A Technology-Enhanced Pedagogical Framework to Promote Collaborative Creativity in Secondary Education



This chapter proposes a technology-enhanced pedagogical framework for collaborative creativity and explores its effects in secondary education. The technology-enhanced pedagogical framework is built on sociocultural theory which conceptualizes creativity as a social activity based on intersubjectivity and dialogical interactions. Dialogue becomes an instrument for the development of collaborative creativity processes such as divergent and convergent thinking, distributed leadership, mutual engagement, or group reflection. Two real secondary classrooms followed the technology-enhanced pedagogical framework to solve collaboratively a social challenge and find a novel and valuable solution for a community. The role of technology in shaping collaborative creativity processes and students’ perception about what specific collaborative and creative processes emerged during the project was explored in these two case studies. Findings showed that the technology-enhanced pedagogical framework scaffolded the development of key divergent processes as, for instance, idea generation and new ways of thinking. Besides, students reported the emergence of convergent processes such as selection and combination of ideas, and they learned new ways of conveying and communicating ideas. Finally, students highlighted the development of key learning to learn processes related mostly to group reflection and mutual engagement.


Creativity Collaboration Project-based learning Technology Secondary education 



This research was funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of the Spanish Government (projects number: EDU2012-32415 and EDU2016-80258-R).
Annex 14.1

Students’ perception about the collaborative and creative processes developed during the project and examples



Divergent thinking

Generate new ideas

This project has helped me to think new ideas. Every group member has proposed an idea. I have learnt to have more creative ideas and more elaborated

New ways of thinking

We have thought a lot, and this has been helpful


The groupmates’ ideas help me to think

Share and acquire new information

The new ideas came up listening to my groupmates. The ideas came up observing things and pictures of different web sites

Convergent thinking

Define the challenge

The wall is dark and we need bright colors

Select and combine ideas

Considering the other groupmates’ new ideas and my ideas, we came up with a more original idea

Externalize and communicate the idea

Our solution is interactive and this will involve other people



Distributed leadership

Establish ground rules

We have learnt to establish and agree group rules. We have learnt to respect mates’ opinions

Management the task

We have divided the tasks and organized really well

Distributed responsibilities and roles

Everybody has to be responsible to bring the elements we have agreed. Everybody has to do a task and be involved in the project

Mutual engagement

Joint attention

Everybody has to work

Shared opinion

We have discussed all proposed ideas

Explicit support

We have helped each other and this has made our work more original

Reflect on the process

All the members of the group have collaborated really well

Group reflection

Reflect on the progress

We have learnt to evaluate our process and I did like it because then we were aware about what we have done wrong and how to mend it

Reflect on the strategies

We have learnt ways to discuss and combine efficiently our different ideas


  1. 1.
    Westwood, R., & Low, D. (2003). The multicultural muse: Culture, creativity and innovation. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), 235–259. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14705958030032006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and innovative teaching. JRC Scientific and Thechnical Reports.  https://doi.org/10.2791/52913.
  3. 3.
    Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from www.cambridge.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. IV, pp. 1–251). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moran, S., John-Steiner, V., & Sawyer, R. (2003). Creativity in the making. Creativity and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glăveanu, V. (2010). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture & Psychology, 16(2), 147–163.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X10361394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shweder, R. (1990). Cultural psychology—What is it? In J. Stigler, R. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 169–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sonnenburg, S. (2004). Creativity in communication: A theoretical framework for collaborative product creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 254–262.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00314.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wegerif, R., McLaren, B., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Miksatko, J., & Williams, M. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54(3), 613–621. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131509003054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zittoun, T., Baucal, A., Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2007). Collaborative research, knowledge and emergence. Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(2), 208–217. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-007-9021-z.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wegerif, R. (2015). Dialogic, education and technology. Springer Science & Business Media: Expanding the space of learning.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loveless, A. (2006). Creativity, technology and learning—A review of recent literature. Report 4 update, 21. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Creativity_Review_update.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Daskolia, M., Kynigos, C., & Makri, K. (2015). Learning about urban sustainability with digital stories: Promoting collaborative creativity from a constructionist perspective. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 388–396.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craft, A., Gardner, H., & Claxton, G. (Eds.). (2007). Creativity, wisdom, and trusteeship: Exploring the role of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity in highly eminent individuals, The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 174–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Craft, A. (2003). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moran, S. (2010). Creativity in school. In K. Littleton, C. Woods, & J. Kleine-staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 319–359). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 201–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kampylis, P. (2010). Fostering creative thinking: The role of primary teachers. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The science of human innovation: Explaining creativity. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 427–453.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9180-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’sthinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li, Y., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A., Kim, I.-H., & Miller, B. (2007). Emergent leadership in Children’s discussion groups. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000709336703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jones, S. (2014). Distributed leadership: A critical analysis. Leadership, 10(2), 129–141.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715011433525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversitat de LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations