> From our conversations, several themes emerged.
> Collectivity is a good thing:
> Personal expression matters:
> Shared power is a valued goal:
> Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for
> As teachers, we were excited by these comments. The children gave voice to the value that collectivity is a solid, energizing way to organize a community — and that it requires power-sharing, equal access to resources, and trust in the other participants. They expressed the need, within collectivity, for personal expression, for being acknowledged as an individual within the group.
These were 8 year olds. The writers definitely steered the children into the results they wanted.
* This came after the "points" game. Deciding to be collectivist makes sense, after a game that's designed to result in obviously unfair distribution of ownership. These kids are probably used to these kinds of object lessons: it sounds like this is the program's preferred method of teaching.
* They still wanted to make one huge LEGO Town. Thus, they need to come up with a plan for resolving conflicts, and it can't just be "I own it."
I wouldn't say that we turned out alright at all.
But if you mean affecting children's values and social outlook, then indeed, teachers do that. Sometimes they do it unconsciously, in which case it's typically the prevailing social values, explicit and implicit, which children are imbued with; sometimes it's more conscious.