Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Author. (2009). Article published in Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 57(3), 315–332.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda: Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situation cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Coakes, E., & Smith, P. (2007). Developing communities of innovation by identifying innovation champions. Learning Organization, 14(1), 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Csikszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1952). The critical incident technique in the study of individuals. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. New York, NY: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences, June 27–July 01 (pp. 307–313). Bloomington, IN.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kurtzberg, T. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. L., & Rocklin, T. R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: Multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2002). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, E. S. (2003). The art of Unix programming. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s09.html.

  • Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 16–22. doi:10.1177/001698629303700103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (2000). Serious play: How the world’s best companies simulate to innovate. New York, NY: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, January–February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139–145.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology Department, Brigham Young University, 150-H MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Richard E. West

  2. Learning and Performance Support Laboratory, University of Georgia, 601 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA, USA

    Michael J. Hannafin

Authors
  1. Richard E. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard E. West.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

West, R.E., Hannafin, M.J. Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a Community of Innovation. Instr Sci 39, 821–841 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9156-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9156-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation