Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Early childhood education – Activity programs – Juvenile software”

Students as prospective teachers are said to be professional educators if they have pedagogical competence, personality competence, social competence, and professional competence. In this training activity, the focus of the activity is on the professional competence of students as prospective teachers, namely the ability to master scientific writing with the help of software. Writing scientific papers that must be done is to include a bibliography. The number of references needed by students in writing scientific papers, therefore, some of them will find it difficult to make a bibliography manually. Therefore, the Mendeley application is needed to make it easier to compile a bibliography automatically. However, there are still many students who do not understand its use and do not even know the Mendeley application. This training is held offline in the classroom, with the target participants being students of IKIP PGRI Jember, especially S1 Early Childhood Education Programs (ECEG) final semester. The method used in this service activity is Participatory Action Research (PAR). The use of this method is expected to improve students' understanding and skills in compiling scientific papers related to citation arrangements, and bibliography. The subject of service according to the title is S1 Early Childhood Education Programs (ECEG) final semester. The object of training is the Mendeley Application with the "APA Manual 7th Edition" style which has been implemented at IKIP PGRI Jember.

The development of soft skills at the Association of Early Childhood Educators and Education Personnel in Batam City District can be fulfilled through a Multimedia learning model based on Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The training for developing multimedia learning media based on Information and Communication Technology aims to provide skills in making interesting multimedia learning media in a relatively easy way. The method applied in this activity is the Method of Presentation, Demonstration and Practice. Presentation method is used for software introduction using Microsoft Powerpoint 2016. Demonstration method regarding program operation and Practice Method, namely making learning media directly by participants according to their respective subjects by utilizing these programs. The results of this study are: First, the training provides several materials related to efforts to improve the quality of learning by providing knowledge about the use of the Powerpoint Program to create interactive games as an attractive and interactive ICT-based multimedia learning media, Second, the material presented is acceptable, digestible, and well understood by the participants, Third, the activity went smoothly, on time and as expected.

Problem solving skills are very important in supporting social development. Children with problem solving skills can build healthy relationships with their friends, understand the emotions of those around them, and see events with other people's perspectives. The purpose of this study was to determine the implementation of playing unplugged coding programs in improving early childhood problem solving skills. This study used a classroom action research design, using the Kemmis and Taggart cycle models. The subjects of this study were children aged 5-6 years in Shafa Marwah Kindergarten. Research can achieve the target results of increasing children's problem-solving abilities after going through two cycles. In the first cycle, the child's initial problem-solving skills was 67.5% and in the second cycle it increased to 80.5%. The initial skills of children's problem-solving increases because children tend to be enthusiastic and excited about the various play activities prepared by the teacher. The stimulation and motivation of the teacher enables children to find solutions to problems faced when carrying out play activities. So, it can be concluded that learning unplugged coding is an activity that can attract children's interest and become a solution to bring up children's initial problem-solving abilities. Keywords: Early Childhood, Unplugged Coding, Problem solving skills References: Akyol-Altun, C. (2018). Algorithm and coding education in pre-school teaching program integration the efectiveness of problem-solving skills in students. Angeli, C., Smith, J., Zagami, J., Cox, M., Webb, M., Fluck, A., & Voogt, J. (2016). A K-6 Computational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 12. Anlıak, Ş., & Dinçer, Ç. (2005). Farklı eğitim yaklaşımları uygulayan okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarına devam eden çocukların kişilerarası problem çözme becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakülte Dergis. Aranda, G., & Ferguson, J. P. (2018). Unplugged Programming: The future of teaching computational thinking? Pedagogika, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2018.859 Arinchaya Threekunprapa. (2020). Patterns of Computational Thinking Development while Solving Unplugged Coding Activities Coupled with the 3S Approach for Self_Directed Learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1025–1045. Arı, M. (2003). Türkiye’de erken çocukluk eğitimi ve kalitenin önemiNo Title. Erken Çocuklukta Gelişim ve Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşımlar. Armoni, M. (2012). Teaching CS in kindergarten: How early can the pipeline begin? ACM Inroads, 3(4), 18–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/2381083.2381091 Aydoğan, Y. (2004). İlköğretim ikinci ve dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerine genel problem çözme becerilerinin kazandırılmasında eğitimin etkisinin incelenmesi. Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer Science Unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. 10. Berk, L. E. (2013). Bebekler ve çocuklar: Doğum öncesinden orta çocukluğa. N. Işıkoğlu Erdoğan, Çev. Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding, playgrounds, and literacy in early childhood education: The devel_opment of KIBO robotics and Scratch Jr. IEEE. Brackmann, C. P., Moreno-León, J., Román-González, M., Casali, A., Robles, G., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069 Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. 25. Deek, F. P. (1999). The software process: A parallel approach through problem solving and program development. Computer Science Education. Demi̇Rer, V., & Sak, N. (2016). Programming Education and New Approaches Around the World and in Turkey. 26. Dereli-İman. (2014). Değerler eğitimi programının 5-6 yaş çocukların sosyal gelişimine etkisi: Sosyal beceri, psiko-sosyal gelişim ve sosyal problem çözme becerisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. Doğru, M., Arslan, A., & Şeker, F. (2011). Okul öncesinde uygulanan fen etkinliklerinin 5-6 yaş çocukların problem çözme becerilerine etkisi. Uluslararası Türkiye Eğiti Araştırmaları Kongresi. Erickson, A. S. G., Noonan, P., Zheng, C., & Brussow, J. A. (2015). The relationship between self-determination and academic achievement for adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 36, 45–54. Fee, S. B., & Holland-Minkley, A. M. (2010). Teaching computer science through problems, not solutions. Computer Science Education, 20(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2010.486271 Futschek, G., & Moschitz, J. (2010). Developing algorithmic thinking by inventing and playing algo_rithms. Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational Thinking and Media & Information Literacy: An Integrated Approach to Teaching Twenty-First Century Skills. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher. Harrop, W. (2018). Coding for children and young adults in libraries: A practical guide for librarians. 45. Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (2011). Guide to Teaching Computer Science. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-443-2 Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2 Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004 Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). Instructional strategy in the teaching of computer programming: A need assessment analyses. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). Instructional Strategy in The Teaching of Computer Programming: A Need Assessment Analyses. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 7. Jitendra, A. K., Petersen-Brown, S., Lein, A. E., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kunkel, A. K., Jung, P.-G., & Egan, A. M. (2013). Teaching Mathematical Word Problem Solving: The Quality of Evidence for Strategy Instruction Priming the Problem Structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487408 Joohi Lee. (2019). Coding in early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A., & Paas, F. (2010). Facilitating flexible problem solving: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action Research Planner. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2 Kesicioğlu, O. S. (2015). Okul öncesi dönem çocukların kişilerarası problem çözme becerilerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim. Koksal Akyol, A. ve Didin, E. (2016). Ahlak gelisimi [Moral development]. In Cocuk Gelisimi icinde [In Child Development]. Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.020 Looi, C.-K., How, M.-L., Longkai, W., Seow, P., & Liu, L. (2018). Analysis of linkages between an unplugged activity and the development of computational thinking. Computer Science Education, 28(3), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1533297 McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. 68. McLennan, D. P. (2017). Creating coding stories and games. Teaching Young Children. McNerney, TimothyS. (2004). From turtles to Tangible Programming Bricks: Explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0295-6 Mittermeir, R. T. (2013). Algorithmics for preschoolers—A contradiction? Montemayor, J., Druin, A., Chipman, G., Farber, A., & Guha, M. L. (2004). Tools for children to create physical interactive storyrooms. Computers in Entertainment, 2(1), 12–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/973801.973821 Pane, J. F. (2002). A Programming System for Children that is Designed for Usability. 204. Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2018). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-29 first century skills. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Pila, S., Aladé, F., Sheehan, K. J., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet applications: An evaluation of Daisy the Dinosaur and Kodable as learning tools for young children. Computers & Education, 128, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.006 Root, J., Saunders, A., Spooner, F., & Brosh, C. (2017). Teaching Personal Finance Mathematical Problem Solving to Individuals with Moderate Intellectual Disability. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416681288 Scanlan, D. A. (1989). Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: An experimental comparison. IEEE Software, 6(5), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.35587 Sheehan, K. J., Pila, S., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Parent-child interaction and children’s learning from a coding application. Computers & Education, 140, 103601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103601 Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review. Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, E. A. (2012). Life-span Human Development (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Tech_nology and Design Education, 26, 3–20. Sullivan, A. A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). International conference on com_putational thinking education. Imagining, Playing, and Coding with KIBO: Using Robot_ics to Foster Computational Thinking in Young ChildreImagining, Playing, and Coding with KIBO: Using Robot_ics to Foster Computational Thinking in Young Children. Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015). KIBO robot demo: Engaging young children in programming and engineering. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 418–421. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771868 Threekunprapa, A., & Yasri, P. (n. d.). (2020). The role of augmented reality based unplugged computer programming approach in the effectiveness of computational thinking. Uysal, A. & Kaya-Balkan, İ. (2015). Sosyal beceri eğitimi alan ve almayan okul öncesi çocukların, sosyal beceri ve benlik kavramı düzeyleri açısından karşılaştırılması. Psikoloji Çalışmaları. Vorderman, C. (2017). Computer coding for kids: A unique step-by-step visual guide, from binary code to building games. Voronina, L. V., Sergeeva, N. N., & Utyumova, E. A. (2016). Development of algorithm skills in preschool children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 233, 155-159. Wang, D., Han, H., Zhan, Z., Xu, J., Liu, Q., & Ren, G. (2015). A problem solving oriented intelligent tutoring system to improve students’ acquisition of basic computer skills. Comput. Educ., 81, 102–112. Wang, D., Zhang, C., & Wang, H. (2010). Proceedings of the 10th international conference on interaction design and children. T-Maze: A Tangible Programming Tool for Children. Wang, Danli, Zhang, C., & Wang, H. (2011). T-Maze: A tangible programming tool for children. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ’11, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999030.1999045 Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., Marshall, R. R., Wood, P. E., Crowe, C. M., Hoffman, T. W., Wright, J. D., Taylor, P. A., Woodhouse, K. A., & Bouchard, C. G. K. (1997). Developing Problem Solving Skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00270.x Yıldırım, A. (2014). Okul öncesinde yaratıcı problem çözme etkinliklerinin yaratıcılığa etkisi (5 yaş örneği). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. Yohanes. (2018). Mengajarkan Computational Thinking dan Coding Pada Anak-Anak. Amazing Grace. https://blog.compactbyte.com/2018/05/26/mengajarkan-computational-thinking-dan-coding-pada-anak-anak/ Yu, K.-C., Fan, S.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2015). Enhancing Students’ Problem-Solving Skills Through Context-Based Learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1377–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9567-4 Yuksel, H. S. (2019). Experiences of Prospective Physical Education Teachers on Active Gaming within the Context of School-Based Physical Activity. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.199 Zvarych, I., Kalaur, S. M., Prymachenko, N. M., Romashchenko, I. V., & Romanyshyna, O. Ia. (2019). Gamification as a Tool for Stimulating the Educational Activity of Students of Higher Educational Institutions of Ukraine and the United States. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.3.875

The idea of edutainment began to become the interest of early childhood educators to make the learning process more holistic, including knowledge about how the brain works, memory, motivation, self-image, emotions, learning styles, and other learning strategies. This study aims to analyse and compare the effect of edutainment and group learning on the socio-emotional development of early childhood. This research method uses a quasi-experimental design with data collection techniques derived from the results of the pre-test and post-test on 20 children. The results of this study indicate that there are differences in the influence of edutainment learning with the control group on the social-emotional development of early childhood. Although both groups affect the socio-emotional development, edutainment learning has a better effect than the control group. For further research, it is recommended to create various types of edutainments learning to improve various aspects of children development. Keywords: Early Childhood, Edutainment Learning Model, Socio-emotional Development References: Afrianti, N. (2018). Permainan Tradisional, Alternatif Media Pengembangan Kompetensi Sosial-Emosi Anak Usia Dini [Traditional Games, Alternative Media for Early Childhood Social-Emotional Competence Development]. Cakrawala Dini: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.17509/cd.v5i1.10405 Alwaely, S. A., Yousif, N. B. A., & Mikhaylov, A. (2021). Emotional development in preschoolers and socialization. Early Child Development and Care, 191(16), 2484–2493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1717480 Andri Oza, & Zaman, B. (2016). Edutainment dalam Mata Pelajaran Pendidikan Agama Islam. Mudarrisa: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Islam, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.18326/mdr.v8i1.117-144 Aubert, A., Molina, S., Schubert, T., & Vidu, A. (2017). Learning and inclusivity via Interactive Groups in early childhood education and care in the Hope school, Spain. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 13, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.03.002 Breaux, R. P., Harvey, E. A., & Lugo-Candelas, C. I. (2016). The Role of Parent Psychopathology in Emotion Socialization. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(4), 731–743. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0062-3 Capurso, M., & Ragni, B. (2016). Bridge Over Troubled Water: Perspective Connections between Coping and Play in Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01953 Cheng, Y.-J., & Ray, D. C. (2016). Child-Centered Group Play Therapy: Impact on Social-Emotional Assets of Kindergarten Children. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 41(3), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2016.1197350 Chilingaryan, K., & Zvereva, E. (2020). Edutainment As a New Tool for Development. JAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 16, 9. Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2011). Classroom Discipline Across Forty-One Countries: School, Economic, and Cultural Differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3), 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381115 Chung, K. K. H., Lam, C. B., & Liew, J. (2020). Studying Children’s Social-Emotional Development in School and at Home through a Cultural Lens. Early Education and Development, 31(6), 927–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1782860 Crescenzi-Lanna, L., & Grané-Oró, M. (2016). An Analysis of the Interaction Design of the Best Educational Apps for Children Aged Zero to Eight = Análisis del diseño interactivo de las mejores apps educativas para niños de ceroa ocho años. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (Fifth edition). Pearson. Dandashi, A., Karkar, A. G., Saad, S., Barhoumi, Z., Al-Jaam, J., & El Saddik, A. (2015). Enhancing the Cognitive and Learning Skills of Children with Intellectual Disability through Physical Activity and Edutainment Games. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 11(6), 165165. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/165165 Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-Emotional Competence as Support for School Readiness: What Is It and How Do We Assess It? Early Education and Development, 17(1), 57–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4 Eurenius, E., Richter Sundberg, L., Vaezghasemi, M., Silfverdal, S.-A., Ivarsson, A., & Lindkvist, M. (2019). Social-emotional problems among three-year-olds differ based on the child’s gender and custody arrangement. Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway: 1992), 108(6), 1087–1095. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14668 Goldschmidt, T., & Pedro, A. (2019). Early childhood socio-emotional development indicators: Pre-school teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 29(5), 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2019.1665887 Guran, A.-M., Cojocar, G. S., & Dioşan, L. S. (2020). Developing smart edutainment for preschoolers: A multidisciplinary approach. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Education through Advanced Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412453.3423197 Halle, T. G., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2016). Review of measures of social and emotional development. Measuring Social and Emotional Development in Early Childhood, 45, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.003 Hamada, M., & Tsubaki, M. (2021). Relationship Analysis between Children Interests and Their Positive Emotions for Mobile Libraries’ Community Development in a Tsunami Area. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 31. Heller, S. S., Rice, J., Boothe, A., Sidell, M., Vaughn, K., Keyes, A., & Nagle, G. (2012). Social-Emotional Development, School Readiness, Teacher–Child Interactions, and Classroom Environment. Early Education & Development, 23(6), 919–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.626387 Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting Education in “Educational” Apps: Lessons from the Science of Learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721 Hurlock, E. B. (2001). Developmental Psychology. McGraw-Hill Education. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=DiovBU8zMA4C Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., Pauketat, J. V. T., & Smith, E. R. (2017). The Impact of Culture and Identity on Emotional Reactions to Insults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(6), 892–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117701194 Marcelo, A. K., & Yates, T. M. (2014). Prospective relations among pre-schoolers’ play, coping, and adjustment as moderated by stressful events. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.01.001 McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. E. (2011). Self-regulation and academic achievement in elementary school children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(133), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.302 Mohd Yusof, A., Daniel, E. G. S., Low, W. Y., & Ab. Aziz, K. (2014). Teachers’ perception of mobile edutainment for special needs learners: The Malaysian case. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1237–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.885595 Mok, M. M. C. (2019). Social and emotional learning. Educational Psychology, 39(9), 1115–1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1654195 Munirah. (2018). Urgensi Pengembangan Sosial dan Emosional Anak Usia Dini. Irfani, 14(1), 19–27. Nasser, I., Miller-Idriss, C., & Alwani, A. (2019). Reconceptualizing Education Transformation in Muslim Societies: The Human Development Approach. The Journal of Education in Muslim Societies, 1(1), 3–25. JSTOR. Nikolayev, M., Reich, S. M., Muskat, T., Tadjbakhsh, N., & Callaghan, M. N. (2021). Review of feedback in edutainment games for preschoolers in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 15(3), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1815227 Nurmalitasari, F. (2015). Perkembangan Sosial Emosi Pada Anak Usia Prasekolah. Psikologi UGM, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.22146/bpsi.10567 Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk? Br. J. Educ. Technol., 34, 255–264. Pojani, D., & Rocco, R. (2020). Edutainment: Role-Playing versus Serious Gaming in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X2090225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20902251 Protassova, E. (2021). Emotional development in the educational preschool programs of Soviet and Post-Soviet Times. Russian Journal of Communication, 13(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2021.1884338 Purwanto, S. (2019). Unsur Pembelajaran Edutainment dalam Quantum Learning. Al-Fikri: Jurnal Studi Dan Penelitian Pendidikan Islam, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.30659/jspi.v2i2.5149 Ren, L., Knoche, L. L., & Edwards, C. P. (2016). The Relation between Chinese Preschoolers’ Social-Emotional Competence and Preacademic Skills. Early Education and Development, 27(7), 875–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1151719 Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The Nature of Social Competence: A Theoretical Review. Social Development, 6, 111–135. Rusydi, N. A. (2018). Pengaruh Penerapan Metode Edutainment Dalam Pembelajaran Terhadap Hasil Belajar IPS Murid SD Kartika XX-1. Dikdas Matappa: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Dasar, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.31100/dikdas.v1i2.281 Shodiqin, R. (2016). Pembelajaran Berbasis Edutainment [Edutainment-Based Learning]. Jurnal Al-Maqayis, 4(1). https://doi.org/doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18592/jams.v4i1.792 Sprung, M., Münch, H. M., Harris, P. L., Ebesutani, C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2015). Children’s emotion understanding: A meta-analysis of training studies. Developmental Review, 37, 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.05.001 Sutherland, S., Stuhr, P. T., Ressler, J., Smith, C., & Wiggin, A. (2019). A Model for Group Processing in Cooperative Learning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 90(3), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2019.1559676 Vygotski, L. S. (2012). Thought and Language. MIT Press. Watanabe, N., Denham, S. A., Jones, N. M., Kobayashi, T., Bassett, H. H., & Ferrier, D. E. (2019). Working Toward Cross-Cultural Adaptation: Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of the Affect Knowledge Test in Japanese Pre-schoolers. SAGE Open, 9(2), 2158244019846688. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846688 Young, E. L., Moulton, S. E., & Julian, A. (2021). Integrating social-emotional-behavioural screening with early warning indicators in a high school setting. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1898319

Introduction Many years ago, the moral fable of Pinocchio warned children about the evils of lying (Perella). This article explores how children are learning lie-related insights from genres of currently marketed polygraph-style “spy kits”, voice stress analysis apps, and electric shock-delivering games. These artifacts are emerging despite the fact that polygraphy and other lie detection approaches are restricted in use in certain business and community contexts, in part because of their dubious scientific support. However, lie detection devices are still applied in many real-life settings, often in critically important security, customs, and employment arenas (Bunn). A commonly accepted definition of the term “lie” is “a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue” (Vrij 15), which includes the use of lies in various gaming situations. Many children’s games involve some kind of deception, and mental privacy considerations are important in many social contexts (such as “keeping a poker face”). The dystopian scenario of children learning basic honesty notions through technologically-enabled lie detection games scripted by corporate developers presents frightening prospects. These lie detection toys and games impart important moral perspectives through technological and algorithmic means (including electrical shocks and online shaming) rather than through human modelling and teaching. They normalise and lessen the seriousness of lying by reducing it into a game. In this article I focus on United States and United Kingdom toys and games, but comparable lie detection approaches have permeated other nations and cultures. Alder characterises the US as having an “obsession” with lie detection devices (1), an enthusiasm increasingly shared with other nations. Playing with the Truth: Spy Kits, Voice Stress Apps, and Shocking Liar The often-frightening image of an individual strapped to sensors and hooked up to a polygraph is often found in movies, television shows, and social media (Littlefield). I construe the notion of “lie detection” as “the use of a physiological measurement apparatus with the explicit aim of identifying when someone is lying. This typically comes with specific protocols for questioning the subject, and the output is graphically represented” (Bergers 1). Some lie detection toys utilise autonomic or unintentionally-supplied input in their analyses (such as the vocal changes related to stress); with networked toys, the data can subsequently be utilised by third parties. These aspects raise questions concerning consent as well as the validity of the results. Developers are producing related artifacts that challenge the difference between truth and lies, such as robots that “lie” by giving children responses to questions based on the children’s analysed preferences rather than standard determinations of truth and falsity (Zhu). Early lie detection games for children include the 1961 Lie Detecto from Manning Manufacturing. The technologies involved are galvanometers that required a 9-volt battery to operate, and sensors strapped to the hands of the subjects. It was reportedly designed “for junior G-men”, with suggested test questions for subjects such as "Do you like school?" Its ratings included "Could Be" and "Big Whopper" (“TIME’s New Products”). Lie detection had also been projected as fertile ground for children’s own educational research ventures. For example, in 2016 the popular magazine Scientific American outlined how young people could conduct experiments as to whether cognitive load (such as working on complex puzzles) affects the subject’s galvanic input to lie detection devices (Science Buddies). However, the Science Buddies’ description of the proposed activity did not encourage children to question the validity of the device itself. In organisational and agency settings, polygraph-style strategies are generally labour-intensive, involving experts who set up and administer tests (Bunn). These resource-intensive aspects of polygraphs may make their use in games attractive to players who want theatrical scripts to act out particular roles. An example of a lie detection toy that models the polygraph is the currently marketed Discovery Kids’ Electronic Lie Detection Portable Spy Kit, in which children go through the procedures of attaching the polygraph’s sensors to a human subject (Granich). The roles of “spy” and “detective” are familiar ones in many children’s books and movies, so the artifacts involved fit readily into children’s narratives. However, the overall societal importance of what they are modelling may still be beyond children’s grasps. Users of the comparable spy kit Project MC2 are given the following characterisation of their lie detection device, designed for individuals aged 6 and older: When someone lies, his or her body often produces small reactions from being nervous or stressed. One of those reactions is a small release of sweat. That moisture increases the skin’s electrical conductivity, or galvanic skin response, and the lie detector reads it as a fib. That's why the lie detector’s clips go on the fingers, because there are lots of sweat glands in your hands. Product includes: Lie detector, disguised as a mint box with a hidden button to force a truth or lie. Equipped with indicator light and sounds. Neon-colored wires with finger clips. (“Project MC2”) Similar sorts of lie detection approaches (though more sophisticated) are currently being used in US military operations. For example, the US Army’s Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening Systems (PCASS) are handheld polygraphs designed for use in battle. Voice stress analysis systems for lie detection have been used for decades in business as well as medical and crime contexts. As described by Price, the US toy maker Hasbro distributes The Lie Detector Game, which “uses voice analysis to determine whether someone is lying”. In the box you’ll get a lie detector device and 64 cards with questions to answer as part of the gameplay … . If you tell the truth, or the device at least thinks you did, then you score a point. Lying loses you a point” (1). An assortment of smartphone apps with voice-stress analysis capabilities designed for lie detection are also widely available along with suggestions for their use in games (McQuarrie), providing yet another way for children to explore truth and deception in technologically-framed contexts. Lie detection devices for entertainment generally construe at least one of the participants in the toy’s or game’s operations as a “subject”. The Shocking Liar game openly entices users to construct the human game players as “victims”: The SHOCKING LIAR [sic] is a table top device that you strap your victim's hand to, delivering a small electric shock when it thinks a lie is being told… The lie detector evaluates the data and stores the information after each question giving an accumulation of data on the person being questioned. This means the more questions that you ask, the more information the lie detector has to evaluate... Place your hand onto the hand plate of the SHOCKING LIAR. If you tell the truth, you can move away from it safely and if you tell a direct lie or have given an unacceptable amount of half-truths, you will receive an electric shock. Children who use Shocking Liar are indeed led to assume that they can catch themselves or friends in dishonesty, but research justification for the Shocking Liar’s results is not available. The societal messages imparted by the toys to children (such as “this toy can determine whether you are lying”) make their impacts especially consequential. These toys and games extract from the subjects’ data various aspects of which the subjects may not have conscious control or even awareness. For instance, the pitch of the subject’s voice can be mined and subsequently given voice stress analysis, as in the previously described Hasbro game. From this “shadow” or autonomic input is developed an interpretation (however problematic) of the subjects’ mental state. The results of the analysis may eventually be processed consciously by subjects, either as polygraph readings or electrical shocks (as in Shocking Liar). The autonomic input involved is often known as “leakage” or “tells” (Ekman). Game playing with robots presents new lie detection venues. Children often react differently in robot-mediated interactions to truth and deception issues than they do with human beings (Pearson). Since the opportunities for child-robot interaction are increasing with the advent of companion robots, new contexts for lie detection games are emerging. Robots that present verbal feedback to children based on the child’s preferences over time, or that strategically withhold information, are being developed and marketed. Research on children’s responses to robots may provide clues as to how to make cognitive engineering and mental privacy invasions more acceptable. This raises serious concerns about children’s perceptions of the standings of robots as moral guides as well as gaming companions. For younger children who are just acquiring the notion of lying, the toys and games could extend the kinds of socialisation provided by their parents and guardians. As lie detection initiatives are taking on wide roles in everyday human interaction (such as educational cheating and employee credibility assessment), the integration of the approaches into children’s activities may serve to normalise the processes involved. Older children who already have some sense of what lying constitutes may find in the lie detection toys and games some insights as to how to become more effective as liars. Some parents may use these lie-detection toys in misguided attempts to determine whether their children are lying to them about something. Many toys and games are explicit in their lie detection and surveillance themes, with specific narratives relating to the societal roles of detectives and spies. Children become complicit in the societal functions of lie detection, rather than simply being subjects or audiences to them. Children’s toys and games are all about experimentation, and these lie detection artifacts are no different (Oravec 2000). Children are enabled through interactions with the toys and games to experiment with lying behavior and possibly explore certain aspects of their own mental lives as well as those of others. Children can learn how to modulate some of the external physiological signals that are often associated with lying, much in the way that individuals can alter various physiological responses with assistance of biofeedback technologies. Such efforts may be empowering in some senses but also increase the potential for confusion about truthfulness and lying. Use of the toys and games may support the emergence of psychopathic tendencies in which children exhibit antisocial and egocentric behavior along with a failure to learn about the consequences of their actions, in this case lying (Hermann). This situation is comparable to that of organisations that advertise training for how to “beat” or “outsmart” polygraphs, efforts that have often confounded law enforcement and intelligence agencies (Rosky). Playing with the Truth: Children and Honesty The constructions of lie detection events that are fostered in these toys and games generally simplify and mechanise truth-lie differences, and often present them in an unquestioning manner. Children are not encouraged to wonder whether the devices are indeed functioning as stated in the instructions and advertising materials. Failure to inform children about the toys’ intents and to request their consent about lie detection could also challenge some of them to attempt to subvert the toys’ mechanisms. However, many lie detection toys and games provide the opportunity for historically grounded lessons for children about the detection and surveillance strategies of other eras, if introduced in a critical and context-sensitive manner. The assumption that effective lie detection is possible and mental privacy is thus limited is reinforced by the framings of many of these toys and games (Oravec “Emergence”). Lying is indeed a reflection of “Theory of Mind” which enables us to imagine the minds of others, and children are given an arena for exploration on this theme. However, children also learn that their mental worlds and streams of consciousness are readily accessible by others with the use of certain technologies. Scientific justification for the use of polygraphs through the past decades has yielded problematic results, although polygraphs and many other lie detection technologies have still retained social acceptability apparently related to their cultural appeal (Paul, Fischer, and Voigt). Many voice stress apps are also not reliable according to recent research (Tyrsina). The normalisation of current and projected systems for lie detection and mental privacy incursions presents unsettling prospects for children’s development, and the designers and disseminators of toys and games need to consider these dimensions. Using technologically enhanced games, toys, or robots to detect “lies” rather than engaging more directly with other humans in a game context may have unfortunate overall outcomes. For example, the ability to practice various schemes to evade detection while lying may be an attractive aspect of these toys and games to some individuals. The kinds of input often linked with lying behaviors (or “leakage”) can include physiological changes in voice qualities that are generally not directly controllable by the speaker without specific practice; the games and toys provide such practice venues. Individuals who are able to disconnect from their autonomic expressions and lie without physical or acoustic signs can exacerbate personality issues and social pathologies. Some may become psychopaths, who lie to get their way and tend not to feel remorseful, with the games and toys potentially exacerbating genetic tendencies; others may become pathological liars, who lie regardless of whether there is specific benefit to them in doing so (Vrij). Some of these toy-related spying and detective activities can unfortunately be at the expense of others’ wellbeing, whatever their impacts on the children directly involved as players. For example, some forms of lie detection technologies incorporate the remote collection of data without notification of participants, as in the voice-analysis systems just described. Children’s curiosity about others’ thoughts and mental lives may be at the root of such initiatives, though children can also utilise them for bullying and other forms of aggressive behavior. Some research shows that early lie telling by children is often linked with self-defense as they attempt to save face, but other research couples it with anti-social action and behavioral problems (Lavoie). However, adults have been shown to have some considerable influence on children in their lie-telling conduct (Dykstra, Willoughby, and Evans), so there is hope that parents, guardians, teachers, and concerned community members can have some positive influence. Reflections and Conclusions: The “New Pinocchio”? Toys and games can indeed project comforting and nurturing imageries for children. However, they can also challenge individuals to think differently about themselves and others, and even present dystopian scenarios. For toy and game developers to promote lie detection technologies can be problematic because of the associations of lying with antisocial activity and behavioral problems as well as moral concerns. The characters that children play in roles of spies and lie detector administrators supply them with powerful narratives and impact on their mental concepts. The significance of truth-telling in children’s lives is expanding as societal attention to credibility issues increases. For example, children are often called on to present evidence during divorce proceedings and abuse-related cases, so there is a significant body of research about children’s verbal truth and deception patterns (Talwar, Lavoie, and Crossman). The data collected by some networked lie detection toys (such as voice stress analysers) can subsequently be used by third-parties for marketing purposes or direct surveillance, raising critical questions about consent (Oravec “Emergence”). Future entertainment modes may soon be developed with lie detection approaches comparable to the ones I discuss in this article, since many games rely on some form of mental privacy assumptions. Games often have some aspect of personal cognitive control at their roots, with the assumption that individuals can shield their own deliberations from other players at least to some extent. Technological capabilities for lie detection can alter the kinds of strategies involved in games. For example, if players know the quality of other players’ poker hands through technological means, games would need to be restructured substantially, with speed of response or other aspects at a premium. The current and future toy and game developments just discussed underscore the continuing need for ethical and professional vigilance on the part of researchers and developers as they choose projects to work on and technologies to bring to market. Children and young people who play with lie detection and surveillance-related artifacts are being exposed to assumptions about how their own consciousness functions and how they can best navigate in the world through truth-telling or lying. Although children once acquired insights about lying though moral fables like Pinocchio, they are now learning from corporate-developed technological toys and games. References Alder, Ken. The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession. Simon and Schuster, 2007. Bergers, Lara. “Only in America? A History of Lie Detection in the Netherlands in Comparative Perspective, ca. 1910–1980.” The Netherlands: Utrecht U, 2018. <https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/30502>. Bunn, Geoffrey C. The Truth Machine: A Social History of the Lie Detector. Johns Hopkins UP, 2012. Dykstra, Victoria, Teena Willoughby, and Angela D. Evans. "Perceptions of Dishonesty: Understanding Parents’ Reports of and Influence on Children and Adolescents’ Lie-Telling." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 49 (2020): 49–59. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01153-5>. Ekman, Paul. Telling Lies. New York: Norton, 1985. Granich, Mike. “17 Spy Gadgets and Spy Gear for Kids to Gift This Year.” Technolocheese, 2020. 14 Feb. 2020 <https://www.technolocheese.com/spy-gear-for-kids/>. Hermann, Henry. Dominance and Aggression in Humans and Other Animals: The Great Game of Life. Elsevier, 2017. Lavoie, Jennifer, et al. "Lie-telling as a Mode of Antisocial Action: Children’s Lies and Behavior Problems." Journal of Moral Education 47.4 (2018): 432–450. <https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1405343>. Littlefield, Melissa. The Lying Brain: Lie Detection in Science and Science Fiction. U of Michigan P, 2011. McQuarrie, Laura. “Hasbro's Lie Detector Game Uses Voice Analysis to Pick Up on Untruths.” Trendhunter, 2019. <https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/lie-detector-game>. Oravec, Jo Ann. "Interactive Toys and Children's Education: Strategies for Educators and Parents." Childhood Education 77.2 (2000): 81-85. ———. "The Emergence of 'Truth Machines'? Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Lie Detection." Ethics and Information Technology 24.6 (2022). <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-022-09621-6>. Paul, Bettina, Larissa Fischer, and Torsten Voigt. “Anachronistic Progress? User Notions of Lie Detection in the Juridical Field.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 6 (2020): 328–346. <https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2020.433>. Pearson, Yvette. "Child-Robot Interaction: What Concerns about Privacy and Well-Being Arise When Children Play with, Use, and Learn from Robots?" American Scientist 108.1 (2020): 16–22. 22 June 2023 <https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A613271878/AONE?u=anon~66b204b9&sid=googleScholar&xid=067570c2>. Perella, Nicolas. "An Essay on Pinocchio." Italica 63.1 (1986): 1–47. <https://doi.org/10.2307/479125>. Price, Emily. “Hasbro Is Launching a Lie Detector Party Game and Ghost-Busting Robot.” Fortune, 2019. 15 Feb. 2019 <http://fortune.com/2019/02/15/lie-detector-party-game/>. “Project MC2.” Amazon, 2020. <https://www.amazon.com/Project-Mc2-539230-Lie-Detector/dp/B015A7CHSA>. Rosky, Jeffrey. "The (F)utility of Post-Conviction Polygraph Testing." Sexual Abuse 25.3 (2013): 259–281. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212455668>. Science Buddies. “Pinocchio’s Arm: A Lie Detector Test.” Scientific American, 10 Mar. 2016. <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pinocchio-s-arm-a-lie-detector-test/>. “Shocking Liar.” Amazon, 2020. <https://www.amazon.com/Dayan-Cube-Lie-Detector-Game/dp/B000GUGTYU>. Talwar, Victoria, Jennifer Lavoie, and Angela Crossman. "Carving Pinocchio: Longitudinal Examination of Children’s Lying for Different Goals." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 181 (2019): 34–55. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.12.003>. “TIME’s New Products.” TIME Magazine 78.1 (7 July 1961): 35. Tyrsina, Radu. “These 2 Lie Detecting Programs for PC Will Help You Determine the Truth from All the Lies.” Windowsreport, 5 Aug. 2017. <https://windowsreport.com/lie-detector-software-pc/>. Vrij, Aldert. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Zhu, Dingju. "Feedback Big Data-Based Lie Robot." International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 32.2 (2018). <https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218001418590024>.