowledge of science subjects better, they are more creative, responsible and at the same time able to work in a group. The STEM system helps to effectively reach young people in order to make it easier for them to learn about the surrounding world. This model contributes to the development of independence and responsibility in children and youth. It is, undoubtedly, one of the most interesting and effective models of education of the 21st century.

STEM is based on project learning in four different disciplines – science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, all wrapped up in one interdisciplinary approach. The name STEM is an acronym for the first letters of the English words: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. STEM disciplines open the door to developing valuable skills that can be used in many aspects of everyday life. This is due to the increase in hard and soft skills that prepare for the future realities of everyday life.

STEAM is an acronym for a set of sciences: Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Maths. It is an acronym that has been enhanced with A, which stands for Arts and goes above and beyond what STEM offers. STEM as a learning model has often been criticized for not containing the humanistic component, which is so important in one’s holistic education. By adding the letter A to STEM, education based on the set of natural sciences (STEM) has been enriched with a humanistic element, thanks to which the educational development of a person educated within STEAM is more holistic, interdisciplinary and complete than when it is based on STEM alone. Educational projects created in STEM often simply require the use of knowledge in the field of design, aesthetics, or art to make the project complete, thus becoming a project created in accordance with STEAM. It is worth mentioning that similar things are also communicated by the phrase “art & science” (i.e. a combination of sciences and broadly understood art), which was coined at American universities where “colleges of arts & sciences” were created as places where a student is educated in a holistic way within the set of sciences, humanities, and broadly understood art.

Design Thinking is a design process developed at the Stanford University’s institute of design, which frames the procedure of addressing challenges and situations that we have not dealt with before. Not having dealt with a given situation before, we are forced to act creatively, not imitatively. This method was used by designers for processes taking place in industry and business, while its effectiveness made it popular in almost every context of human life, as evidenced by the recent publication of the pioneers of this method – the “Design Your Life” book about how this method can be successfully used to optimally and happily design and plan your professional life after graduation. Design Thinking successfully works as a creative workshop when innovative solutions are the goal. It is also worth noting that the design scheme in accordance with Design Thinking applies in contexts when we design solutions for users, not when we only express artistically. Also, this method, in addition to innovation, ensures the usability of design solutions.

Traditionally, this method consists of a sequence of individual design stages. These are the steps that follow each other sequentially:

• - empathizing with users / understood as a thorough comprehension of the challenges and problems faced by the recipients and users of the design challenge. Empathizing usually manifests itself in forms of primary as well as secondary research. Traditionally, primary research is simply an interview with users, conducted in a very empathetic and informative way. The trap here is often conducting interviews in such a way that the designer confirms with tendentious questions only his or her beliefs and conscious or unconscious assumptions. The key to correct empathy is a very thorough introduction to the situation of the user we are interviewing and asking open questions. Another tool to get to know the user’s situation well is to read secondary research describing a similar concrete or design challenge we are facing. You can read scientific publications of renowned professors studying similar phenomena, but you can also see how the world of nature and animals solves similar problems (the so-called biomimicry). The latter tool helped the designers of the high-speed Shinkansen train, for example, to overcome the sound discomfort that accompanied passengers when the machine was leaving the tunnels at high speed. It helped them to look at how the beaks of diving birds are built.
• - data analysis and drawing conclusions / in this stage, the designer analyzes the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the previous step in a way that helps him or her see insights, trends and users’ needs, but also their pain points. This process is often colloquially called “downloading data” and appropriate tools are selected depending on the industry or the nature of the design challenge. Traditionally, the association with this stage is a large cork board to which piles of yellow post-it notes with key words are pinned and designers link them into clusters and groups, taking into account the specific binders they notice. There are, of course, less marked methods like “empathy mapping”, or even looking at the experience of users of a design challenge as an experiential journey, and many others. At the end of the day, the process is very tedious and difficult, fraught with many reconceptualizations and changes. This stage is often called the “need-finding” process, and, according to creativity researcher Keith Sawyer, it’s good when designers working together at this stage have different experiences, because the power lies in different views on drawing the right conclusions. This stage ends with defining the problem created on the basis of users’ needs and insights noticed at this stage. This step of the Design Thinking process is extremely important, because it allows you to avoid the trap of the designer defining the problem without knowing the users’ needs in depth, so that his or her solution is at risk of failure because it is often only the designer’s vision, and not the real problem of the user. Unfortunately, too fast a transition from learning about the design challenge to potential solutions while omitting a meticulous understanding of the needs and problems of users results in the risk of mismatched and imitative solutions. We often say: “design for the need, not for the solution”.
• - brainstorming / this is the stage in which the designer transfers from the “problem-finding” process to the “problem-solving” process and delves into the process of ideation and inventing solutions. It is very important to start this stage with a good definition of the problem, which is the purpose of the previous stage. Defining the problem should be open enough to collect many of the strangest solutions. At this stage, it is customary to say that it is quantity, not quality, that counts, although quality, as a filter for the selection of potential solutions, also plays a large role, but only in the final phase of brainstorming. Because some creative processes are favored by solitude, and others by collaboration in an environment of people with diverse experiences, the brainstorming stage is performed both in a group and independently. Designers should always use these two formulas in every design challenge. Often, in order to minimize the potential embarrassment of ridiculing design ideas (which is the biggest enemy and killer of creativity), before starting the brainstorming process, designers talk about their biggest design failures or the strangest ideas that could turn out to be successful. The brainstorming process ends with the selection of a few of the most promising solutions, often by applying the aforementioned qualitative filter at this stage. Since each person has their own and individual ideation process, brainstorming sessions should have a predetermined structure of time organization and a moderator who stimulates designers with such a structure and leads creative sessions.
• - prototyping and testing ideas / in this phase, the designer gives shape to the solutions (or one solution) selected from the brainstorming session. It is customary to say that this stage is accompanied by the “fail fast, learn faster” slogan, i.e. an approach thanks to which the prototyping process strives to express the idea as quickly as possible into the simplest form that allows “playing” with this idea and experiencing it in practice. Then, one begins drawing critical conclusions about what worked and what didn’t work, reflecting on the prototype and then quickly improving it. It is very important to use maximally reconfigurable and simple approaches, because the process of creating better and better prototypes consists of many (at least 2-3) improvements of the prototyped solutions. You can prototype digitally (e.g. by using UX wireframes, or in programs such as figma or Adobe XD), or physically (by creating 2D sketches and then building 3D mockups from simple materials, in line with the idea of “simplify-to-complexify”. So, at the beginning we use cardboard, paper or plasticine, and then we move on to using more advanced materials and refine not only the shapes, but even the thickness of the walls, mechanical functions, etc.). It is most often in this process that the designer experiences a partial (and very desirable from the point of view of learning and creativity) or a large mismatch between how he or she saw the connection between his or her “mental eye” and what it looks like in reality. These processes abound in many reconceptualizations and adaptations of initial ideas. You can say that skirmishes and mistakes are celebrated here and there is nothing wrong with failures (hence the belief that quick failures are needed is conducive to this stage). The prototyping process involves testing prototypes with their users and ends with the creation of the “alpha” prototype, which can be said to be a pre-production version of the prototype ready for small-series multiplication. Since the creation and improvement of prototypes requires resistance to errors, reconciliation with many dead ends and organizational efficiency, it is believed that already at this stage of the Design Thinking process it is more favorable to collaborate creatively with people with similar skills and work culture. This is already the “problem-solving” stage, so not so much the diversity of opinions and the variety of experiences with which you sit down at the table are conducive to success, but a more similar work culture or at least a similar approach to attention to detail.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that each of these stages is related to the previous stage and allows you to go back to the previous stage and improve or change it. And so, after a good ideation, you can update the definition of the problem, and after a few prototypes, you can update the original mechanical assumptions of the solution chosen from the ideation. It all depends on how flexible and tolerantly defined the initial design challenge in Design Thinking is. The more ill-defined it is, the more the designer has the ability to constantly return and update his or her creative path, as a result of which a better and more optimal solution is created. It can be assumed that this is a spiraling and looping process, because this is how innovations are created. The sad fact is that in order to go through this process in accordance with the canon of the Design Thinking, you need to have to be tolerant and comfortable with the idea that the process is ongoing, expensive and not as simple and neat as in the case when we replicate. Unfortunately, it simply costs time and money in the real world, and that is why in so few places you can see such processes in their pure form. Certainly, creativity perceived in this way is not present in traditional schools, where students’ radars are focused on getting high grades as quickly and neatly as possible, and thus they are afraid of failure like fire and are punished for it with bad grades.

Makerspace is a colloquial name for a creative and workshop space with fabrication machines that can be used to construct almost anything. A popular type of makerspace is the so-called “hackerspace”, where enthusiasts of mostly computer science (but not only) work on their digital or electronic projects. The popularity of makerspaces began in the early 2000s and coincided with the creation of the so-called maker movement. This movement can be broadly understood as a DIY culture that existed long before the 21st century. On the other hand, the fact that at the beginning of the 21st century, manufacturing technologies became much cheaper and popular through the popularization of 3D printing and fabrication machines, meant that spaces began to appear in the world in which it was possible to fabricate and construct almost everything, both digitally and physically, with the help of such machines. These spaces were created mainly in social spaces (the so-called community makerspaces) and were driven by enthusiasts who found facilities there to create their DIY projects (such as furniture renovation). Makerspaces, depending on the profile, will consist of a woodworking space, a metallurgical space, a 3D printing workshop, laser milling machines, a fabric workshop, a multimedia studio for audio and video recordings, a kitchen, as well as a space to work with typical workshop tools . When the “maker movement” gained popularity, the first creative studios also began to appear in school environments. Most often they are used as a background in various school subjects and used by teachers to explore some curriculum modules, or in enrichment teaching, taking place “after the bell”, usually in the form of various study clubs. In schools with a traditional instructional program, there is no single scheme for the use of such space, because work in makerspace is subject to bottom-up laws of interdisciplinary and creative expression, while traditional school programs have isolated separate subject areas and a top-down scheme of instructional acquisition of knowledge from the teacher. Hence, many educational environments that use makerspace facilities for teaching operate in the space of enriching, extracurricular education, often in the afternoon. The exceptions are schools led with the PBL (project-based learning) pedagogy, where makerspaces, next to seminar classrooms, are an essential element of school space and a new type of everyday classroom. Makerspaces are also often created in museums which, not constrained by the rigid framework of curatorial didactics, use such space to explore science and art and as a form of activating children and youth. The question often arises whether the exploration that takes place in makerspaces is educational. Well, the researchers confirmed that yes, what happens in makerspaces is learning. However, unlike the traditional school curriculum, it is not interdisciplinary, instructive or turnkey, but bottom-up and project-based. The learning happens in a less neat, but experimental way, because many teaching and knowledge acquisition processes take place on the way to building and constructing products or prototypes. Such a bottom-up creative process also unleashes creativity and fosters innovation, turning users of makerspaces into designers.

Creativity through the eyes of experts.
As scientists argue, creativity is almost a 100% guarantee of success. It is certainly worth trusting a specialist in psychology, such as Robert Keith Sawyer, an American specialist in educational innovation and a lecturer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to him, creativity arises and can be understood as such when something is created from the bottom up – without predetermined executive plans, but only within certain boundary frames. According to the researcher, the best example of creativity are improvisational theatres. In the context of education, however, the scientist points out that creativity understood in this way encounters an enemy that is difficult to overcome, i.e. predetermined structures of school board requirements and the paths by which these requirements should be obtained.

Creativity in education and the teacher’s paradox.
R. Keith Sawyer points out that there are the so-called molds that a student must fit into, whether during tests or final exams: molds that theoretically allow you to maintain a certain educational rigor, repeatability and predictability of results. The scientist warns against the fact that the teacher encounters a paradox (teacher’s paradox), when, on the one hand, he or she would like to enable bottom-up, generative and unrestricted creative exploration, and, on the other hand, he or she has to act according to the top-down key, taking away the main features that determine the birth of creativity. It is therefore necessary to change the way of teaching so that it will stimulate creativity. Where to look for inspiration? Creative professions inspire us to find new teaching methods. There are professions that require you to navigate through unknown problems and constantly solve them: architects, designers, and artists. For this reason, R. Keith Sawyer visited schools of art, design, and architecture for several years. During the observation, the scientist analyzed how people who perform these creative activities learn.

Let’s analyze the following example:
You are asked to imagine glass. It’s a well-known concept, you think you can handle it easily. After all, you understand what glass is, so you gladly respond to the request. But what if you are then asked to design a glass object? When you’re presented with the task to design a glass object, you are struck by the feeling that maybe this concept is not quite common and maybe you don’t fully understand it yet. You start to imagine what kind of glass you would like to design and through the eyes of your imagination you see various concepts of glass objects, from glasses to plates. What if you were asked to explain why you paired glasses with plates in your mind? What is their common trait? What attributes of glasses and plates seemed similar to you? Maybe you put them together based on shapes? Or were the colors of the imaginary objects white? Or maybe there were other properties that made you imagine such objects? Again, you are convinced that you know less about glass than you originally thought. However, this does not mean that your knowledge of glass has been erased. It actually means the opposite. You have become a little more aware of the concept of glass than you originally were, when you unconsciously thought it was a familiar concept. Now, you understand the concept of glass more intensely and more realistically.

The anatomy of the creative process.
R. Keith Sawyer emphasizes that the dominant element of the education of creative professions are creative processes, when by externalizing our own ideas through their physical or digital creation, we empirically immerse ourselves in a conversation with the material or a new situation. It starts with a design challenge, which is usually ill-defined, so there is no single, perfect and simple solution – as in the case of the challenge of designing a glass object that will fit usefully into your apartment. The implementation of any task begins with an idea in the head, when we begin to see it in our imagination, just like with glasses and plates when we learned about the design challenge. As we begin to externalize this idea and make it a reality, it goes from an image in our head to a 2D sketch on paper, then to a 3D digital construction or physical mockup. During this process, it turns out that this 2D or 3D construction is significantly different from this simplistic image that we only saw with the eyes of our imagination. Through reflection, we begin to see many of the false concepts that we originally had. We realize, for example, that when modeling an object from 2D to 3D, the thickness of the walls starts to matter. We also notice that when printing glass on a 3D printer, we are limited by small dimensions and long production time. In this dialogue with materials or a new situation, cognitive processes occur in which creativity lies dormant. This is because we learn thinking habits during this time, such as being reflective, imagining, persevering despite failure, and being critical.

The reasoning process is important.
R. Keith Sawyer recognized that in the process of externalization and creation, it is important to face new problems and be able to look at the challenge from a different perspective. In art, architecture, or design education, students are encouraged to reason thoughtfully as opposed to experiential thinking. Rule-of-thumb thinking consists of association through similarities and reconstructive thinking, when we use previously stored solutions and apply them to known situations; this method is effective, for example, in factories. This is the thinking that can be responsible for the situation when we are asked to imagine glass – we recall objects such as glasses or plates in our minds. It also consists in an association that glass is usually transparent. Sagacious reasoning, on the other hand, is a way of thinking in which we look at the world around us like a child. It concerns a situation in which we see each thing, in the above case glass, as a set of various attributes (e.g. its color, size, volume, shape and design, purpose and users, production method, etc.), where each attribute has specific properties (e.g. a color attribute may have different tints or various degrees of translucency). People are naturally predisposed to associate certain connections between attributes and their properties faster, and others slower. For this reason, in solving a novel problem, special attention should be paid to capturing all the attributes, as well as their properties. Since we can look at a problem from many perspectives, break it down into all attributes and their properties, then with the receptiveness of a novice, a bit like a child, we free ourselves from patterns, see distant analogies and, generally speaking, we see more and more clearly.

Conclusions.
According to Sawyer’s research, creativity is not only concerned with the ability to remember or recall existing rules, principles and knowledge. In the opinion of the scientist, creativity is largely about the ability to capture the problem in a fresh way, to notice all its attributes and their properties, and to search for connections between them. Thanks to this, we can see the existing rules, principles or ideas, but in new configurations and combinations that will correspond to an unprecedented situation. It can therefore be concluded that creativity is more concerned with how you see things than how much you know about them. The model of education that favors such attitudes is a model in which we learn to face previously unknown problems in a systematic way through the processes of creative production. This production, thanks to the fresh perception and externalization of its ideas, conducts a dialogue with the material and the situation and tries to find an innovative solution to an ill-defined design challenge.
The systemic nature of such exploration is ensured by pedagogical tools such as:

• - open, ill-defined design challenges,
• - culture of pedagogical criticism,
• - supporting deep reflection and frequent changes,
• - exploration of creative precedents,
• - interaction with users,
• - conceptual development and rapid prototyping,
• - capturing the creative process through a design diary and portfolio.

The curriculum adapted to the above tools has the following features:

• - tolerance for making many mistakes,
• - exploration is bottom-up and generative and there is no imposed key,
• - rewarding departure from simple and quick schemes,
• - focus on the process itself is as important as focus on achieving the effect,
• - the ability to see even distant analogies,
• - novice receptivity and celebration of uncertainty,
• - perception of relativity and dependence in almost every surrounding element,
• - creative use of existing solutions by intertwining them.

Unfortunately, if we look at the system of traditional school education, we can see activities that are often contradictory to the above elements, i.e.:

• - intolerance to making mistakes,
• - bonuses for finding the fastest and simplest schemes,
• - focusing on the total effect by focusing on grades and final exams,
• - rewarding matching by close similarities,
• - rewarding accumulated knowledge and certain known situations,
• - rewarding seeing the surrounding phenomena in absolute, deterministic categories,
• - punishing for building on or intertwining with existing solutions.

To sum up, for educational processes to also promote creativity, it is necessary to base the architecture of curricula on the processes of creative production. We can observe this model of education being greatly successful among artists, designers, and architects who learn in the creative studio model. Another thing, apart from the artistic or architectural educational environment, which is in harmony with what creativity researchers say, are the learning processes taking place in makerspaces. These, in turn, are driven by the philosophy of constructionism and its latest variety – the maker movement.

It is a 10-week educational program with a uniform design theme, consisting of about 60 hours. This program is a project challenge during which students learn about new technologies and go through a series of educational processes developing their creativity and knowledge in the field of STEAM. During the trimester, each student is involved in creative production processes, during which in the school makerspace they learn to analyze the needs of users, come up with creative solutions, build innovative prototypes and test and improve their solutions. The aim of the design challenges is to address specific social issues important to teenagers and is open enough to accommodate the personal interpretations and ideas of each student. In addition to learning creativity, STEAM and new technologies, each trimester study program also creates an environment conducive to developing, testing or verifying the student’s interests and ideas. In the first part of the program (approx. 60% of the trimester studio), students undergo educational processes aimed at developing the ability to complete the main project task (the so-called capstone project). This is done through a series of smaller, interdisciplinary creative projects. In the second part of the program (the remaining 40% of the trimester studio), students in small two-person groups design, construct and test a solution to the main design challenge (the so-called capstone project).

It is a four-week educational program that consists of approximately 15 hours and three modules. The first module aims to create the foundation knowledge needed to start learning in trimester-long thematic studios through workshops in CAD computer design and takes place during the first two weeks (once a week). The next module is designed to allow the student to experience the process of creative production in practice by participating in a mini-maker project and takes place during two consecutive weeks (once a week). During the month-long diagnostic and introductory program, the purpose is to better understand the skills, resources, and the profile of the student’s talents through psychological and pedagogical diagnosis.

Completing studio 0 is a prerequisite to start learning in the program of trimester-long thematic studios.

Each trimester-long thematic program includes learning of new technologies through two perspectives. On the one hand, each student learns about technologies during various modules teaching algorithms, electronic circuits, computational thinking, visual and textual programming, using CAD, or coding smart boards (e.g. Maker:bit or Makey Makey). In addition, on the other hand, each student uses interactive media tools or fabrication machines (such as 3D printers or laser cutters) in numerous creative production and prototyping processes, thanks to which they get used to the human-computer interface and learn to use new technologies in practice. It can be said that new technologies are in our school equal to “a pencil and a notebook” in a traditional school.