A Systematic Review of Tech-supported Collaborative Creativity Practices in the Field of Education

Abstract

This study aims to make a systematic review of technology-supported collaborative creativity pedagogy and practices in the field of education by focusing on peer-reviewed articles published in journals between 2014 and 2019. The targeted educational levels were specified as elementary, secondary education and teacher education students. 21 studies were examined from different aspects: (a) forms of technology and technological features with pedagogical affordances and (c) teachers and students' roles, and the pedagogical approach, (c) problems and solutions. A narrative synthetic approach was employed to categorize, analyse and synthesize the data according to themes developed. The findings indicate majority of the studies employed different types of pedagogies, and yet all follow student-directed pedagogies or theories drawing on social-constructivism. In the selected studies, three teachers’ roles were identified: giving planned or explicit guidance, promoting dialogue between students during the process of creation and orchestrating collaborative creativity flow of students. And, students’ roles were also found to be in parallel with the teachers’ roles. With regard to forms of technology, among 5 major technological forms, web-based were the favoured technology due to its affordances. Besides, the selected studies showed there are teacher-related, student-related and techrelated problems, and students overcome these problems through solving the problem together, being considerate about their team members and valuing their teachers’ effort. Therefore, the papers selected for this review indicated that the problems were not perceived as obstacles to collaborative creativity both by students and teachers. Instead, they were considered as a means to boost collaboration and creativity.

Keywords

• Collaborative creativity
• forms and affordances of technologies
• teacher and students’ role
• education

References

1. Astutik,S., & Prahani, B. K. (2018). The Practicality and Effectiveness of Collaborative Creativity Learning (CCL) Model by Using PhET Simulation to Increase Students’ Scientific Creativity. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 409-424.
2. Atwood-Blaine, D., Rule, A. C., & Walker, J. (2019). Creative self-efficacy of children aged 9-14 in a science center using a situated Mobile game. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100580
3. Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764.
4. Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education report prepared for QCA. London: QCA
5. Craft, A. (2012). Childhood in a digital age: creative challenges for educational futures. Lond. Rev. Educ. 10, 173–190. doi: 10.1080/14748460.2012.691282
6. Chiu, C.-H., & Hsiao, H.-F. (2010). Group differences in computer supported collaborative learning: Evidence from patterns of Taiwanese students’ online communication. Computers and Education, 54(2), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu .2009.08.026
7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper. Daemmrich, I. G. Assessing collaborative writing in nontraditional and traditional first-year college writing courses (2010) Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 38(2), 161-175.
8. Daskolia, M., Makri, K., & Kynigos, C. (2014). Fostering collaborative creativity in learning about urban sustainability through digital storytelling. In G. Futschek, & C. Kynigos (Eds.), Constructionism and Creativity: Proceedings of the ‘Constructionism 2014’ International Conference, Vienna, Austria, 19-23 August (pp. 357-366). Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.

9. Eteläpelto, A. & Lahti, J. (2008). The resources and obstacles of creative collaboration in a long-term learning community. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 226-240. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.003
10. Feriansyah,S.(2018).Collaborative narrative writing: A digital photography task in an Indonesian Islamic secondary school: Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 8 (2), 303-315
11. Floyd, K. S., Harrington, S. J., & Santiago, J. (2009). The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface learning strategies. Informing Science, 12, 181-190.
12. Frodesen, J., Eyring, J., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Grammar dimensions. form, meaning, and use. Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle.
13. Glăveanu, V. P. (2008). Thinking outside the box of individualism: creativity in light of a socio-cultural approach (editorial). Europe's J. Psychol. 4. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v4i4.437
14. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed Creativity: Thinking Outside the Box of the Creative Individual. New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05434-6
15. Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: Exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001
16. Hemling, M., Crooks, J. A., Oliver, P. M., Brenner, K., Gilbertson, J., Lisensky, G. C., & Weibel, D. B. (2013). Microfluidics for High School Chemistry Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(1), 112–115. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4003018
17. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: a systemic view for change. Educ. Technol. Soc., 19, 27–37.
18. Herbert, M. (2007). Get your retention act together now: 8 pieces of advice. Distance Education Report, 11(9), 3-7.
19. Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37.
20. Irene R. (2018) Exploring the values of writing collaboratively through a digital storytelling platform: a mixed-methods analysis of users’ participation, perspectives and practices, Interactive Learning Environments, 26,7, 882-894, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2017.1419499
21. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600. doi: Doi 10.1037/A0019682
22. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
23. Kantosalo, A., & Riihiaho, S. (2019). Quantifying co-creative writing experiences. Digital Creativity, 30(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2019.1575243
24. Kim, P, Suh. E., & Song,D. (2015). Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom. Educational Technology. Research and Development., 63, 575–602. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9376-7
25. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
26. Kivunja, C. (2015). The Efficacy of Social Media Technologies in Academia: A Pedagogical Bliss or Digital Fad?. International Journal of Higher Education., 4(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n4p33
27. Krishnan, J., Yim, S., Wolters, A., & Cusimano, A. (2019). Supporting Online Synchronous Collaborative Writing in the Secondary Classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63( 2), 135– 145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.969
28. Lee, M. R., and Chen, T. T. (2015). Digital creativity: research themes and framework. Comput. Human Behav. 42, 12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.001
29. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., and O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
30. Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282-293.
31. Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students' conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers and Education, 82, 393-408.
32. Lin, Y.-T., Chang, C.-H., Hou, H.-T., & Wu, K.-C. (2016). Exploring the effects of employing Google Docs in collaborative concept mapping on achievement, concept representation, and attitudes. Interact. Learn. Environ., 24, 1552–1573. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1041398
33. Lowenthal, P. N., & Dunlap, J. (2007). Digitalstories.In P. Shank (Ed.),The online learning idea book:95 proven ways to enhance technology-based and blended learning (pp. 110–111). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
34. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2017). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. Int. J. Educ. Res. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007 Available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035517303877
35. Moran, S. (2010). Creativity in school. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine-Staarman (Eds.). International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 319–359). Bingley: Emerald.
36. Mudaly, R., Pithouse-Morgan, K., Laren, L.V., Singh, S., & Mitchell, C. (2015). Connecting with Pre-Service Teachers' Perspectives on the Use of Digital Technologies and Social Media to Teach Socially Relevant Science. Perspect. Educ., 33, 23–41.
37. Petticrew M., & Roberts H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
38. Pifarré, M., Laura, M., & Alex, G. (2014). Collaborative Creativity Process in a WIKI: A study in Secondary Education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age CELDA. 11th, Porto, Portugal, Oct 25-27.
39. Pifarre, M. (2019) .Using interactive technologies to promote a dialogic space for creating collaboratively: A study in secondary education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.01.004 Poce, A., Agrusti, F., & Re, M. R. (2017). Enhancing higher education students' XXI century skills through co-writing activities in science teaching. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc., 13, 51–64.
40. Ridwan, A., Rahmawati, Y., & Hadi Nugrahaningsih, T. (2017). STEAM integration in chemistry learning for developing 21st century skills. MIER J. Educ. Stud., 7, 184–194.
41. Rubino, I., Barberis, C., & Malnati, G. (2018). Exploring the values of writing collaboratively through a digital storytelling platform: a mixed-methods analysis of users’ participation, perspectives and practices. Interactive Learning Env., 26(7), 882-894
42. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77-88. Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43. Schmölz, A. (2018). Enabling co-creativity through digital storytelling in education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.002
44. Vygotsky, L. (1987). The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
45. Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26, xiii–xxiii
46. Wheeler S., Waite S. J. & Bromfield C. (2002). Promoting creative thinking through the use of ICT, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 367-378
47. Xiang, Z. (2016). "Advanced Chinese EFL Learners' Experiences and Perceptions of OGSW - An Online Collaborative Creative Writing Project," 2016 International Conference on Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), Tainan, pp. 187-192
48. Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–165. https:// doi.org/10125/44599