, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 41–52 | Cite as

Build-A-Bug Workshop: Designing a Learning Experience with Emerging Technology to Foster Creativity

  • Tonia A. DousayEmail author
  • Jennifer L. Weible
Original Paper


This collective case study uses a design-based research approach to investigate the role of 3D pens, an emerging technology, in fostering creativity during a lesson on biomes, genetics, and heredity with learners in six classes of 4th and 5th grade students from rural Michigan and Idaho. Data analyzed included video of the classroom lessons, student surveys, student created artifacts (planning grids, sketches, photos of their 3D bugs), and student created Flipgrid reflections. We used a collective case of three cases encompassing nine students with self-reported high, median/mean, and low creativity scores to investigate how these scores and creative products aligned. Three major themes emerged across and within the cases: aspects of originality were found in all products, positive and negative aspects of technology use, and affect towards the activity. The results of this study offer understandings into design of activities to foster creative perception and production in the classroom.


Emerging technology Teaching for creativity Creative product Design based research Collective case 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent/verbal assent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. I. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4(1), 58–66. Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. Scholar
  3. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35. Scholar
  4. Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83–114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148–153. Scholar
  6. Dousay, T. A. (2018). Designing for creativity in interdisciplinary learning experiences. In K. A. Persichitte, A. Suparman, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Educational technology to improve quality and access on a global scale (pp. 43–56). New York: Springer. Scholar
  7. Edwards, S. M. (2001). The technology paradox: efficiency versus creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 221–228. Scholar
  8. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. Scholar
  9. Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatch, J. V. (2016). Using engineering challenges to cultivate scientific creativity [unpublished master’s project]. University of Alberta. .
  11. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2015). Novel, effective, whole: toward a NEW framework for evaluations of creative products. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 455–478.Google Scholar
  12. Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. International Society for Technology in Education (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from
  14. Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: the role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 247–258. Scholar
  15. Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31–39. Scholar
  17. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. Scholar
  18. Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.
  19. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Creativity in the schools: Renewed interest and promising new directions. In P. A. Alexander, M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 165–175). New York: Routledge. Scholar
  20. Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. (2016). Understanding creativity in the schools. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems (pp. 133–153). Springer International Publishing.
  21. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel Retrieved from
  22. Lin, Y.-S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education—a conceptual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 02(03), 149–155. Scholar
  23. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2013). A NEW approach to defining and measuring creativity: rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century. TechTrends, 57(5), 18–21. Scholar
  24. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Sudbury, Suffolk. Retrieved from
  25. O’Donnell, A. M. (2004). A commentary on design research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 255–260. Scholar
  26. Pawlak, A. M. (2000). Fostering creativity in the new millennium. Research-Technology Management, 43(6), 32–35. Scholar
  27. Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rieber, L. P., & Welliver, P. W. (1989). Infusing educational technology into mainstream educational computing. International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455–472. Scholar
  30. Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 86(1), 79–105. Scholar
  31. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
  33. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design research. In J. Van den Akker, S. McKenney, K. Gravemeijer, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 67–90). London: Routledge. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Central Michigan UniversityMt. PleasantUSA

Personalised recommendations