Creating Creative Technologists: Playing With(in) Education

  • Andy M. ConnorEmail author
  • Stefan Marks
  • Charles Walker
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


The Bachelor of Creative Technologies (BCT) degree is offered by Colab, a unique academic unit at Auckland University of Technology. The unit is a research-teaching nexus or ‘collaboratory’ at the intersection of four existing schools (Art and Design, Communications and Media Studies, Computer and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering) in the Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies. The goal of Colab is to develop new experimental alliances, research collaborations and learning experiences across these overlapping disciplines. Its researchers, students and stakeholders are encouraged to imagine, construct and navigate rapidly changing social, economic, technological and career environments.


Central Business District Input Device Divergent Thinking Competitive Game Creative Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott A (2005) Linked ecologies: states and universities as environments for professions*. Sociol Theory 23(3):245–274CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackermann E (2001) Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: what’s the difference. Future Learn Group Publ 5(3):438Google Scholar
  3. Avedon EM, Sutton-Smith B (1971) The study of games. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beale R (2007) Blogs, reflective practice and student-centered learning. In: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: HCI…but not as we know it – volume 2 (BCS-HCI ’07), Vol. 2. British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  5. Bologh RW (1976) On fooling around: a phenomenological analysis of playfulness. Ann Phenomenol Sociol 1:113–125Google Scholar
  6. Bowman JR (1987) Making work play. In: Fine GA (ed) Meaningful play, playful meanings. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 61–71Google Scholar
  7. Boyer EL, Mitgang LD (1996) Building community: a new future for architecture education and practice: a special report. Carnegie Foundation, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner JS (1961) The act of discovery. Harv Educ Rev 31:21–32Google Scholar
  9. Bruner J (1977) The process of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell C (2003) Adult group play therapy. In: Schaefer CE (ed) Play therapy with adults. Wiley, New York, pp 301–316Google Scholar
  11. Cermak-Sassenrath D, Walker C (2012) S(t)imulating interdisciplinarity. In: Nygaard C, Courtney N, Leigh E (eds) Simulations, games and role play in university education. Libri Publishing, Faringdon, pp 139–149Google Scholar
  12. Connor AM, Buchan J, Petrova K (2009) Bridging the research-practice gap in requirements engineering through effective teaching and peer learning. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on information technology: new generations (ITNG 2009), 678,683, 27–29 April 2009, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA. doi: 10.1109/ITNG.2009.134
  13. Connor AM, Martin M, Joe S (2014a) An extensible framework for automatic knowledge extraction from student blogs. Int J Integr Technol Educ 3(2):9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connor AM et al (2014b) An unexpected journey: experiences of learning through exploration and experimentation. In: DesignEd Asia conference 2014. Honk Kong Design Institute, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  15. Consalvo M (2003) It’s no videogame: news commentary and the second gulf war. In: Proceedings of Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA), Utrecht University, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook-Greuter SR (2000) Mature ego development: a gateway to ego transcendence? J Adult Dev 7(4):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi M, LeFevre J (1989) Optimal experience in work and leisure. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(5):815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Collier-MacMillan Canada, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  19. Gamper M (2012) ‘Experimentierkunst’ – Geschichte, Themen, Me-tho¬den, Theorien. In: Kreuzer S (ed) Experimente in der Künsten. Transmediale Erkundungen in Literatur, Theater, Film, Musik und bildender Kunst. Transcript, Bielefeld, pp 19–47Google Scholar
  20. Gavin J, Kenobi B, Connor AM (2014) Social play spaces for active community engagement. In: Blackmore K, Nesbitt K, Smith SP (eds) Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE 2014). ACM, New York, Article 31, 5pp. doi: 10.1145/2677758.2677789
  21. Göncü A, Perone A (2005) Pretend play as a life-span activity. Topoi 24(2):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon G, Esbjörn-Hargens S (2007) Are we having fun yet? An exploration of the transformative power of play. J Humanist Psychol 47(2):198–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall C (1997) The national qualifications framework green paper: what future for the framework. N Z Annu Rev Educ 7:29–57Google Scholar
  24. Harris P, Daley J (2008) Exploring the contribution of play to social capital in institutional adult learning settings. Aust J Adult Learn 48(1):50–70Google Scholar
  25. Hellner J (2003) NCEA: a terrible beauty is born. New Zealand Educ Rev, 6Google Scholar
  26. Henricks TS (2014) Play as self-realization. Am J Play 6(2):190–213Google Scholar
  27. Huizinga J (2000) Homo ludens: a study of the play-element in culture. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kasprow MC, Scotton BW (1999) A review of transpersonal theory and its application to the practice of psychotherapy. J Psychother Pract Res 8(1):12Google Scholar
  29. Koethen E (2012) Das Experiment des Findens als Verfahrensweise der Kunst. Gemeinsamkeiten mit – und Differenzen zur – Wissenschaft. In: Kreuzer S (ed) Experimente in der Künsten. Transmediale Erkundungen in Literatur, Theater, Film, Musik und bildender Kunst. Transcript, Bielefeld, pp 337–366Google Scholar
  30. Lee H, Lee G (2001) The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA): “Fragile–handle with care”. N Z Annu Rev Educ 10:5–38Google Scholar
  31. Meyer J, Land R (2013) Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Millar S (1968) The psychology of play. Penguin, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Piaget J (1953) The origin of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horizon 9(5):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rice L (2009) Playful learning. J Educ Built Environ 4(2):94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russ SW (1998) Play, creativity, and adaptive functioning: implications for play interventions. J Clin Child Psychol 27(4):469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Russ SW (2003) Play and creativity: developmental issues. Scand J Educ Res 47(3):291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoenfeld AH (1998) Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues Educ 4:1–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 6(6):603–616Google Scholar
  40. Sutton-Smith B (1997) The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Tierney WG et al (2014) Postsecondary play: the role of games and social media in higher education, a Hopkins series on education and technology. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  42. Vygotsky LS (1967) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. J Russ East Eur Psychol 5(3):6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Wenger E (2008) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ColabAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations