Instructional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 821–841 | Cite as

Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a Community of Innovation

Article

Abstract

Creativity researchers have drawn on cognitive principles to characterize individual innovation. However, few comprehensive frameworks have been developed to relate social innovation to social cognition research. This article introduces the Communities of Innovation (COI) framework and examines its applications in a culture designed to promote collaborative creativity. Findings included evidence for some aspects of the COI model (flow and hacker ethic, entrepreneurship, collaboration and mentoring, sense of community, and learning through design criticism), moderate support for others (dynamic expertise and idea prototyping), but no evidence for other components (developing adaptable knowledge and expertise, symmetrical expertise within the community, community reflection, shifting interpersonal roles, or benefiting from cultural/educational/skill/other diversity). The majority of the new ideas identified and shared by participants were developed through interaction with others. Implications for refinement of the COI framework and future research are discussed.

Keywords

Communities of Innovation Communities of Practice Innovation Creativity Social cognition Collaborative learning Collaborative work 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1996). The Team Climate Inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Author. (2007). A Framework for defining and researching the boundaries of learning communities. Paper presented at the 2007 Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology in Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Author. (2009). Article published in Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 57(3), 315–332.Google Scholar
  5. Baek, E.-O., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2008). User-centered design and development. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. van Merrienboer, & M. F. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Banahan, E., & Playfoot, J. (2004). Socio-organisational challenges in the creative economy. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.), Collaborative networked organizations: A research agenda for emerging business models. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability and talent in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda: Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.00337.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benton, S., & Giovagnoli, M. (2006). The wisdom network: An 8-step process for identifying, sharing, and leveraging individual expertise. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
  11. Bielaczyc, K., Collins, A., O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Erkens, G. (2006). Fostering knowledge-creating communities. In A. M. O’Donnell (Ed.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 37–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situation cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  13. Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmeli, A., Cohen-Meitar, R., & Elizur, D. (2007). The role of job challenge and organizational identification in enhancing creative behavior among employees in the workplace. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(2), 75–90.Google Scholar
  15. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Coakes, E., & Smith, P. (2007). Developing communities of innovation by identifying innovation champions. Learning Organization, 14(1), 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychology and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Csikszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  21. Csikszentmihályi, M. C. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–338). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dahlander, L., & Wallin, M. W. (2006). A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8), 1243–1259. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fixson, S. K. (2009). Teaching innovation through interdisciplinary courses and programmes in product design and development: An analysis at 16 US schools. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(3), 199–208. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00523.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flanagan, J. C. (1952). The critical incident technique in the study of individuals. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  27. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  29. Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. New York, NY: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  32. Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  33. Justesen, S. (2004). Innoversity in communities of practice. In P. M. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice (pp. 79–95). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Kain, D. L. (2004). Owning significance: The critical incident technique in research. In K. B. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 69–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences, June 27–July 01 (pp. 307–313). Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  36. Kim, K.-H. (2007). The two Torrance creativity tests: The Torrance tests of creative thinking and thinking creatively in action and movement. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A handbook for teachers (pp. 117–142). Toh Tuck Link, Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kurtzberg, T. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00327.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Moore, J. L., & Rocklin, T. R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: Multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mostert, N. M. (2007). Diversity of the mind as the key to successful creativity at unilever. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 93–100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00422.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2), 107. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2002). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Ogunleye, J. (2006). A review and analysis of assessment objectives of academic and vocational qualifications in English further education, with particular reference to creativity. Journal of Education & Work, 19(1), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Raymond, E. S. (2003). The art of Unix programming. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s09.html.
  51. Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249–319.Google Scholar
  52. Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 16–22. doi:10.1177/001698629303700103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  54. Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group.Google Scholar
  55. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schrage, M. (2000). Serious play: How the world’s best companies simulate to innovate. New York, NY: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  57. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed., p. 162). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). Cognitive processes in creative contexts. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 1–5). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Thomke, S. H. (2001). The impact of technology on knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Turvey, K. (2006). Towards deeper learning through creativity within online communities in primary education. Computers & Education, 46(3), 309–321. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, January–February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139–145.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and Technology DepartmentBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Learning and Performance Support LaboratoryUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations