wise humanising creativityvuir.vu.edu.au › 36054 › 1 › chappel ijgbl 7(4) article 2.pdf ·...

DOI: 10.4018/IJGBL.2017100103

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017

Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

Wise Humanising Creativity:Changing How We Create in a Virtual Learning EnvironmentKerry Chappell, University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education, Exeter, United Kingdom

Chris Walsh, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Heather Wren, University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education, Exeter, United Kingdom

Karen Kenny, University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education, Exeter, United Kingdom

Alexander Schmoelz, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Elias Stouraitis, Ellinogermaniki Agogi, R&D Department, Greece

ABSTRACT

Thisarticleinterrogateshowaparticularconceptionofcreativity:‘wisehumanisingcreativity’(WHC)ismanifestwithinavirtuallearningenvironment(VLE)withchildrenandyoungpeople.ItreportsontheoutcomesofC2Learn,athree-yearEuropeanCommissionfundedprojectwhichintroducedinnovativedigitalgamingactivitiestofosterco-creativityintheVLEbetweenplayers.Theoreticallythepaperbuildsonpreviouswork,whichhasconceptualisedthepotentialforWHCwithinVLEs,aswellasothereducationalcontexts.WithinC2Learn,argumentshavebeenmadeforWHCasanantidotetooverly-marketised,competitivenotionsofcreativity,aswellasforWHCsupportingaviewofchildhoodandyouthasempowered—rather than ‘at risk’—withindigitalenvironments.Inparticular,thispaperfocusesonoutcomesoftheproject’sfinalpilotinginEngland,GreeceandAustriaacrosstheprimaryandsecondaryageranges.Thisresearchemployedabespokeco-creativityassessmentmethodologydevelopedfortheproject.InordertodocumentWHC,thismethodologyoptedtoevidencedevelopmentsinlivedexperienceviaqualitativemethodsincludingteacherandstudent interviews, fieldnotes, video capture, observation and student self-assessment tools.ThepaperarticulateshowWHCmanifests inC2Learn’suniqueVLEorC2Space,and itspotential todevelopmorenuancedunderstandingsofcreativityacrossdigitalenvironments.ItthengoesontoconsiderWHCasausefulconceptforchanginghowwecreatewithinVLEs,andtheimplicationsforeducationalfuturesdebatesandwiderunderstandingofcreativityineducationasalessmarketisedandmoreethicallydrivenconcept.

KEyWoRdS(WHC), C2Learn, Co-creativity, Digital Gaming, Gameful Design, Social Networking, Wise Humanising Creativity

INTRodUCTIoN

Inthelasttwentyyears,therehasbeenagrowingshiftinunderstandingcreativityineducation,fromanindividualisedconcept,toonewhichiscollaborativeorgroupbased,andwhichis‘everyday’initsoccurrence(Banaji,Burn&Buckingham,2010;Craft,2002;JohnSteiner,2000;Sawyer,2003).Theseshiftshaveprovidedthefoundationsfornewargumentsforcreativityasa21stcenturyabilitywhichchildren,youngpeopleandcitizensneedtothrivetogetherasaresponsetorapidchangeand

50


51

constantuncertainty(Chappell&CraftwithRolfe&Jobbins,2011;Craft,2011;Robinson,2015).Simultaneously,muchhasbeenwritten,especiallyintheUnitedKingdom,regardingthemultiplerhetoricsofcreativitywhichplacedifferingemphasesoncreativity’ssocial,cultural,democraticandpersonaldimensionsandtheirinfluencesoncreativityinlearningandteaching(Banaji,Burn&Buckingham,2010;Sefton-Green,Thomson,Jones&Bresler,2011).Developingwithinthisshiftingconceptuallandscapeareacollectionofideasthathaveemphasisedtheimportanceofco-creativitywithineducation,theroleofgenerativepossibilities,thequestionoftheethicalimpactofcreativity,andtherelatedpedagogicaldynamics.TheseideasareWiseHumanisingCreativity(WHC)(e.g.Chappell&Craft,withRolfe&Jobbins,2011;Chappell&Craft,2011;Chappell&Swinford,inpress;Craft2013),PossibilityThinking(PT)(e.g.Burnard,Craft&Grainger,2006;Craft2002;Craft,2014),andthe‘4Ps’ofcreativeengagement(Craft,2011).TheyspotlightandchallengethedominanceofWestern-centric,marketisedcreativity,positingamorehumanisingethicallyawarealternativewhichviewschildrenandyoungpeopleasempoweredcreativecontributorsalongsideadults.

Togetherandseparately,thesetheorieshavebeenelaboratedfromempiricalresearchinavarietyofeducationalsettings(e.g.Chappell&Jobbins,2015;Chappell,Slade,Greenwood,Black&Craft,underreview;Craft&Chappell,2014;Cremin,Burnard&Craft,2006;Cremin,Chappell&Craft,2012).Together,theyputforwardastrongtheoreticalargumentforbettergraspingthemeaningofcreativityasdistributedbetweenpeople,objectsandideas(e.g.ChappellwithCraft,Rolfe&Jobbins,2012;Craft,McConnon&Matthews,2012)andfortheneedtoengagewiththeconsequencesofcreativeactivityasethicallyladen(e.g.Chappell,2008;Craft,2013).Primarily,theseideashavebeenappliedinformaleducationwithinamultitudeofsettingsincludingwithingeneric(e.g.Craftetal.,2012),arts-based(Chappelletal.,2011)andscience-based learningcontexts(Craftetal.,2014;Cremin,Glauert,Craftetal.,2015).Mostrecently,triggeredbyCraft(2011),thiscollectionof ideashasbeenappliedwithinexplicitlydigitallydriveneducationalcontexts (Chappell,Craft&Walsh;2014;Walsh,Chappell&Craft,2017;Walsh,Craft,Chappell&Kouloris,2014;Walsh&Whitehouse,2017).Thishasbeenwiththeaimofchallengingmorecompetitively,individuallyderivedconceptionsofcreativitywithindigitallearning(e.g.Edwards-Groves,2011;Tapscott,1996;Walsh,2007)andofplacingastrongeremphasisoncollaborationandethics.

ThisconceptualentryintothedigitalarenawasmarkedbytheCreativeEmotionalReasoningComputationalToolsFosteringCo-CreativityinLearningProcesses(C2Learn)1Project(www.c2learn.eu).Thiswasathree-yearEuropeanCommissionfundedresearchinitiative,whichaimedtointroduceandpilotan innovativeVLE to fosterco-creativity in learningprocesses in formaland informaleducational settingswithseven internationalpartners.Rather than focusoncreativecompetitionand‘winning’,theC2Learncomputationaltoolsandenvironmentweredesignedtoincorporatethefundamentalelementsofco-creativitysuchasWHC,PT,the4Ps(Walshetal.,2014;Walshetal.,2017)aswellas reframing(Stenninget.al,2016)andemotive lateral thinking (Scaltsas,2016).TheseincludedtheWHCnotionthatthecomputationaltoolscoupledwithengagingexperiences,couldpotentiallyencouragestudentstogoonjourneysof‘becoming’(Chappelletal.,2012).Thesejourneysarebasedonthereciprocalrelationshipbetweentheparticipants’creativeideasandtheirdevelopingidentity.Astheyco-create,itisarguedstudentscollaborativelyandcommunallydevelopnewideasbutastheythemselvesarethesubstanceofthoseideas,theyarealsocreatingor‘becoming’themselves.Inthissense,studentsthroughco-creatingwitheachotherandVLE’sartificialintelligence(AI),aremakingandbeingmade.Thesejourneysarecharacterisedbyco-participativegenerativity(studentsplayingwithoneanother,withadultsandAI),withinsharedgroupcreativeidentities,forexamplewithinthedigitalquests,gamesandactivities.Thetoolsalsoraisedilemma-basedquestions


52

astotheconsequencesofplayers’digitalcreativeactions,theethicsofwhichinformthejourneysofbecoming;hencetheuseoriginallyoftheterm‘humanising’(Chappell,2006;2008).

TheC2LearnVLEwasinfluencedbyagamefullearningdesign(Walshetal.,2014)sothatthesejourneysofbecomingwere informedbyplayersexperiencing thecorePossibilityThinking(PT)activitiesof‘whatif’and‘asif’thinking(Craft,2002;Craft,Chappell&Walsh,2013).Thesebothrequiregameplayerstounderstandthesystemofthegame—orsystems-basedliteracypractices—intermsofhowthegameandgameplayerworktogetherinacyberneticrelationship,effectingvariousactions of the digital game by successfully understanding and navigating those structures thatunderlietheirparticipation(Walsh,2010).Thisnavigationwasdesignedtobeinformedbythe4Psofplayfulness,possibility,participationandpluralities(Craft,2011).

Asadesign-basedresearchinitiative,itwasvitalthattheC2Learnprojectincorporatedformativeand summative evaluative feedback embedded within piloting activities (Scaltsas, Stenning &Alexopoulos,2014).Withinabroader researchmethodologyanddesign, appliedacrossGreece,EnglandandAustria,thisaimedtoallowresearcherstoevidencewhetherWHC,PTandthe4PsweredevelopedthroughparticipationinC2learn’sVLE(seemethodologybelowandWalshetal.,2017).Thiswasachievedthroughthemainprojectresearchquestion,whichwasappliedacrossarangeofpilotcontexts:Howdoparticipantsmanifestco-creativitythroughC2Learngameplay?TheC2Learndigitaltoolsandenvironment’sgamefullearningdesignwasthereforeacomplexintegrationofcollaborativeandethicallydrivencreativitytheoryandpractice,understandingsofdigitalengagement,andformativeandsummativeevaluationprocedures(Chappelletal.,2014;Craftetal.,2013;Walshetal.,2017).

ThisarticlereportsontheoutcomesofthefinalstagesoftheformativeandsummativeevaluationandresearchpilotingoftheC2LearnenvironmentorC2Spaceandhowchildrenandyoungpeopleengagedwithitinordertomanifestco-creativity.Inordertoframetheanalysisanddiscussionoftheseoutcomesthenextthreesectionsexplaintheproject’sVLEorC2Space,thedetailoftheC2LearnconceptualframeworkwithitsrelatedliteratureandthentheC2LearnLearningDesign.

C2Learn’s VLE or C2SpaceInC2Learn’sVLEorC2Space(Figure1),studentsandteachersindividuallyandcollaborativelyexplorenewideas,faceandovercomechallenges,playgamestoassisttheminreachingtheirgoalsandconnectwithothersthroughengaginginfun,contextuallyrelevantandmeaningfulplayful‘C2Experiences’.TheC2Spaceencouragesexplorations,gamesandqueststhatprovidestudentsandteacherswithmultipleopportunitiestoputforthnewideas—meaningfultothemandtheircommunities—thatrequirethemtoimaginemorenewideasorsolveproblemsviaplayfulC2Experiences.Inthisjourney,theyareassistedbyeachotherandAIorCo-CreativityAssistants(C2Assistants)thatinteractwiththemandtheirteacherstochallengetheirestablishedthinkingpatternsandenablethemtousemechanismsofcreativethinkingandtheirimagination.

C2Learn Conceptual FrameworkC2Learn’saimistofosterco-creativitywhichisdefinedasnoveltywhichemergesthroughsharedideasandactionsandinvolvesparticipantstakingintoaccounttheimpactofthatnovelty.Withinthisframework,PT(Craft,2010),theprocessofmovingfromwhatistowhatmightbewasaguidingprincipleforC2Learnco-creativity,andwascloselyconnectedtothe4P’sofcreativeengagement(Craft,2011).Theseare

• Pluralities(opportunitiesforlearnerstoexperimentwithmultiplepluralitiesofplaces,activities,personalidentities,andpeople);

• Possibilities(opportunitiesforpossibility thinking, transitioningfromwhat is towhatmightbe,co-constructingwithothersthroughtheC2Learnexperience,designing,editing,extending,andexploringcontent);


53

• Participation(opportunitiesforlearnerstotakeaction,makethemselvesvisibleontheirownterms,andactasagentsofchange);and

• Playfulness(opportunitiesforuserstolearn,createandself-createasactiveandconnectedusersintheiremotionallyrich,virtualandactualplay-worlds).

Craft’stheorisingsitswithinthefluxofviewingchildrenandyoungpeople‘atrisk’asinneedofprotection(Frechette,2006),andviewingthemasempoweredandmovingbeyondadult‘control’(Newburn,1996).ApplyingPTandthe4PswithintheC2Learndesignwasaboutacknowledgingchildrenandyoungpeople’scapacityforgenerativepossibilityinVLEs,whilstensuringthattheyarenotplacedinunnecessarilyriskysituations.

FramedinthiswaybyPTandthe4Ps,Scaltsasetal.(2014),andChappell,CraftandWalsh(2014)arguedthatthiskindofco-creativitycouldbecatalysedviathetoolsandstrategiesofCreativeEmotionalReasoning(CER)contributingtogeneratingWHCbetweenC2Learnparticipants.CERdrawsoncognitivescienceresearchandreferstoaprincipled,unifyingtheoryofnon-linearthinkingtechniquesthatfosterco-creativity.Premisedonanotionofcreativityasaninterventionresultinginreframing,CER’ssetofcorecreativelearningtoolsaimedtosupportthemanifestationofWHCbyprovidingmethodsforthedisruptionofestablishedthinkingroutinesandpatterns.WHCandCERwerethereforecoupledtogethertoprovidethefivekeycategories,whichcharacterisedC2Learnco-creativity.Scaltsasetal.(2014)andChappelletal.(2014)arguedthatwhenengagedinco-creativity,C2Learnparticipantswould:

Figure 1. The C2Space


54

• Generate,exploreandenactnewideaswithavaluableimpactonthecommunity,discardingotherideasthatlacksuchpotential(ethicsandimpact)

• Posequestions,debatebetweennewideas,findwaystonegotiateconflictortogoinadifferentdirectiontoothersifconflictisnotresolved(dialogue)

• Takechargeofdifferentpartsof thecreativeprocess,understanding therulesof thesystemandhowdecisionshaveconsequences,makingdecisionsaroundnewideasandtakingaction(s)throughvariousscenariosand/orquests(control)

• BeimmersedintheC2Learnenvironment,andpossiblyaddictedtogameplay,exploration,questsand/ortheinteractivedramaplayedoutwithinit,aswellasinreal-worldspaces.Suchimmersionwillsometimesleadtotakingrisksandgeneratingsurprisingindividualorcollaborativeideas(engagedaction)

• Havetheirthinkingandactiondisruptedbytheenvironment’scomputationaltoolsembeddedwithinwhichareCERnon-linearthinkingtechniques.Thiswillthemmovethemawayfromestablishedroutinesandpatterns(interventionresultinginreframing)

Chappelletal.(2014)arguedthatco-creativitywouldthereforeoccurinC2Learnasanactiveprocessofchangeguidedbycompassionorthecloseandactiveawarenessoftheneedsandhopesofothers(Chappell,Craft,Rolfe&Jobbins,2012)andreferencetosharedvaluesderivedfromVLEusers’collaborativethinking,sharedaction,gameplayandsocialinteraction.Theywentontoarguethatovertime,smallincrementalpersonalchangesorjourneysofbecomingwouldresultfromtheirWHC.ThisisbecausethereisacorereciprocalrelationshipwithinWHCbetweencreativityandidentityinwhichascreatorsmake,theyarealsobeingmade.Thereisthenthepotentialforthesesmallerchangestoaccumulateincrementallytogethertofuellargerscalecommunalchange.Chappelletal.(2011)refertothisas‘quietrevolutions’whichgrowfromthebottomup,andalignpersonalwithwidervalues.WithinC2Learn,bothanalogueanddigitalactivityhasthecapacitytogeneratethesequietrevolutionsasplayerscreateindividually,collaborativelyandcommunally.TheC2Spacewasthereforecarefullydesignedtofacilitatethis;theprojectLearningDesignisdescribednext.

C2Learn’s Gameful Learning designC2Learn’sLearningDesignanditsgroundinginthedigitaldesignliteraturehasbeendetailedatlengthelsewhere(Chappelletal.,2014;Walshetal.,2014;Walshetal.,2017),butbrieflyforcontexthere,attheheartoftheC2LearnLearningDesignisthe‘playful’digitalgamingandsocialnetworkingenvironmentor“Co-creativityspace”(C2Space).Figure2showsascreenshotoftheC2Spaceinaction.

The C2Space allows students to draw on their gaming literacy to interact creatively andcollaborativelywitheachother(Apperley&Walsh,2012;Beavis,Bradford,O’Mara,andWalsh,2009).Figure2showsaC2Spacepageofferingethically-drivenquestsinthemiddlewhichwhenselected offer the choice of games to be played within the quests; 4scribes (Eladhari, Lopes &Yannakakis, 2014), Iconoscope (Liapis, Yannakakis, Alexopoulos & Lopes, 2016) and CreativeStories(Koukourikos,Karampiperis&Karkaletsis,2016)beingthe3mainC2LearngamesavailableintheC2SpaceorVLE.Designedinthisway,theC2Spaceaimstoleveragegames’deeplysatisfyingpropertiesthrough‘playfulexperiences’,orC2Experiences.Withinthese,playerscanautonomouslyandcollaboratively:explore;faceandovercomechallenges;playgamestoassisttheminreachingtheirgoals;connectwithothersbyengaginginfunandmeaningfulactivities;andevidencecompassionandsharedvaluesorputforthnewideasthatrequireotherstudentstoimaginenewideas.Thisprovidesaco-collaborativecontextforthemtoshiftfrom‘whatis’tonewpossibilitiesof‘whatmightbe’.Figure3,then,showsoneoftheC2Learngames,4Scribes,inthemiddleofplaywhereplayersareco-generatinganethicallydrivenstory.

Intheirjourney,playersareassistedbyeachotherandAIorCo-CreativityAssistantsthatinteractwiththem.OneoftheseAssistants(theMadScientist)canbeseeninthetoprightofFigure3fromthe4Scribesgame.WithintheC2Space,engaginggameaffordancesareused,includingfeedback,


55

Figure 3. 4Scribes game mid-game

Figure 2. C2Space in action


56

agency,emotion,andrelevantchallenges,overgamifiedelementssuchaspoints,levels,andrewards.Figure2,above,showsdifferentcolourediconsfortheC2Learnfeedbacksystemontheright-handside.ThesearebettersuitedforC2Learnbecausetheyhavethepotentialtoincreasestudents’intrinsicmotivation(Amabile,1998)andcapacityforactivelearninginawaywhichismoresympathetictothewidergoalofWHC(Deterding,2012,2013).ThistakesplacethroughplayfulC2Experiences,asopposedtogame-orientedstrategies.This‘gamefuldesign’stanceaddressesthewidely-theorisedcritiqueofgamificationwithingamestudieswhicharguessuchgameorientedstrategiesprovideprimarily extrinsic rewardmotivators (Nicholson,2012).The intentionof theC2LearnLearningDesign’s gameful design is to harness students’ motivation and engagement through enjoyablelearningandagoal-orientedapproachthatfostersco-creativity(incorporatingbothWHCandCER).

Classroom-basededucationalscenariosusedwithintheC2Spaceprovideaframeworkinwhichdigitalgamesareusedtohelpdeepenstudents’relationshipswithreal-lifecontextsthroughactionandplay,tofacilitateco-creativity(Dimaraki&Koulouris,2013).Thecorescenariosweredevelopedin an iterative co-designed process with teachers and in collaboration with school communities(Dimaraki,Schmoelz,Koulouris,2013).Theyareappropriateforarangeofcontextsandlearners,andaddressspecificlearningobjectives.Theyalsoprovideacontentframeworkinwhichtheinnovativetechnologiesandpracticesoftheprojectaredeployed.ExamplesofthekindsofscenariosdevelopedcanbeseeninFigure2wherethequestscontainelementsofthescenariosofferedtothestudents(CreativityFuturesintheclassroom).Duringpiloting,studentsplayedwithC2Learngamesdescribedabove.Themethodologydescribedbelowwasdesignedtodocumentthemanifestationoftheirlivedexperienceofco-creativity,includingWHC.

METHodoLoGy

ThecollaborativeC2Learnprojectaimedtorespondtothemainresearchquestion:Howdoparticipantsmanifestco-creativitythroughC2Learngameplay?ThemethodologydrewonStenningandMichell’s(1985)evaluation incognitivescienceaswellasoneducational/arts informedevaluation (Craft,Chappell&Best,2007;Chappell&Greenwood,2013).Amixedmethodsapproachtodatacollectionwasused,seekingtodocumentbothchangeandthelivedexperience(VanManen,1990)ofchildren,youngpeopleandtheirteachers’engagementintheC2Space(Walshetal.,2017).Repeatresearchvisitsgaveresearcherstheopportunitytotrackchangeovertime.

PilotingIntheSpringandSummerof2015theC2Learngames,withintheC2SpacewerepilotedinschoolsinEngland,GreeceandAustria.DetailsareshowninTable1.Inthetable,thetermprimarycoversthe10-12agerangeandthetermsecondaryisusedforthe15–19agerange,withoneEnglishandtheAustriansiteasecondaryschool,andoneEnglishsiteasettingofFurtherEducation.IntheEnglishprimary1 and2, site activitywas focusedaround the4Scribesgame,using themespromoting‘sustainability’and‘animalwelfare’todelivercreativewritingsessionswithintheEnglishcurriculum.IntheGreekprimaryactivitywasfocusedonthe4ScribesgameleveragingtheGreekhistoricalperiodundertheOttomanruleengagingstudentsinsocietalissuesatthattimeandaseriesofethicaldilemmasbasedonunprecedentedgeographicalsituations.IntheEnglishsecondary1siteactivitywasfocusedaroundthe4ScribesgameusinganethicaldilemmatakenfromtheSociologycurriculum.InEnglishsecondary2,siteactivitycentredonusingin-gamechallengesfromCreativeStoriesandExploreandExpand.IntheAustriansecondary,siteactivitycentredonpersonalandsocietalchallenges,whichwereidentifiedbythestudents.Theeducationalactivitywasfacilitatedwithmixedplayfulpedagogies(Schmoelz,2016;Schmoelz,inpress)involvinggame-basedlearning,gamificationandgame-baseddialogues.

Pilotingprimarilyusedthe4Scribesdigitalgame(Figure3),wherebyparticipantsco-createdastory,situatedwithinadesignatedscenario.Gameplaywiththeolderparticipantgroupsusedthe


57

CreativeStories(seeFigure4),IconoscopeandExploreandExpand(seeFigure5)applications.Wherethetableshowsuseofpaperprototypesthiswasbecauseofissueswiththetechnology’sstability,bothintermsofthesoftwareandaccesstoitviaschoolfirewalls.Progressinrectifyingtheseissuesacrossthelifeofprojectpilotingwasextremelyslow,andsothisfinalpilotphasedidnotusedigitaltoolsasadvancedasoriginallyintendedandtheplannedtimeperiodswerealsosomewhatcurtailed.

Table 1. Piloting across three countries

Location of Pilots

Ages of Participants

Number of Participants

No. of Sessions

No. of Research

visits

Tools used for pilot

App used for pilot

Teacher interview conducted

Video/audio used

for data collection

English primary 1

10 24 3 2 Paper 4scribes yes audioandvideo

English primary 2

10 16 5 2 Digital 4scribes yes video

Greek primary 10-11 24 2 2 Digitalandpaper

4scribes yes audioandvideo

English secondary 1

17-19 4&9 2 2 Paper 4scribes yes audioandvideo

English secondary 2

15-16 5 2 2 Digital Creativestoriesexploreand

expand

no audio

Austrian secondary

17-19 12 30 5 Digitalandpaper

4scribesIconoscope

creativestories

yes Audioandvideo

Figure 4. Creative Stories


58

ThecategoriesandcharacteristicsshowninTable2,developedfromtheconceptualframeworkdetailedabove,wereusedthroughoutthepilots,toenableresearcherstofocusonthecoregoalsoftheco-creativityframeworkforWHC.

Figure 5. Explore and Expand

Table 2. WHC Elements of Co-creativity Categorisation scheme

Category Characteristics

Attendingtotheethics and impact of ideas

1.Createsnewassociationsbetweenideas2.Activelyexplorestheconsequencesofthenewlycreatedassociationsbetweenideas3.Exhibitsawarenessofandconcern/interestfortheimpactofnewideasonthegroup’svalues4.Activelypromotestheideasthataredeemedvaluablebythegroup

Engagingindialogue 1.Engagesindebateoverideas2.Promotesdialoguewithgroup(posesquestions,respectsdifferentviewpointsand/orencouragesmembersofthegrouptovoicetheirideas3.Activelynegotiatesconflictand/orseeksalternativepath

Beingincontrol 1.Takesaleadingroleduringdifferentphasesofthecreativeprocess2.Exhibitsafirmgraspoftherulesinthesystemunderlyingthechallengesfacingthegroups3.Takesdecisionsandinvestigatesaction

Engaged action 1.Immerseshim/herselfintheexperienceofthecreativeprocess2.Facilitatesimmersionintheexperienceofthecreativeprocessfortherestofthegroup3.Willingnesstotakerisksand/orleavehis/hercomfortzone


59

data CollectionQualitativedatacollectionmethodsdeterminedtheextenttowhichstudents’andteachers’participationintheC2SpacehadthepotentialtofosterWHC.Clearprotocols(Scaltsasetal.,2014;Walshetal.,2017)weredevelopedbyarepresentativeteamfromthe3pilotcountriesinordertoensurethattoolswereusedasconsistentlyaspossible.ThereweresixmaintoolsforcollectingdataintheC2Learnpilots;thesearedetailedinTable3andTable4.Gameplayaudioandvideocapture(Foster,2006)allowedobservationofphysicalandlinguisticbehaviour,whilstself-assessmenttools,suchascreativitywheels(seeFigure6andFigure7intheAppendix)(drawingonEdmond,2005;Spencer,LucasandClaxton;2012);andparticipationaxes(ChappellandCraft,2011)wereusedtounderstandhowstudentsexperiencedC2Learn.Thesemethodswereaugmentedbyteacherobservations,gatheredduringinterviews(Kvale,1996),whichfollowedasemi-structuredschedule,andresearcherfieldnotes.

IntheEnglishpilotsitestheclassteacherrequesteda‘gatekeeper’role,wherebytheyselectedparticipatingchildren,identifiedtimesforplayandforresearchvisits,anddesignatedthelocationofplay.Thiscontrolprecludedthefulluseoftheprotocols.InAustriaandGreeceteachersandassistantsco-designedlearningactivitiesandthewayinwhichC2Learntoolswereimplementedinregardtolearningoutcomes.Thiscollaborationfacilitatedthefulluseofthedatacollectionprotocols,andisanapproachrecommendedwherepossibleforfuturepilotingofthiskind.

data AnalysisForthisarticle’sfindings,richinstancestakenfromtheaudioandvideowereusedtoidentifywhetherthe WHC characteristics listed in Table 2 were inherent in the digital contexts within C2Space.Analysiscommencedwithcodingtothepre-specifiedcategories,whereinstanceswereclassifiedasstrong,mediumorweak.Stronginstanceswerethentranscribed.Thisanalyticstagewasextremelythoroughwithidentificationcriteriahonedbetweenresearchersfromthethreecountries.Thisaimedforagreementonwhatvisuallydefinedarichinstanceieevidenceofthekeysub-categoriesinorderthatresearcherswerenotsimplyover-assumingthepresenceofWHCbecausetheVLEhadbeendesignedtofacilitateit.Triangulationofthestronginstanceanalysiswasconductedbyatleastonememberoftheresearchteamfromeachlocation,usingaprocessofblindanalysisfollowedbycomparison,againtowardagainstassumption.Thetriangulatedanalysisandstrongrichinstanceswerethenanalysedinconjunctionwithanalysisoftheteacherinterview,fieldnotesandself-assessmenttoolsinlightoftheresearchquestions,inordertoproducethesecondstageanalysis.Itwasimportantthatdetailedfilmanalysiswasthefirstlevelanalyticprioritywithteacherinterviewsandstudentself-reportusedforanalyticverificationratherthanleadinganalyticoutcomes.Itmustbetakenintoaccountthough,thatWHCcategoriescouldbesaidtobeapparenttoparticipantsthroughthecreativitywheelandteacherinterviewquestionstructure,aswellasthroughteachers’interestandinvolvementintheC2Learnprojectintentions.Thiswasafurtherreasonforprioritisingfilmrichinstanceanalysisoverthesedatasources.Followingthissecondstageanalysis,thedatawasthenanalysedbothgeographicallyandwithinageranges,resultinginoverallprimaryfindingsandoverallsecondaryfindings.Aswehavewrittenuptheanalysisofthefindingsbelowwehaveacknowledged,whereappropriate,howthedifferentactivitiesundertakenindifferentcountriesarelikelytohaveimpactedonthewayinwhichfindingsvary.

Quality and TrustworthinessTrustworthiness, quality, and rigour were ensured via adherence to the principles of credibility,transferability,dependabilityandconfirmability(LincolnandGuba,1985)withparticularattentionpaidtodataandcolleaguetriangulationtechniques,negativecaseanalysisandevidenceofcleardatatrailsforallcodingandcategorisation.


60

EthicsTheassessmentmethodologywasunderpinnedbyaclearsetofethicalprinciples.EthicalprocedureswereinformedbytheguidelinesoftheBritishEducationalResearchAssociation(BERA)(2011)aswellastheDataProtectionAct(DPA)(1998)andDirective95/46/EC.Digitaldatawascollectedandstoredfollowingthisstrictethicalprotocol;Owncloudfilehostingallowedsecurestorageaccessibletoallresearchteams.

FINdINGS

Thefindingsreportedinthispaperarestructuredusingtheco-creativitycategorizationframeworkanddrawonthecross-siteanalysisrespondingtothequestion:Howdoparticipantsmanifestco-creativity

Table 3. Methods used with descriptions

Method used during research

visits

When used in research visits

How method was utilised Expected outcome of method used

VideoandAudioRecording

Duringgameplay Focusedononegroupandensuredalldialoguewasrecorded.

IdentificationofWHCcategoriesduringgameplay.

Fieldnotes Duringgameplay ResearchermadenotesofWHCcategoriesobservedduringgameplay.

IdentificationofWHCcategoriesduringgameplay.

SocraticDialogue(SD)Plenarysessionconductedbyteacher

Followinggameplay TheSDwasasemi-structureddialoguewithagroupofstudents.Theresearcherutilisedopen-endedquestioning.Studentswerealsoaskedtoidentify3importantthingsofthesession.

TheSDand3importantthingswereusedinordertogainabetterunderstandingofthestudents’reasoningprocessesandexperiencesasregardsaparticulargameplaysession.

TeacherInterview FollowinggameplayandSocraticdialogue

Theseinterviewswererecorded,andnotesweretakentosupplementtherecording.Theinterviewersusedacombinationofopenandclosedquestions.

Interviewrecordingswereusedinordertounderstandaspectsoftheteachers’pedagogyandpedagogicalstrategieswithintheC2space,aswellasinvitingtheteachers’observationsacrossthe5categoriesofWHC.Theinterviewsalsohelpedusidentifyteachers’perceptionsoftheirstudents’co-creativitythroughtheirindividual,collaborativeandcommunalinteractionswithintheC2Space.

Co-creativitywheeldrawingoncreativitywheeldesign,butusingtheC2LearnWHCcategoriestopopulatethewheels.

Followinggameplay StudentswereaskedtotickwhichWHCcategoriestheydidabit,quiteabitoralotduringgameplay.

Forself-evaluationoftheWHCcategoriesidentifiedofgameplay.

Axes FollowinggameplayandcompletionofCo-creativitywheels

Studentswereaskedtoplottheirparticipationandpossibilitiesontheaxes

Forself-evaluationofparticipationandpossibilitiesofgameplay.


61

throughC2Learngameplay?Theanalysiswascarriedoutfortwoseparateagegroups,10–12yearolds(primaryfindings)and15–19yearolds(secondaryfindings)whicharepresentedseparatelybelow.

10 – 12 year oldsEachofthefivesub-categoriesofco-creativityisevidencedinturnforthisagegroup.Intermsoftheethicsandimpactsub-category,therewasasmallamountofdata(e.g.atleastthreerichinstancesinEnglishprimary1)acrossthethreesiteswhichsuggestedsomestudentswereexhibitingawarenessandconcernfornewideasaboutthegroup’svalues,exploringandactioningnewideasthatmakeadifference(wheeldatashowedstudentsmostlyratedthemselves‘quitealot’here)andcreatingnewassociationsbetweenideas.Insupportofthis,theEnglishprimary2teacherobserved:“theydidthinkaboutethicalissuesmorethroughthissystem”andtheGreekteachercommentedtothiseffecttoo.AlsoinGreece,withinthegeographyscenario,Sakis,astudentpointedoutthatgameplay“putsmeinthoughtprocess”and“it(gameplay)dependsonpeoples’imagination”,highlightingthatstudentswereexploringnewideas.AnEnglishprimary2studentwasalsoseensteeringtheethicaltrajectoryofthestory:“MeandMetalMarioaregoingtoshareit,we’regoingtostealitfromyou–I’mgoingtobelikeRobinHood,stealitfromthewealthygiveittothepoor”.

Across all three sites, dialogue was mostly used for debating ideas. In English primary 1,the teachernoticed that studentsweredebating theirco-constructedstory:“ithadengaged themenoughforthemtokeepgoing,discussing,andgoingoverwhatthingshadhappenedandwhattheymightchange”. InEnglishprimary1, rich instancesofdataanalysis indicated thatdialoguewasmoreevidentinthesecondpilotandwasusedforquestioningstorylineandcollaboration.Wheninterviewedtheteacherreported,“Ithinktherewasanelementof‘astorycan’tbecompetitive,’itcanbecollaborative”.Thiswasevidencedinself-assessmentdatawheremoststudentsthoughtthattheyworkedwithotherpeoplequitealot.IntheGreekPrimarySchool,theteacherconfirmedthatbythesecondpilot,dialoguewasoccurring.TherewasastrongrichinstanceinEnglishprimary2,whenJaboscussaid“I’mthewomanofwater.Wehadthisargumentlasttime.Tobe‘of’somethingmeanstobemadeofit.”Hewasposingquestions,andalsoattemptedtodrawtheresearcherintotheconversation,wideningthedialogue.

Acrossallthreesettingsanalysissuggestedthatcontrolwasevidencedthroughtakingchargeofthestory,individuallyorinteams,inordertogetthestudent’sending.InEnglishprimary1,fieldnotesindicatedthat:“Usingthesymbolthatwasinthemagicunicornhoofshebroughteveryonebacktolife”.Therewasasmallamountofdatatosuggestthatsomestudentsweremainlydecidingand

Table 4. Actual number of methods used in pilots

Location of Pilot

Research visit 1 Research visit 2 Supplementary data

Wheels Axes Socratic dialogue

Field notes

Video Teacher interview

Wheels Axes Socratic dialogue

Field notes

Video Teacher interview

Plenary notes

3 things

Englishprimary1

8 8 2 1 2 0 24 24 4 1 6 1 0 3

Englishprimary2

4 4 1 1 2 0 12 12 1 1 3 1 1 4

Englishsecondary

1

0 0 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 0 0

Englishsecondary

2

5 5 1 1 1 0 5 5 1 1 1 1 0 0

Greekprimary

24 24 1 1 2 1 22 22 1 1 2 1 2 0

Austriansecondary

12 12 1 2 1 0 12 12 1 3 1 1 0 0


62

actioningtochangethestoryperspective.Englishprimary2providedthelargestevidencecount,wherethechildrenwereenabledtobedecisive,regardlessofability,andthemethodstheyemployedseemtoevidencealevelofconfidencewhichtranscendedgameplayability.Forexample,theteachernotedthemcontrolling“continuity”and“re-engineeringtherulestomeettheirownends”.TheGreekdatashowsthissub-categoryas‘indevelopment’withtheteacherreporting,“Ithinkiftheyplayedmore,theywouldhavestartedtoseethoselinksalittlebitmoreclearly.Theirabilitytomanipulatetheeventstotheirownconclusion,Ithinkthatwouldhavegotbetterwithexperience”.Thisisanexampleofwheretheamountofactivitycarriedoutindifferentcountriesinfluencedtheanalysisoutcomewithincountriesdifferently.

Acrossallthreepilotsites,engagedactionwasmainlyevidencedviaimmersionwhereitwasobservedasstudentsbeingengagedthroughoutensuringtheirstoriesflowedfromonetoanother.TheEnglishprimary2teachernoted:“C2Learn-theyhavebeenengaged.They’vewantedtodoit”.Thiswasalsodemonstratedinarichinstanceregardingengagementleadingtosurprisingideas,whenChiChiinventedacard,sayingthatshehadforgottenheroriginalcards.Hercardwasparticularlyusefultoherinachievinghersecretending.Overallmostofthestudents,usingtheself-assessmenttoolsacrossthe3sites,ratedthemselvesonengagementandtakingrisksasquitealot.TheGreekteacher highlighted how students took risks when immersed in the VLE: “they tried to presentsomethingneweveniftherehadsomedifficulties”.Although,therewassomenegativeevidenceinthissub-category,wherestudentsacrosssitesshoweddisengagementin-betweenturns.

Regardinginterventionandre-framing,evidencesuggeststhatEnglishstudentswerecreatingconnectionsbetweenideas,developingnewperspectivesandsometimesgoingbeyondthematerialprovided;moreso inEnglishprimary2 than1.Forexample, inEnglishprimary1,Bobbysaid:“CanIsaywhothepersontalkingis?”ashewantedtochangethenarrativeperspectiveandBrianasked:“Shouldn’tTheElderWomanofWaterbeagainsttheGirlofFire?”inordertotrytochangethecollaborativestoryintoaconflictingone.InEnglishprimary2usingstimuliincreativeactivitywasevidencedwhenachildsawthecharacteronthecardinamorepersonalisedway,asthe‘windgrandma’ratherthantheoldwomanofwind’.Theauthoringoftheco-creativestoryitselfalsoappearedtostimulateimaginativethoughtprocesses.Theteacherbelievedthat“assistingwithcardsdoeshelpthemwhentheygetstuck…itstartsyourimaginationworking.”IntheGreekPrimarySchool,therewaslimitedevidenceofinterventionandreframing,buttheself-assessmenttoolsshowedthatstudentsdidbelievetheywereusingthestimulusalotorquitealottothinkinnewways.

For the10–12-year-oldsacrossall threecountries, all five sub-categorieswereevidenced,althoughtodifferentdegrees.Thissuggeststhatforthisagegroupco-creativity,andthereforeWHC,wasmanifestingduringinteractionwithinandaroundtheproject’sVLEthroughgameplay,despitetheshortenedpilotingperiodsandtechnologicalissues.Thispointisstrengthenedbythefactthatevidenceistriangulatedaboveforeachcategorynotonlyacrosscountrybutalsoacrossthevarietyofdatasources,includingstudents’self-assessment.Havingsaidthis,thereweresomesub-categorieswithinwhichGreekstudentsdidnotshowasmuchdataasEnglish,namelyinterventionandre-framing,withdialogue,andbeingincontrolincreasingacrosstimeintheGreeksite.Perhapstobeanticipated,therewaslittleevidenceofjourneysofbecomingorquietrevolutionsintheprimarydatabecauseofthecurtailedlengthofthepilotsandcontinuoustechnicalchallengesoftheC2Spaceonthetablets.Thiswillbeconsideredfurtherinthediscussionandconclusion.

15 – 19 year oldsAcrossallthreecountries’pilotseachofthefivesub-categoriesofco-creativityisevidencedforthisagegroup.

Uponanalysis,thedataevidencedthatthe15to19-year-oldswerethinkingabouttheconsequencesoftheirideasinregardstoethicsandimpact.Englishsecondary1teacher’scommentssupportedthis:“Somestudentsweregivenaloverscardandtheyweresuggestingthatperhapstherapistandthevictimendedupbecomingloversandpartners”,“Thatwasquiteachallengingidea”.InEnglish


63

secondary2,asmallamountofevidenceintherichaudioinstancesanalysisshowedstudentstoneddowntheirsuggestionwhichwasoriginallymockinganotherstudent.Alsointhissite’sstudentself-assessmentco-creativitywheels,thestudentsratedthemselvesasquitealotoralotforexploringnewideasandmakingapositivedifference.AustrianstudentswroteabouthowhumankindtreatstheenvironmentwhichisindicativeoftheuniqueactivitieswithinwhichtheirC2Learnexperiencetookplace,andwhichinfluencedtheirtrajectory.Itwasextremelyimportantforthemtogenerateastorylineaboutdestructionbutalsoaboutinjusticeandprejudicesagainstpeoplewhofightthesystem.Demonstratingthis,Andrewsaid:“Maybeweshouldwritethatpoliticsandhumansbecomemoreradical,excludeeveryoneandtheartistswanttodosomethingagainstit.”Theendofthestudents’storytookafirmstandagainstthewaymankindtreatstheenvironment,withonestudentsaying:“Ireallybelievethatanintenseendingcanhavemoreimpact.”

TherewassomeEnglishdataandnumerousAustrianexamplesofstudentsengagingindialogueviadebating,negotiatingconflictandposingquestions.Teacherinterviewanalysisevidencedstudentsbeingrespectfulandreflective,ratherthanopenlyconflicting:“theywererespectingeachother’sideasandopinions,theyseemedtobethinkingmore,reflectingmore”.InEnglishsecondary2,therewasevidencefromrichinstancesofdialogueinallpilotssupportedbyfieldnoteswhichstated:“…discussiontookplacebetweenafewofthestudents”and“allstudentstookpartinthediscussionofthestory”,andwhichalsorecognisedconflictor“banter”asadriver.InEnglishsecondary2self-assessmentwheels,thestudentsratedthemselvesasworkingontheirownandwithothersquitealotoralot.Austriansecondarydataexamplesalsoevidencedthisinthefollowingdiscussion:

• Andrew:“Okay.Wehavetocomeupwithanend.Maybetheforestisbeingdestroyedbyatornado.”

• Annette:“Theforestwascutdown.”• Francine:“No,that’stooapocalyptic.”• Andrew:“Yes,that’strue.”

Students debated different ideas and dialogued to consider consequences, and come to acollaborativeend,where,asFrancineput it:“The ideaswerecomingfromeveryone”.Theheadteacherconfirmedthatstudentssometimeshadstrongdebates,butalsopointedoutthattheylistenedandrespectedopinions.

Therewasasmallamountofdatatosuggestthatstudentsweretakingcontrol.Englishsecondary1showedaverysmallamountofevidence(basedaroundonefilmrichinstance)ofstudentstakingchargeofthecreativeprocess,withfieldnotesidentifyingonestudentusingcontroltoputastoptothedirectionofthestorywhereonestudentwantedtoeliminatethedilemmabykillingoffallinvolvedapartfromtheinnocentbaby.Englishsecondary2dataalsosawstudentstakingcontrolviatypingandwhosestorylinestheychosetoincludewhereoneplayertookcontroltotype,whileanotherothertookcontrolofthewordswhichwerebeingadded.However,fieldnotesalsoshowsthisstudentgivingthecontroltoothers:“Thisstudentalsostartedtoincludeothersmorebyaskingthemtocontributeindividually,thuslettinggoofthecontrolofthedirectionofthegame”.InEnglishsecondary2,ontheco-creativityself-assessmentwheels,moststudentsratedthemselvesasbeingincontrolquitealot.Austriandatashowedgirlsandboyssuccessfullyleadingatdifferenttimes.Theirheadteachernotedthat“theclassleaders,thegroupleaders…setthetone.”Andthefieldnotesbackedthisupwhere“Thereisanobviousleaderinthegroupwiththeboys.”

DatasuggestthestudentswereengagedintheVLEacrossallthreepilotsites.InEnglishsecondary1,datafromfieldnotesillustratedstudentswereengagedwithC2Learn’sgamesduringtheirturnsandshowedagoodunderstandingof the storyline.Rich film instancesalso showedonestudentsometimescomingupwithsurprisingideaswhenimmersedin thegame.In interview,a teacherconfirmedthis:“theyseemedtobethinkingmore,reflectingmoreperhaps”.ImmersioninEnglishsecondary2alsoappearedtobemaintainedthroughconflictandbanter,asevidencedinfieldnotes


64

wheretheywereengagedinstoryconstructionmostofthetimebutalsousedthestoryintheirbanterinbetweenturns.Englishsecondary2self-assessmentwheelsillustratedstudentsthoughttheywereengagedandtakingrisksquitealot.Austriandataalsoshowedimmersionfromanumberofsourceswhereitresultedinsurprisingideas,suchasatreebeingthenarratorofthestoryinsteadofusingahuman’sperspective.TheHeadteachercommented:“Theyengagedveryheavilyinit…theywereverymuchpartofthewholeprocessandveryinvolved.”AlthoughAustriandataalsoshowedsomeissueswithimmersion–bothstudentsnotengagingwithtabletsbecauseoftechnicalities,andnotwantingtoengageoutoftheircomfortzone,forexampleindance.ThisisanotherexamplewheretheactivityinfocusinfluencedtheAustriandata,perhapsintermsoflevelsofimmersionbecauseofthedisciplinebeingtaught.Regardingsustainedimmersion,thestudentsthemselvessaidthatbeingpartofagroupmadeiteasiertoconcentrate.However,bothteachersandresearchersreporteddifferentfindingssayingthat:“Theydistractedeachother.”

Inthethreesites,therewasasmallamountofdatathatsuggestsstudentswereusinginterventionandreframing,andwereawareofhowitfunctioned.Evidenceshowedstudentswereinterveningandreframinginordertodevelopanewperspectiveonthechallenge,whichledtothecreationofsurprisingideasthatweresometimesethicallydriven.IntheEnglishsecondaryschools,richfilminstancesshowedastudentreframingaperspectiveonrapeinasurprisingandethicallychallengingway,consideringtheconsequencesofa“rapist…return[ing]tolookafterthebaby”.Therewasaverysmallamountofre-framingevidenceinfieldnoteswhereitwasnotedstudentsreframedwordstofitinwiththeirowndirectionofthestoryandaddedtheirownwordsinunusualways.Thiswasalso reinforced in rich instanceswherea student reframed theaccumulationofhisown ideas togenerateamorecreativeentry.TheEnglishco-creativityself-assessmentwheeldatashowedmixedevidenceofreframingfromalottoalittlebit.AustriansecondarydataevidencedinterventionandreframingthroughtheSocraticDialogues.Forexample,studentsmentionedonestoryturningpointandstatedthattheendingwasthemostimportantaspect.Oneparticipantwantedthe‘wholeuniversetodecay’whilstothersthoughtthiswas“toodramatic”sayingthat:“theearthdyingdoesn’tmeanthateverythingelseisdyingaswell”.Theyallagreedonthatmomentbeingthemostcrucialpartofthestoryandwereveryreflectiveabouttheirpersonalopinions.

Aswith the10–12yearolds, for the15 -19yearolds across the three sites all five sub-categorieswereevidenced,althoughagaintodifferentdegrees.Fortheseolderstudentsco-creativity,andthereforeWHCtoo,wasmanifestingusingtheC2LearnVLEandindialogues,gameplayanddiscussionsoutsidetheVLE.Thispointisstrengthenedbecausetheevidenceistriangulatedforeachcategoryacrossthevarietyofdatasources,includingstudentself-assessment.Andevenmoresothantheprimarydata,thesecondarydatafrombothcountriesisstronglytriangulated.ThisisperhapsbecauseoftheintensityoftheAustrianpilotstructureallowingforanindepthC2Learnexperiencewhichmanifestedalltheco-creativitycategories.However,aswiththeprimarydata,overallthereisalmostnoevidenceofjourneysofbecoming,andinturnnoquietrevolutions.

dISCUSSIoN

Acrossallthreecountries,thesepilotswereundertakenusingbothpaper-basedanddigitalprototypes.Thegoalwasforallfinalphasepilotstobewhollydigitalandlonger,butasexplainedearlierthiswasnotpossible.And,yet,thecollecteddataprovidesanunderstandingofhowparticipantsmanifestco-creativityincludingfledglingWHCthroughC2Learn’s4Scribes,CreativeStories,ExploreandExpandandIconoscopegames.

Approachestounderstandinghowchildrenandyoungpeoplemanifestco-creativityinVLEsisnew.C2LearnhasproposedandnowillustratedacrossthreeEuropeancountriesthatco-creativityincluding fledglingWHCcanmanifest forchildrenandyoungpeople ina specificallydesignedVLE.Forthe10–12yearoldsacrossallthreecountries,allfiveco-creativitysub-categorieswereevidenced,withinterventionandre-framingevidencedtheleast.Thisindicatesthatfortheyounger


65

childrentheywereattendingtoethicsandimpact,engagingindialogue,feelingliketheywereincontrol,andengaginginaction.Ifweseereframingasastagewhichmightresultfromthesecombinedprocesses,thisperhapsexplainswhythiswasleastevidenced.Childrendidnotreachthispoint,nordidtheyachievejourneysofbecoming.The15–19yearoldsmoreconsistentlymanifestedallfivesub-categories.ThisisperhapsbecausetheyareolderandmorequicklyabletoengagewithC2Learn’scomplexities,aswellastheAustrianstudentsexperiencingaweek-longintenseproject;anexampleofdifferenttimelinesinfluencingdatamanifestationindifferentcountries.Evensotheyalsodidnotachievejourneysofbecoming.

So,althoughWHCwasnotfullyevidencedthroughto journeysofbecomingandcombinedquietrevolutions,wewouldarguethatthegamefuldesignoftheVLEdidfosterco-creativity,whichincludesthecoreelementsofWHC.OtherstudiesshowedthatspecificelementsoftheVLE,suchas4scribesenableddimensionsofco-creativity,suchasco-determinedactions(Schmoelz,inpress).Intime,withfurtherdevelopmentandtestingover longerperiods, theC2LearnVLEis thereforehighlylikelytohavethecapacitytofosterfully-developedco-creativityandWHC.ItisintendedthatthroughtheC2Space’sstructureofchallenges(e.g.4Scribes),buildingintoachievingcreativemissionswithinwiderquests,thereistheframeworktobuildindividual’sjourneysofbecomingviacollaborativeandcommunalactivitiesandachievementstodevelopVLE-basedquietrevolutions.

Thefindings then,contributenewunderstandingsofcreativitywithinVLE’s.HowcantheycontributetounderstandingWHCitself?Thisisthefirsttimetheconcepthasbeenconsideredwithindigitalenvironments,whichisparticularlyinterestingasWHCwasfirstconceptualisedinadanceeducationcontext(Chappelletal.,2011).WHCiscertainlymanifesteddifferentlyinC2Learncomparedtoartscontexts. InC2Learn theemphasisoncontrolvia forexample4-Scribes turn-takingviaasharedtablet,isstrongerthaninartscontextswhereitislessaboutcontrolandmoreaboutdistributedleadership(e.g.Chappell&Swinford,inpress).Butunderstandingthecreativepowerdynamicsisstilltheimportantcommonalitybetweenthetwocontexts–reinforcingthisasakeycomponentofWHCwhateverkindofcontextitisbeingconsideredwithin.InC2Learnthedialogueispresentbutonlypartiallyembodied,incontrasttoChappelletal.(2012)andCraft(2013)’soriginaldiscussionsofWHCwhichemphasisetheimportanceofembodimentperse.Andyetinterestinglybecauseofthemixedanalogue/digitaldesignofC2Learn,embodimenthasstillbeenapartof thedialoguesevidencedintherichinstancesabove.Theyhavenotremainedwhollyverbalordigitallywritten.ThisisperhapsanimportantnewpointbothforunderstandingcreativityinVLEs,andunderstandingwhatitmeanstonurturecreativitygroundedinthebodyinadigitalenvironment.Whatisclearisthatembodiedengagementperseispossibleinmixeddigital/analoguecreativeprocesses.Thisisanimportantlessonfortheongoingdesignofco-creativitynurturingwithandthroughco-creativeparticipationinVLEs,aswellasunderstandingthatWHC,withembodimentatitscore,neednotbelimitedtodisciplinesormodesoflearningwhicharetraditionallymorefocusedonthebody.

InC2Learn,wehavenotseenfully-developedmakingandbeingmade,viatheinteractionbetweenidentityandcreativity(Chappelletal.,2012)mostprobablybecauseoftheunavoidablyshortenedpilotperiod.However,thestrengthofevidenceforbothagegroupsdemonstratingawarenessofethicsandimpact,thinkingabouttheconsequencesoftheirdecisionsonthosearoundthemistelling.Makingandbeingmadecomesfromanembodied,oftenfeltexperienceofempathisingwithothers(Reid,1980)–empathisingtoconsiderimpactandchangecreativedecisionsaccordinglyisevidencedhere.Onthesegrounds,wewouldarguethatwithlongerinteractionwithintheC2LearnVLE,itishighlylikelythatmakingandbeingmadecouldoccur.ConsideringtheethicalityofcreativeimpactshasbeenpositedasanotherkeycomponentofWHCwhateverthecontext.Returningtoargumentsthatweshouldpushagainstmarketisednotionsofcreativitytoincorporateethicsgroundedinmakingandbeingmade(Chappell,2008,2011;Craft,2013),thesefindingsshowthatthiscouldbepossibleindigital environments.VLEsaremoreoftencharacterised incompetitiveandconsumer-driventerms.Andherewecanargue,withevidencefromthreeEuropeancountries,thatengagementin


66

educationalVLEscanbedrivenbyethicalcreativitywhichinturnengagespositivelywithchildrenandyoungpeople’sidentityformation.

Thereisnodoubtthatthisstudyacrossthreecountrieshasitslimitations.Thisisinpartduetothefactthatsomeofthefindingsemergefromheproject’spaper-basedprototypeswhenthedigitalgamesthemselvescouldnotbeaccessesinsomeschoolcontextsduetofactorsoutsidetheproject’scontrol.Furthermore,thenumberofstudentswhoparticipatedinthestudyusingC2Learn’sgames,acrossthethreeagespansislimited,makingitdifficulttomakesubstantialclaimsaboutthesuitabilityofactivitieswithVLEstofostertoWHC.Thatiswhywehavecalled,whathasbeenevidenceda‘fledgling’WHC.InthissenseC2Learn’sVLEorC2Spacedoesevidenceseemstobepromisingbecausethefindingsdoillustratestudentshavedevelopedmorenuancedunderstandingsofcreativitythroughparticipationwithinadigitalenvironment.Thisinturnsillustrates,thattheconceptofWHChasthepotentialtochangehowstudentscreatewithVLEs.

CoNCLUSIoN

ThisarticlehasprovideddatafrompilotstudiesinAustria,EnglandandGreece,inbothprimaryandsecondarysettingsthatinvolvestodate, thelargeststudentpopulationengagingwithaVLEenvironmentgamefullydesignedtofosterco-creativity.Despite technologicalproblems, thedatademonstrates co-creativity including fledgling WHC across all sites within varied educationalactivities,withtheindicatedpotentialthattheVLEscouldnurturejourneysofbecomingandquietrevolutionsintime.Itthereforemakesanewcontributionbothintermsofarticulatingandevidencingco-creativitywithinVLEs,andevidencingWHCinanewcontextandhoningitscoreelementswhichmanifestacrosscontexts.

Steppingbacktogainawiderviewofcreativityineducation,thesefindingsalsodemonstrateyoungpeoplecreatingtogetherinVLEsresponsiblyandcapably;anddifferentlytothatwhichwouldnormallybeanticipatedinmorecompetitivelystructuredVLEs.AsCraft(2013)argueditshouldbepossibleinternationallytodecouplecreativityfromamarketisedagendathatseesyoungpeopleasatriskandvulnerablewhendigitallyengaged.C2Spacecreatesadigitalenvironmentwhichcanbeintegratedwithanaloguepedagogywithinwhichyoungpeoplecanpotentiallymakeandco-createtheirowncollectivechangeinresponsetochallenges.ThisisCraft’s(2013)argumentinaction.OneofthemostrecentC2Learnquestsfocusesonthequestion‘Whatisthefutureofcreativityinschools?’(seeFigure2).ThepresenceofthisdemonstratesthatC2Spacemightbeusedevenmoreexplicitlytocontributetoalteringthepathofoureducationalfutures.Itmightnotonlyactasacurriculumteachingtoolfornurturingco-creativity,butmightalsohelpstudentsandteacherstoquestiontheverystructures(digitalandanalogue)withinwhichtheyareworking.AlthoughonlyinitsinfancythisapproachtoWHC-fuelledVLEsthereforehaspotentialbothasacreativeteachingandlearningtool,andasapowerfulimplementforeducationalchange.

ACKNoWLEdGMENT

TheC2LearnprojecthasbeensupportedbytheEuropeanCommissionthroughtheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7),undergrantagreementno.318480(November2012–October2015).Weareextremely grateful to colleagues across the consortium for their collaborative work on bringingC2Spaceintobeingdespitethechallengesweallfaced.WearealsogratefultothoseteachersandstudentsacrossEuropewhoworkedwithusonpilotingbothpaperanddigitalprototypes,andfor


67

theirvaluablefeedback.Finally,thispaperisdedicatedtoouresteemedandmuchlovedcolleague,ProfessorAnnaCraft,whoverysadlydiedduringthisproject.Whilewemissworkingwithher,wearegladtobeabletocontinueourcollaborativeworkthroughpublicationssuchasthis.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review, September/October, 76–87.PMID:10185433

Apperley, T., & Walsh, C. S. (2012). What digital games and literacy have in common: A heuristic forunderstandingpupilsgamingliteracy.Literacy,46(3),115–122.doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00668.x

Banaji,S.,Burn,A.,&Buckingham,D.(2010).The rhetorics of creativity: A review of the literature(2nded.).London:ArtsCouncilEngland.

Beavis,C.,Bradford,C.,O’Mara,J.,&Walsh,C.S.(2009).Researchingliteracyinthedigitalage:Learningfromcomputergames.English in Education.43,162-175.DOI:ISSN:0425-049410.1111/j.1754-8845.2009.01035.x

Burnard,P.,Craft,A.,&Grainger,T.(2006).Documentingpossibilitythinking:Ajourneyofcollaborativeenquiry.International Journal of Early Years Education,143(3),243–262.doi:10.1080/09669760600880001

Chappell,K.(2006).Creativity within late primary age dance education: Unlocking expert specialist dance teacher’s conceptions and approaches. Ph.D. Thesis; Laban, London. Retrieved from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?documentid=8627

Chappell,K.(2008).Towardshumanisingcreativity.UNESCO Observatory E-Journal,1(3).Retrievedfrom:http://education.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1105786/chappell.pdf

Chappell,K.(2011).Journeysofbecoming:humanisingcreativity.InK.Chappell,L.Rolfe,A.Craft,&V.Jobbins(Eds.),Close Encounters: Dance Partners for Creativity(pp.89–100).StokeonTrent:Trentham.

Chappell,K.,Craft,A.,Rolfe,L.,&Jobbins,V.(2012).Humanisingcreativity:Valuingourjourneysofbecoming.International Journal of Education & the Arts,13(8),1–35.

Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.withRolfe,L.&Jobbins,V.(2011).Notjustsurvivingbutthriving.InK.Chappell,L.Rolfe,A.Craftetal.(Eds.),CloseEncounters:DancePartnersforCreativity(pp.143-160).StokeonTrent:Trentham.

Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.(2011).Creativelearningconversations:Producinglivingdialogicspaces.Educational Research,53(3),363–385.doi:10.1080/00131881.2011.598663

Chappell,K.,Craft,A.,&Walsh,C.(2014).C2Learn Learning Design for CER: Deliverable 2.2.2.Retrievedfromhttp://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D2_2_2_Learning_Design_for_CER.pdf

Chappell,K.,&Greenwood,M.(2013).“This is You”, Evaluation of Includance: English Strand (Interreg funded).Plymouth:AttikDance.

Chappell,K.&Jobbins,V.(2015).Empoweringcreativepartnerships:expandingteachingpossibilities.InDance Education around the World: Perspectives on Dance, Young People and Change(pp.149-160).

Chappell,K.,Slade,C.,Greenwood,M.,&Craft,A.,withBlack,A.(Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication).CREAT-IT:Anewpedagogicalframeworkforpartneringtheartsandscienceinscienceeducation.Research in Science Education.

Chappell,K.,Slade,C.,&Phillips,A.(2015,July).NextChoreography:transformativepotentialforyoungpeopleininterdisciplinarychoreographicpractice.Presented at thedance and the Child international conference.

Chappell,K.,&Swinford,E.(inpress).Artfulhumanisingplay?ImprovisationinEarlyYearsdance.InV.Midgelow(Ed.),Oxford University Press Handbook of Improvisation in Dance.

Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,&Morrison,K.(2007).Research Methods in Education.London:Routledge.

Craft,A.(2002).Creativity and early years education. A lifewide foundation.London:Continuum.


68

Craft,A.(2011).Creativity and Education Futures. Learning in a Digital Age.Stoke-on-Trent:TrenthamBooksLimited.

Craft,A.(2012).Childhoodinadigitalage:Creativechallengesforeducationalfutures.London Review of Education,10(2),173–190.doi:10.1080/14748460.2012.691282

Craft,A.(2013).Childhood,possibilitythinkingandwise,humanisingeducationalfutures.International Journal of Educational Research,61,126–134.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.005

Craft,A.(2014).PossibilityThinking:Fromwhatistowhatmightbe.InS.Robson(Ed.),Flannery Quinn, S. The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding.London:Routledge.

Craft,A.,Chappell,K.,&Best,P.(2007).AnalysisofthecreativityActionResearchAwardsTwoProgramme.Leeds:CapeUK.

Craft,A.,Chappell,K.,&Walsh,C.(2013).C2Learn Learning Design: Deliverable 2.2.2.Retrievedfromhttp://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D2_2_2_Learning_Design_for_CER.pdf

Craft, A., McConnon, L., & Matthews, A. (2012). Creativity and child- initiated play. Thinking Skills and Creativity,71,48–61.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2011.11.005

Cremin,T.,Burnard,P.,&Craft,A.(2006).Pedagogyandpossibilitythinkingintheearlyyears.Thinking Skills and Creativity,12(2),108–119.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.07.001

Cremin,T.,Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.(2013).Reciprocitybetweennarrative,questioningandimaginationintheearlyandprimaryyears:Examiningtheroleofnarrativeinpossibilitythinking.Thinking Skills and Creativity,9,126–134.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.11.003

Cremin,T.,Glauert,E.,Craft,A.,Compton,A.,&Stylianidou,F.(2015).CreativeLittleScientists:Exploringpedagogical synergiesbetween inquiry-basedandcreativeapproaches inEarlyYearsscience. International Journal of Primary,Elementary and Early Years Education,43(4),404–419.

Deterding,S.(2012).Paidia as Paideia: From Game-Based Learning to a Life Well-Played.Keynote.GLS8.0.

Deterding,S.(2013).Skill atoms as design lens for user-centred gameful design. CHI’13 EA.ACMPress.

Deterding,S.,Björk,S.,Nacke,L.E.,Dixon,D.,&Lawley,E.Designing(2013).Gamification:Creatinggamefulandplayfulexperiences.InProceedingsofCHI’13.ACMPress.

Dimaraki,E.,&Koulouris,P.(Eds.).(2013).C2Learn scenarios, use cases and user requirements: Deliverable 5.1.3. Retrieved from http://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D5.1.3_C2Learn_Scenarios_Use_Cases_User_Requirements.pdf

Dimaraki,E.,Schmoelz,A.,&Koulouris,P.(2013).ScenariosasPedagogicalDevices:DesigningActivitiesforGame-BasedLearning.InL.G.Chova,A.L.Martínez&I.C.Torres(Eds.),ICERI 2013. Conference proceedings(pp.3203-3209).Seville:IATED.

Edmond,C.(2005).The creativity wheel: assessing creative development teacher resource. Creative Partnerships.ArtsCouncil.

Edwards-Groves,C.(2012).InteractiveCreativeTechnologies:Changinglearningpracticesandpedagogiesinthewritingclassroom.Australian Journal of Language.

Eladhari,M.P.,Lopes,P.L.,&Yannakakis,G.N.(2014).Interweavingstorycoherenceandplayercreativitythroughstory-makinggames.InProceedings of theInternational Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling(pp.73-80).Springer.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12337-0_7

Foster,P.(2006).Observational Research. InR.Sapsford&V.Jupp(Eds.),Data Collection and analysis(2nded.,pp.58–93).London,England:SAGEPublicationsLtd.doi:10.4135/9781849208802.n3

Frechette,J.(2006).‘Cyber-censorshiporcyber-literacy?Envisioningcyber-learningthroughmediaeducation.InD.Buckingham&R.Willett (Eds.),Digital Generations: Children, Young People and New Media (pp.149–171).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

John-Steiner,V.(2000).Creative collaboration.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.


69

Koukourikos,A.,Karampiperis,P.,&Karkaletsis,V.(2016).Creativestories:Modellingtheprincipalcomponentsofhumancreativityovertextsinastorytellinggame.Digital Culture & Education,8(2),118–135.

Kvale,S.(1996).Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.ThousandOaks,California:Sage.

Liapis,A.,Yannakakis,G.N.,Alexopoulos,C.,&Lopes,P. (2016).CanComputersFosterHumanUsers’Creativity?TheoryandPraxisofMixed-InitiativeCo-Creativity.Digital Culture & Education,8(2),136–153.

Lincoln,Y.S.,&Egon,G.G.(1985).Naturalistic Inquiry.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.

Newburn,T.(1996).Backtothefuture?InJ.Pilcher&S.Wagg(Eds.),Youthcrime,youthjusticeandtherediscoveryof‘authoritarianpopulism’(pp.67-76).London:FalmerPress.

Nicholson,S.(2012).AUser-CenteredTheoreticalFrameworkforMeaningfulGamification.PaperpresentedatGames+Learning+Society8.0,Madison,WI.

Redmond, C. (2005). The creativity wheel: assessing creative Development teacher resource. Creative Partnerships.ArtsCouncil.

Robinson,K.(2015).Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education.NewYork:Viking.

Sawyer,K.(2003).Group Creativity: Music, Theatre, Collaboration.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Scaltsas,T.(2016).Brainminingemotivelateralsolutions.Digital Culture & Education,8(2),106–118.

Scaltsas,StenningandAlexopoulos(2014).Creative Emotional Reasoning:Deliverable2.1.2.Retrievedfromhttp://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D_2_1_2_Creative_Emotional_Reasoning.pdf

Schmoelz,A.(2016).ErnsthafteSpielealsAnlassfürKo-Kreativität?InJ.Haag,J.Weißenböck,W.Gruber,&C.F.Freisleben-Teuscher(Eds.),Game Based Learning. Dialogorientierung & spielerisches Lernen analog und digital(pp.107–118).BrunnamGebirge:IKON.

Schmoelz,A.(inpress).OnCo-CreativityinPlayfulClassroomActivities.Creativity. Theories - Research – Applications,4(1).

Sefton-Green,J.,Thomson,P.,Jones,K.,&Bresler,L.(Eds.).(2011).TheRoutledgeInternationalHandbookofCreativeLearning.London:Routledge.

Spencer,E.,Lucas,B.,&Claxton,G.(2012).Progression in Creativity: developing new forms of assessment – Final Research Report.Newcastle:CreativityCultureandEducation.

Stenning,K.,&Michell,L.(1985).Learninghowtotellagoodstory:Thedevelopmentofcontentandlanguageinthetellingofonetale.Discourse Processes,8(3),261–279.doi:10.1080/01638538509544617

Stenning,K.,Schmoelz,A.,Wren,H.,Stouraitis,E.,Scaltsas,T.,Alexopoulos,C.,&Aichhorn,A.(2016).Socraticdialogueasateachingandresearchmethodforco-creativity?Digital Culture & Education,8(2),154–168.

Tapscott,D.(1996).The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Pilcher,J.,&Wagg,S.(1996).Thatcher’sChildren?Politics,ChildhoodandSocietyinthe1980sand1990s.London:Falmer.

VanManen,M.(1990).Researching Lived Experience. Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Walsh,C. (2007).Creativity as capital in the literacy classroom:youth asMultimodaldesigners.Literacy,41(2),79-85.

Walsh,C.(2010).Systems-basedliteracypractices:Digitalgamesresearch,gameplayanddesign.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy Education,33(1),24–40.

Walsh,C.,Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.(2017).Thepotentialforfosteringwisehumanisingcreativity(WHC)inadigitalgamingandsocialnetworkingenvironment.Thinking Skills and Creativity.


70

Walsh,C.S.,Craft,A.,Chappell,C.&Koulouris,P.(2014).Gamefullearningdesigntofosterco-creativity?In.M.Baguley(Ed.),International Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE). “Speaking back through Research”,Brisbane,Australia.

ENdNoTES

1 TheC2LearnprojecthasbeensupportedbytheEuropeanCommissionthroughtheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7),undergrantagreementno.318480(November2012–October2015).ThecontentsofthiswebsitedonotrepresenttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommissionandtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmaybemadeoftheinformationcontainedtherein.Responsibilityfortheinformationandviewssetoutinthiswebsiteliesentirelywiththeauthors.©C2LearnConsortium,2012-2015.


71

APPENdIX

Figure 6. C2Learn Creativity Wheel: Younger Students


72

Figure 7. C2Learn Creativity Wheel: Older Students

Please recommend this Publication to your librarianFor a convenient easy-to-use library recommendation form, please visit:http://www.igi-global.com/IJGBL

Volume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017 • ISSN: 2155-6849 • eISSN: 2155-6857An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association

all inquiries regarding iJgbl should be directed to the attention of:Patrick Felicia, Editor-in-Chief • [email protected]

all manuscriPt submissions to iJgbl should be sent through the online submission system:http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/titlesubmission/newproject.aspx

Adaptive games design for game-based learning • Design of educational games for people with disabilities • Educational video games and learning management systems • Game design models and design patterns for game-based learning • Instructional design for game-based learning • Integration and deployment of video games in the classroom • Intelligent tutoring systems and game-based learning • Learning by designing and developing video games • Learning styles, behaviors and personalities in educational video games • Mobile development and augmented reality for game-based learning • Motivation, audio and emotions in educational video games • Role of instructors • Virtual worlds and game-based learning

Coverage and major topiCsThe topics of interest in this journal include, but are not limited to:

The mission of the International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL) is to promote knowledge pertinent to the design of Game-Based Learning environments, and to provide relevant theoretical frameworks and the latest empirical research findings in the field of Game-Based Learning. The main goals of IJGBL are to identify, explain, and improve the interaction between learning outcomes and motivation in video games, and to promote best practices for the integration of video games in instructional settings. The journal is multidisciplinary and addresses cognitive, psychological and emotional aspects of Game-Based Learning. It discusses innovative and cost-effective Game-Based Learning solutions. It also provides students, researchers, instructors, and policymakers with valuable information in Game-Based Learning, and increases their understanding of the process of designing, developing and deploying successful educational games. IJGBL also identifies future directions in this new educational medium.

mission

Ideas For specIaL Theme Issues may Be suBmITTed To The edITor(s)-In-chIeF

international Journal of game-based learning

call for articles

wise humanising creativityvuir.vu.edu.au › 36054 › 1 › chappel ijgbl 7(4) article 2.pdf ·...

Documents