Designing Creative Pedagogies Through the Use of ICT in Secondary Education

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 ( 2014 ) 35 – 46

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Cognitive-counselling, research and conference services (c-crcs).doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1137

ScienceDirect

International Conference on Education & Educational Psychology 2013 (ICEEPSY 2013)

Designing Creative Pedagogies Through the Use of ICT in Secondary Education

Eva P. Brooks1, Nanna Borum1 & Torben Rosenørn2

1Aalborg University, Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Denmark, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

2Aalborg University, Department of Learning and Philosophy, Denmark, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

Information and communication technology and creativity are important aspects of learning, yet they are not used to their fullest potential in educational practices. This study aims to describe possible guidelines targeting the design of creative learning environments that influence well-considered use of technology. Results from focus group interviews and future workshop inspired activities with more than 100 students from a secondary school were analysed and developed into concept sketches. The outcomes of the focus group interviews and future workshop activities have been synthesised into seven design guidelines providing orientation for the design of an ICT-based creative learning environment.

Keywords: Information and Communication Technologies, Secondary school, Creative pedagogies, Learning

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Cognitive-counselling, research and conference services (c-crcs).

36 Eva P. Brooks et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 ( 2014 ) 35 – 46

1. Introduction

Information and communication technologies (ICT) have become increasingly essential resources in teaching and learning activities. While it was believed that such technologies should revolutionize learning, schools have, in general, remained to an instructional model of the teacher, written material and the textbook as primary sources of knowledge primarily conveyed through lecturing, discussion and reading. In this sense, a secondary school, Mercantec in Viborg, Denmark (hereinafter referred to as Mercantec Viborg) has initiated a change through a pedagogical questioning of how to optimally support both educators and students to implement well-considered use of technology as well as meaningful ways to utilize these technologies in learning situations. The development within the field of ICT has resulted in a situation where new forms of teaching and learning emerge offering possibilities to enhance and foster students’ interest, learning, and creativity.

Creativity has become a vital and highly valued aspect of science, technology, education, as well as everyday life by the end of the 20th century due to economic, social as well as technological drivers (Craft, 2011). While there have been great expectations about the use of ICT to support learning and creativity in educational (e.g. Loveless, 2002) as well as professional (e.g. Shneiderman, 2007) settings, the creative and multimodal workflow of students provides a major obstacle to current use of ICT-based systems and tools. Against this background, this study aims to investigate how creativity and learning can be mediated by information and communication technology in secondary school.

Building on recent work in the fields of creativity, design and learning theories (e.g. Kress, 2010; Shneiderman, 2007; Fischer et al., 2005; Brereton & McGarry, 2000; Vyas et al., 2009; Bereiter, 2002; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005; Petersson Brooks 2013), the study starts from a notion of creativity as a socially and materially mediated practice. In line with this perspective, the focus is on the particular qualities of such practices rather than on particular methods or techniques. The study is grounded in an analysis of students’ ideas and reflections on how ICT is used and could be used in teaching and learning activities. Based on the concept sketches developed, cross cutting themes and related learning and design guidelines were identified. Finally, these were put in relation to state of the art research and existing guidelines.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the next section an overview of how information and communication technology has been used in educational settings is presented and, further, a design-oriented perspective on learning and creativity is outlined. In Section 3, the process through which the concept sketches and learning and design guidelines were derived is briefly described. In Section 4 the concept sketches developed during the future workshop are summarised and analysed, while Section 5 provides an account of the learning and design guidelines derived. The report closes with an outlook on possible next steps towards more student initiated IT-based learning environments.

2. Creative use of information and communication technology in educational settings

Aiming at learning and design guidelines for a creative use of information and communication technology (ICT) in educational settings requires at least a brief introduction to how ICT has been used for teaching and learning. Furthermore, a preliminary understanding of the concept of creativity is of interest. In this section, we will therefore outline in what ways information and communication technology has been used in learning activities and we will introduce a design-oriented perspective to creativity and learning.

2.1. Information and communication technology, teaching and learning

Information and communication technology (ICT) was introduced in educational contexts in the 1960s and has since then been debated by a wide range of stakeholders. From teachers, politicians and researchers to parents, and producers of software, information technology is discussed in terms of potentials and limitations in relation to teaching and learning (e.g. Cuban, 2001; John & Sutherland, 2005; Selwyn, 2008).


Seymour Papert was one of the pioneers within this field, primarily through his design of LOGO, a programming language, targeting students to learn about programming. Papert argues that when working with LOGO, students create their own resources for learning. The role of the teacher, then, is to take a step back and interfere as little as possible and, in doing so, allowing the students to learn by themselves (Papert, 1995). This is inspired by Piaget’s instructional notion emphasising that students should not be instructed, but rather develop their own understanding through engaging in exploratory work.

In the 1980s, the core issue of pedagogical attention concerned how information and communication technology could be designed and implemented to become more accessible. Learning activities were predicted to change from the traditional teacher-centred teaching to more student-initiated approaches. While the implementation of information and communication technology in schools did not proceed as fast as promoters had predicted, technology was to some extent implemented in teaching and learning activities. However, it was primarily used in traditional ways, meaning that learning situations were still teacher-centred and information and communication technology was used as a complement to a traditional way of teaching (Cuban, 2001).

As a response to the individualistic approach to including information and communication technology in schools, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) as a pedagogical approach, was developed in the 1990s. CSCL implied a design of learning activities where students work together in groups using information and communication technology as resources for joint learning. This implies that students take an active part in the learning activities and work together in the exploration of problems (Stahl, 2006).

2.2. Creativity and Learning

In this report, we outline a design-oriented perspective on creativity and learning, which build on a pragmatist notion of action (and interaction) as developed by Dewey (1916/2005). This offers an understanding of creativity as an emergent, situated and reciprocal process comprising action and reflection as well as an interplay between the subject and the environment (cf. Biskjaer & Dalsgaard, 2012). A pragmatist notion of human action aligns with Schön’s (1983) conception of design as a practice and it also resonates with Kress’ (2003, 2010) notion of creativity as a multimodal design activity. The pragmatist notion also shares basic premises with activity theory (cf. Miettinen, 2006) providing a link to respective work in the field of computer-supported collaborative work (e.g. Bødker, 1991; Bertelsen, 2000).

Bringing a design-oriented perspective to creativity, involve that actions, objects as well as events must be understood in the context of the situation of which they are part. In this regard, Dewey (1966) emphasises the notion of inquiry, acknowledged as a mode of action. This resonates with Beardon, Ehn & Malmborg (2002, p. 503) who argue that creativity constitutes a mode of interaction with the world rather than being a property of a person, process, product, or environment. According to Kress (2010) interacting with the world includes engaging in multimodal design as a sign-making activity. Yet, while being an inherently knowledge-based process, creativity from this perspective is more than mere information processing but a direct involvement with the world aimed at its transformation. As students increasingly engage in multimodal design (sign-making), this perspective has substantial implications for the classroom habitus (Bordieu, 1986). Conceptualising creativity as a design-oriented practice entails, among others, the following propositions:• Creativity and learning is mediated by artefacts and results in a transformation of the physical world.

Artefacts provide essential resources for agents to communicate, store, catalyse, evaluate and reflect on ideas while trying to overcome the indeterminate situation. Artefacts, from this perspective, are not mere carriers of information, but enable and constrain an actor’s moves (cf. Kress, 2010; Biskjaer & Dalsgaard, 2012).

• Creativity and learning goes along with the generation of new knowledge. As creative practices attempt to act upon a hitherto indetermined situation, the outcomes of this attempt necessarily add to the actors’ body of knowledge either in that assumptions about the situation are contested or supported. Creative practice hence can be understood as a form of inquiry (cf. Dewey, 1966; Schön, 1992; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Kress, 2010).


The focus of this study, how ICT creatively can be used in teaching and learning situations, hence is based on the assumption that in these situations creative learning practices are deliberately cultivated.

3. Elicitation of concept sketches, learning and design guidelines

Concept sketches as well as learning and design guidelines are supposed to provide a common ground for secondary educations (management, teachers and students) and guide the development and implementation of creative ICT-based teaching and learning environments. While the concept sketches are an attempt to shed light on envisioned future practices, the learning and design guidelines delineate cross cutting themes and challenges in supporting learning practice. Both concept sketches as well as learning and design guidelines are based on focus group interviews and creative workshops with students at the secondary school Mercantec Viborg representing different educational programmes, focusing on envisioned ICT-based learning environments. Totally over 100 students (males and females) participated in these research activities.

In order to develop concept sketches and to elicit high-level requirements for ICT-based teaching and learning environments, it was necessary to identify the overall qualities as well as activities, the environment should support. We adopted the format of focus group interviews and two future workshop inspired activities, originally proposed by Jungk and further developed by Kensing and Madsen (cf. Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004). At the core of this method is the idea that the future is not a projection of the past but a possibility space yet to be explored and actively shaped (Burow, 2000).

After having analysed the results from the focus group interviews and envisioned future scenarios, the results had to be synthesised into a set of learning and design guidelines. All views on the topics and the scattered data assets had to be taken into account and analysed systematically. Additionally, the outcomes were supposed to provide useful reference points for the management, teachers and students in secondary educations. To account for the qualitative nature of the data collected, the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to guide the analysis process. Starting from the data collected the concept sketches were formulated and the learning and design guidelines were developed.

4. Concept sketches

The concept sketches depicted in the following are an attempt to envision future and creative ways of using ICT in secondary education. As such the concept sketches are not to be understood as blueprints for these learning environments in that they should describe in detail how ICT might be used to foster learning and creativity. Rather they provide springboards that shed light on the challenges students see themselves confronted with and how they imagine a response could look like. The concept sketches are presented in a descriptive format, drawing on the information collected during the focus group interviews and future workshop inspired activities.

4.1. Focal point area

The focal point area is a collaborative ICT-based learning environment. It focuses on the one hand on relations between different forms of data beyond time and space borders. On the other hand it supports individual as well as collaborative learning primarily between individuals, but also between disciplines and external partners. The focal point area consists of mulitple kinds of devices, such as mobile units, computers, (video) cameras and provides an ICT-based working interface to interact individually and/or collaboratively with multiple forms of data and devices. Communication and sharing of ideas, insights and knowledge is seen as essential to the learning process. Information is to be captured and reused in different settings and situations. The use of multiple devices is supposed to trigger better collaboration primarily within a class, but also beyond class/group borders, i.e. sharing and working on data, understanding and supporting each other and be inspired by new interrelations.


To avoid the loss of information due to the use of different devices, there is a need to ground the communication and develop common reference points. Focal point area is supposed to ease the creation of a common ground, but also to make relevant information, e.g. cancellation of lectures, electronic books, easily accessible to the students. The common reference point provides access from different devices and places and can by that e.g. support the student who is ill and cannot participate in a lecture or offer possibilities to work on assignments while traveling with the bus.

The sketched concept is aimed to:• remove distance between individuals to foster collaboration; • ease the usage of scattered and diverse data for learning and inspiration purposes; and• preserve, interrelate and reflect on ideas, insights, knowledge.

4.2. Expansion area

The concept sketch expansion area envisions a student-initiated learning environment, which promotes participation, action and variation, assuming (co-)ownership in the design of learning situations. The environment is supposed to support participation and collaboration allowing the student to be in charge of learning processes, meaning that the student is in ownership of his/her growth. In an educational context the process is of high interest, as students have to understand and cultivate learning practices. The concept sketch intends to support reflection and ownership by tracing and visualising the process. Activities to be supported include visualisation of processes, being able to go back in time and easily find material, e.g. for repetition when preparing for an examination. Tracing is a form of learning, as the visualisation of a process is not meant to control but to foster reflection. Marking data is a form of meaning making. Structuring such visual processes strengthen the learning in a (co-)learning context. The envisioned environment allows projecting and visualising learning processes, tracking progress, focusing on finding form, thereby fostering individual and collective reflection. The environment is envisioned as a white space (board), which makes use of all available built-in tools. The vision partly entails game-based learning scenarios, where games can be used for pedagogical and learning purposes but, to some extent, also for recreational. These are scaffolds for students to structure and re-think the process based on their own insights.

The expansion area is supposed to encourage students to take over responsibility, to grow as learners, and to be in charge of their own learning process. Introducing the white space as a learning resource will require a broader change in teaching. The concept is about visualising and tracing the learning process and managing boundaries in learning situations. This includes sharing and negotiation, where the emphasis is on student-initiated activities and, further, on a teacher that actively takes stakeholdership for a well-considered and meaningful use of ICT in teaching and learning activities.

5. Learning and design guidelines

The analysis of focus group interviews and the outcomes of the future workshop inspired activities have been synthesised into a set of learning and design guidelines, providing an overall orientation for the design and development of creative ICT-based learning environments in secondary education. Adopting a design-oriented perspective on learning and creativity, the learning and design guidelines have been grounded both in the concept sketches depicted in the previous section as well as in related research work. However, due to the space limitations of this paper, the discussion covering the links to the concept sketches are left out and will be further developed in the presentation of the paper. Drawing on a framework originally proposed by Rabardel and Bourmaud (2003) and revised by Paavola & Hakkarainen (2009), the guidelines have been organised according to the types of mediation they emphasise.

5.1. Guideline #1 - Support work in an integrated learning locale


ExplanationLearning environments in educational settings are essentially a class-room endeavour aimed to provide

conditions for students’ learning and development. Students work individually and together with each other and throughout this process they draw on a variety of (digital) resources where they create and work on various types of material such as books, sketches and sheets. As students and resources are scattered across various places (class-rooms, internship locations, home, etc.), a necessary affordance is the easiness to shift between material and to send documents from one device and/or locale to another. To foster collaboration, combine different forms of data/information, and integrate internal communication among students and among students and teachers, it seems advisable to extend the learning environment to include an integrated learning locale, i.e. a centre that provides an individual and a group place and allow people to engage in purposeful interactions with each other and the resources and informations they are working on (cf. Fitzpatrick, Mansfield & Kaplan, 1996). Such a locale might be physical and/or virtual in the case of remote collaboration and should enable (remote) communication with the teacher.

Related workThe idea of organising individual and collaborative work around locales has been suggested in the field of

Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) (e.g. Fitzpatrick, Mansfield & Kaplen, 1996) and is also reflected in activity-based computing (e.g. Bardram, Bunde-Pedesen & Soegaard, 2006). Schougaard and Schultz (2004) underline that as activities are human-centred, the use of an information system for activity-based computing includes specific requirements. Johansson (2004) discusses the so-called medici effect, which is a positive outcome of collaboration underlining the need for learning environments, physical or virtual, enabling collaborative knowledge sharing. Fischer et al. (2005) suggest active boundary objects as mediators of such collaborative knowledge sharing.

5.2. Guideline #2 - Support working with multiple devices

ExplanationInformation and communication technology fulfil a broad range of performative (e.g. Jacucci & Wagner,

2007) as well as coordinative (e.g. Hendry, 2004) functions in a creative learning process. Different types of devices thereby provide different interactional and representational qualities (cf. Richter & Allert, 2011). For example, information and communication technology allow for easy storage, replication, repetition, exchange. Learning situations and processes are usually not limited to a single device but takes place at the intersection of various devices that evolve in a complex process of ongoing representation.

Related workLearning can be conceptualised as a reflective conversation where information technology (and artefacts in

general) has a catalytic function (e.g. Fish, 2004; Dorta et al., 2008). Dorta et al. (2008) emphasise that the externalisation of mental models in to physical or digital representation foster engaging process-oriented conversations.

5.3. Guideline #3 - Support multimodal forms of communication & learning

ExplanationThe use of a variety of devices in learning situations (e.g. iPhone, iPad, laptop, camera) require opportunities

for multiple modes of communication and learning, i.e. extending the traditionally written- and/or oral-based ways of reporting learning outcomes and results from e.g. assignments and projects to also include visual modes of representation in learning situations (e.g. in examination situations). A creative ICT-based learning environment should therefore allow the students to articulate knowledge with different modes, e.g. images, writing, layout, sound, gesture, speech and 3D objects. This requires an approach enabling students to compare, integrate and synthesise different modes of communication and learning (cf. Kress, 2010).

Related work


Relevant research focuses on a multimodal approach to contemporary communication and learning and how information and communication technology, for example mobile technologies, offer new forms of compositional and representational affordances (e.g. Kress, 2010). Kress (2010, p. 194) emphasises information technologies and multimodal forms of communication as offering flexibility of sensory engagement with the environment and, furthermore, that they enable how to processes rather than the what of content accumulation as well as real-time selection of apt options according to individualised interests. The use of such multimodal articulations embody learning opportunities through transformation, e.g. re-ordering of elements, and through transduction where the students can move meaning from one mode to another, by re-articulating meaning in the entities of the new mode, leading to instances of learning.

5.4. Guideline #4 - Encourage student initiated activities

ExplanationLearning situations are characterised by potentially infinite and limitless sources of inspiration. Creating and

sustaining a balance between teacher-directed activity include the recognition that students’ interests and themes emerge from their self-initiated activities. Encouraging student initiated activities seems to focus on how teachers can design engaging activities as a tool for promoting learning rather than having the potential to create opportunities for engaged learning as arising from students’ interests and experiences. Student initiated activities require teacher support for an enabling environment and sensitive engaged interaction. However, too much tightly directed activities deprives students of the opportunity to engage actively with learning.

Related workResnick et al. (2005) have suggested support for exploration as a design principle for creativity supporting

tools. White and Roth (2009) stress the positive features of explorative searches and state that systems that support it “help users engaged in browsing maximise their rate of information, make decisions about which navigational path to follow, and understand the information they encounter” (p. 7). The question of how information and communication technology could trigger emotional responses and allow students to take responsibility and ownership over their learning, refer to play and playful approaches as resources for engagement in learning (Petersson Brooks, 2013).

5.5. Guideline #5 - Support sustained work on evolving learning processes

ExplanationSustained work on evolving learning processes enable students to trace and add to the evolution of ideas,

concepts, models, etc. along critical points of a learning process and to keep track on information distribution. These developments are not restricted to a particular phase of a creative problem solving activity but an ongoing iteration of the learning process and the daily student life. For example, throughout a learning process, ideas and concepts need to be generated, negotiated, communicated, (re-)interpreted, tested, modified, assessed and implemented. This might include student actions such as reading literature, taking notes, video recording, searching for information on the internet/intranet, which can be difficult to follow and track. Being able to trace back to different sources of information and data and to explore multiple pathways in an integrated way appears important both in individual and collaborative learning settings where learning should be shared, negotiated and documented at different points in time. Supporting sustained work on evolving learning processes includes teachers who take an active stakeholdership to implement and use technology in a well-considered and meaningful way. In order to do so, teachers need sustained support from the organisation to internalise technologies.

Related work


This design and learning guideline parallels similar proposals such as the call for resources that provide rich history-keeping (Schneiderman, 2007) and, furthermore, providing conditions that foster long-term processes of knowledge advancement (Paavola, Engeström & Hakkarainen, 2012). Chuk, Hoetzlein, Kim and Panko (2012) report on a socially networked system, RoSE (Research-oriented Social Environment), for representing knowledge in the form of relationships between people, documents and groups. In this way, the users could keep track on, for example, ideas from the evolving relationships between people and documents, people and people and documents and documents. According to Löwgren and Stolterman (2004), the support of sustained work involves a need to externalise ideas, i.e. to make them visible, which also makes them accessible for criticism, expansion and revision. It is through this external representation that ideas become real and the work process moves forward.

5.6. Guideline #6 - Promote individual and collective agency

ExplanationLearning activities are characterised by the inter-dependency of individual and collective actions and also

influenced by the distributed knowledge and competencies of peer students. This constitutes an inherent tension influencing coordination of learning processes and their outcomes, which requires individual commitment as well as collective responsibility (Olson, 2003). Creativity is a social process, but requires joint efforts of individuals bringing in idiosyncratic perspectives, competencies and experiences. In this regard, the teacher is considered as an additional resource. This individual and collective agency is represented primarily through the use of mobile devices, platforms (e.g. messages, facebook, skype) and interactive whiteboards. For example, while interactive whiteboards offer the possibility to collectively and collaboratively solve problems using multiple modes of expression, they also have inherent qualities to save, store and distribute, not only the solution to the problem, but also the process of getting there for the students to individually reflect upon, re-frame and further develop.

Related work This learning and design guideline is in line with findings from organisational psychology, indicating that a

common task orientation, i.e. the readiness to share responsibility and support each other, correlates with the productivity of professional teams (Weber, 2000). An integration of individual and collective efforts requires reflective thinking, where the individual can separate and reflect upon own actions (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004). This can strengthen agency of individual and collective creations and efforts, and the sensibility to quality in learning

5.7. Guideline #7 - Encourage non-formal & ad hoc learning

ExplanationWhile formal learning with a fixed structure and schedule are suitable for certain kinds of educational

situations, creative and innovative insights often emerge from non-formal and ad hoc learning processes (Petersson Brooks, 2013; Marchetti & Petersson Brooks, 2013; Petersson Brooks & Rosenørn, 2013; Petersson Brooks & Kofoed, 2012). Exchange with others, e.g. peers, companies and universities, might open up new perspectives, opportunities or introducing useful feedback. Yet, non-formal learning and ad hoc communication require interfaces that trigger and enable interaction across physical distance and contexts. Hence, creative ICT-based learning environments should entail platforms supporting problem- or project related information and make it accessible to others in order to trigger exchange. To encourage non-formal and ad hoc learning, it might be suitable to provide functions for quick feedback and intuitive ways to relate to information.

Related work


Much of shared work that takes place in co-located work groups is non-formal, ad hoc and opportunistic (Gutwin et al., 2008; Whittaker, Frohlich and Daly-Jones, 1994; Kraut, Fish, Root & Chalfonte, 1993). Related work suggests a number of requirements for non-formal interaction (Gutwin et al., 2008, p. 1412), namely awareness of others, others work and their availability; ability to negotiate the initiation of an interaction; ability to interact in a lightweight fashion; and ability to move into more focused work when needed. Based on work from Kraut et al. (1993), Belotti and Bly (1996), Whittaker et al. (1994), Gutwin et al. (2008, pp. 1413-1416) detailed that non-formal interaction is grounded in awareness of the learning environment and that collaboration can be triggered by people as well as by objects, actions and interactions.

6. Outlook

This section briefly introduces the next steps that possibly could follow from the concept sketches and design guidelines described in this document. The concept sketches synthesised envisioned future practices, whereas the design guidelines identified themes and challenges in facilitating well-considered use of technology as well as meaningful ways to utilize these technologies in learning situations. Building on this, the next step would be to establish the requirements, which includes an expansion of the initial conceptual models and an inclusive process of ‘getting concrete’, i.e. to put the sketches and guidelines in to action. For example, to concretise and explore in more detail which technologies that can be used for what actions, which functions the different technologies should perform and which the students and teachers would perform, how the functions are related to each other and what information needs to be available in order to resonate with the design guidelines, the pedagogical practice and the curriculum. The aim of such a requirements activity is (i) to further concretise the design guidelines, their activities in relation to the every-day practice of teaching and learning within secondary education institutions as well as to the curriculum, and accordingly (ii) to produce a set of requirements that can form a solid basis for the actual secondary school environment and which could be directly implemented, both technically and pedagogically. Thus, the focus would be on different kinds of requirements; technical and pedagogical, which might include requirements such as learning goals (for a specific subject), design of learning environments/situations, functional, data, context of use, student (and teacher) characteristics, and usability goals.

Information and communication technologies are cultural resources. They are taken up to their full potential or not; inserted or not into educational practices by teachers and students according to actual or felt social and/or pedagogical requirements and constraints (cf. Kress, 2010). In conclusion, this study will, inspired by Kress (2010, pp. 196-197) and based on the design guidelines, outline some essential aspects about the desirability of skills for young people and which, hopefully, appeal to a starting-point for discussion regarding well-considered use of technology as well as meaningful ways to utilize these technologies in learning situations, including the schools’ responsibility to engage with these aspects in a reflective way:• The ability and skill to act flexibly in communication and learning with a disposition to adaptability.• To understand principles of learning as the effect of sustained engagement by a student with aspects of a learning environment.• To have the skills and required disposition towards production through the use of information technology.In this way, schools would need to provide “navigational aids” which enable students to be reflective in their

use of skills, for example when it comes to awareness in selection. Furthermore, schools would need to be aware of and prepared to take the initiative to fill gaps of what is not afforded, for example:• Reflection on the use of information technology in relation to aims, purposes and designs.• The ability to engage in self-reflection.• Fostering a disposition towards agency which values representation as content creation.• Encouraging fully “involved” attitudes to the students’ life-world.• Encouraging the foregrounding of strategic dispositions: a disposition towards “architecture” and “building” rather than one of mere navigation and selection among given options.


Acknowledgements

Students and teachers at Mercantec Viborg, Denmark are acknowledged for their contributions to this study. A special thank you is directed to the DigiTeam and Steen Grønbæk.

References

Bardram, J., Bunde-Pedersen, J., & Soegaard, M. (2006). Support for activity-based computing in a personal computing operating system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 211-220). ACM.Beardon, C., Ehn, P., & Malmborg, L. (2002). Design of Augmented Creative Environments. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Boulder, Colorado, January 7-11, 2002 (pp. 503-504). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesBelotti, V. & Bly, S. (1996). Walking away from the desktop computer: Distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '96) (pp. 209-218). New York: ACM.Bereiter, C. (2002). Knowledge and mind in the knowledge age. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA.Bertelsen, O.W. (2000). Design artefacts: Towards a design-oriented epistemology. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 15-27.Biskjaer, M.M. & Dalsgaard, P. (2012). Toward a constrating oriented pragmatism understanding of design creativity. In Proceedings of The 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2012), Glasgow, UK, 18th-20th September, 2012 (pp. 65-74).Bødker, S. (1991). Activity theory as a challenge to systems design. In H.E. Nissen, H. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (pp. 551–564). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Bordieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, 241-258. New Yoork: Greenwood.Brereton, M., & McGarry, B. (2000). An observational study of how objects support engineering design thinking and communication: implications for the design of tangible media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 217-224). ACM.Chuk, E., Hoetzlein, R., Kim, D., & Panko, J. (2012). Creating socially networked knowledge through interdisciplinary collaboration. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(1-2), 93-108.Craft, A. (2010). Creativity and Education Futures: Learning in a Digital Age. Trentham Books Ltd. Westview House 734 London Road, Oakhill, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 5NP, UK. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Computers in the classroom. Cambridege, MA: Harvards University Press.Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.Dewey, J. (1916/2005). Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Cosimo Classics.Dorta, T., Pérez, E., & Lesage, A. (2008). The Ideation Gap: Hybrid Tools, Design Flow and Practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121–141.Fish, J. (2004). Cognitive catalysis: Sketches for a time-lagged brain. In G. Goldschmidt, & W. Porter (Eds.). Design Representation (pp. 151-185). London: Springer.Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 63(4-5), 482-512.Fitzpatrick, G., Mansfield, T., & Kaplan, S. (1996). Locales framework: Exploring foundations for collaboration support. Proceedings of the OzCHI '96 Sixth Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Hamilton, New Zealand, November 24-27 (pp. 34-41). Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, AL. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., Blum, R., Dyck, J., Tee, K., & McEwan, G. (2008). Supporting informal collaboration in shared-workspace groupware. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 14(9), 1411-1434.Hendry, D. G. (2004). Communication functions and the adaptation of design representations in interdisciplinary teams. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 123-132). ACM.Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2007). Performative roles of materiality for collective creativity. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition (pp. 73-82). ACM.


Johansson, F. (2004). The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Cultures. Harvard Business School Press.John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2005). Affordance, opportunity and the pedagogical implications of ICT. Educational Review, 57(4), 405-413. Kraut, R., Fish, R., Root, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1993). Informal communication in organizations: Form, function, and technology. In Baecker, R. (ed.) Readings in Groupware and computer supported cooperative work. Morgan Kaufmann.Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the media age. London: Routledge.Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Ondon: Routledge.Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Loveless, A.M. (2011). Creativity, technology and learning – a review of recent literature, No. 4 update, (2007). Last retrieved May 2012 from: www.futurelab.org.uk/litreviews.Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on informationtechnology. New York: The MIT Press.Marchetti, E. & Petersson Brooks, E. (2013). Setting the Conditions for Learning. Mediated play and sociomaterial dialogue. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Springer - the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). Miettinen, R. (2006). Epistemology of Transformative Material Activity: John Dewey’s Pragmatism and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Journal For the Theory of Social Behavior, 36(4), 389-408.Olson, D.R. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school remakes mind and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Paavola, S., Engeström, R., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). The Trialogical Approach as a new Form of Mediation. In A. Moen, A.I. Mørch, & S. Paavola (Eds). Collaborative Knowledge Creation – Practices, Tools, Concepts (pp. 1-14). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts: a trialogical approach to CSCL. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning-Volume 1 (pp. 83-92). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor: An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science and Education, 14(6), 535-557.Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.Petersson Brooks, E. (2013). Ludic Engagement Designs. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Springer - the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). Petersson Brooks, E. & Kofoed, L.B. (2012). Media Ethnographic Methods targeting students in a technical education (Medialogy). The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 528-552. Petersson Brooks, E. & Rosenørn, T. (2013). Learning by Design. Learning Resources Fostering Creativity. Accepted for Designs for Learning.Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: a developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665-691.Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative Thinking. NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools. Washington, DC, 25-36.Richter, C., & Allert, H. (2011). The Epistemic Role of Artefacts in Creative Design and Knowledge Creation. Proceedings of E&PDE 11 : The 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education ‘Design education for creativity and business innovation. London, UK: 8 and 9 September 2011, 1-6.Schön, D.A. (1992). The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey’s Legacy to Education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119-139.Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schougaard, K.S.F, & Schultz, U.P. (2004). Supporting Activity-Based Computing using Dynamically (De)Composable Mobile Applications. Proceedings of First International Workshop on Computer Support for Human Tasks and Activities, 12-17.Selwyn, N. (2008). Realising the potential of new technology? Assessing the legacy of New Labour’s ICT agenda 1997–2007. Oxford Review of Education, 34(6), 701-712.Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity Support Tools – Accelerating Discovery and Innovation. Communications of the ACM, 50(12), 20-32.Stahl, G., Koschman, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.


Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W.M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Stolterman, E. (1991). Designarbetets dolda rationalitet: En studie av metodik och praktik inom systemutveckling. [The hidden rationality of design work]. Ph.D. Dissertation UMADP-RRIPS 14.91, Umeå University, Sweden. Vyas, D., Heylen, D., Nijholt, A., & Veer, G. (2009). Collaborative practices that support creativity in design. In Proceedings of ECSCW’09, 151-170.Weber, W.G. (2000). Organizational conditions fostering prosocial work orientations in teams. In M. Vartiainen, F. Avallone, & N. Anderson (Eds.). Innovative Theories, Tools and Practices in Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 75-96). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.White, R.W., & Roth, R.A. (2009). Exploratory Search. Beyond the Query–Response Paradigm. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services Series, 1(1), 1-98.Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D. & Daly-Jones, O. (1994). Informal workplace communication: What is it like and how might we support it? Proceedings of ACM CHI 1994, 131-137.

Documents

Designing Creative Pedagogies Through the Use of ICT in Secondary Education