Designing for Collaborative Creativity in STEM Education with Computational Media

  • Florence R. SullivanEmail author
  • Roberto G. Barbosa
Living reference work entry


In this chapter, we present the findings of our research about how middle school STEM students engage in collaborative creativity while working with computational media, including robotics and Scratch. The development of these media was based on Papert’s constructionist learning theory, and as such, they reify particular constructionist ideals. Our research findings are theoretically rooted in a sociocultural definition of creativity as collaborative dialogic inquiry which accounts for the role of influential voices in the classroom (real and reified) in the collaborative creativity of groups. In this way, we expand the notion of the collaborative group beyond the actual members of the group to include the mediating role of the materials, technologies, and teachers on student creativity. In addition to specific research findings, we report on the overarching factors that bear on students’ ability to enact collaborative creativity while problem solving with computational media. These factors revolve around the nature of the activity, the nature of social interaction, and the role of the tools in the environment.


Collaborative creativity STEM Robotics Scratch Constructionism Dialogism 


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragon, C., Poon, S., Monroy-Hernandez, A., & Aragon, D. (2009). A tale of two online communities: Fostering collaboration and creativity in scientists and children. In Proceedings of the creativity and cognition conference, Berkeley, CA. New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981/1930’s). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. S. (1973). The growth of representational processes in childhood. In J. M. Anglin (Ed.), Jerome S. Bruner: Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing (pp. 311–323). New York, NY: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Andrade, R. (1986). Three scientific world views and the covering law model. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science (pp. 19–41). London, UK: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dilon, T. (2003). Collaborating and creating on music technologies. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 893–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eteläpelto, A., & Lahti, J. (2008). The resources and obstacles of creative collaboration in a long-term learning community. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 226–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández-Cárdenas, J. M. (2008). The situated aspect of creativity in communicative events: How do children design web pages together? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fishkin, K. P. (2004). A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hennessey, B. A. (1995). Social, environmental, and developmental issues and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hipps, J. B. (2016, May 21). To write better code, read Virginia Woolf. New York Times. Retrieved from
  20. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice (pp. 1–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. The Teachers College Record, 19(4), 319–335.Google Scholar
  24. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2009). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discoveries as occasioned productions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 200–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y. J. (2011). Scratch: Multimedia programming environment for young gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legare, C. H., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81(3), 929–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2012). Tangibles for learning: A representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16, 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  33. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Resnick, M. (2004). Edutainment? no thanks, I prefer playful learning. Associazione Civita Report on Edutainment, 14. Retrieved from
  37. Resnick, M. (2008). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18–22.Google Scholar
  38. Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceeding of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children, ACM Press, pp. 117–122.Google Scholar
  39. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3/4), 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all [Electronic version]. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rojas-Drummond, S. M., Albarrán, C. D., & Littleton, K. S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2008). Group creativity in interaction: Collaborative referencing, remembering, and bridging. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 24(5), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic books.Google Scholar
  45. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills, and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  47. Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 49(2), 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sullivan, F. R., & Wilson, N. C. (2015). Playful talk: Negotiating opportunities to learn in collaborative groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 5–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sullivan, F. R., Hamilton, C. E., & Foley, A. (2012). Shared genre interests: How students learn together with Scratch. Paper presentation at the 33rd Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  50. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1991). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 161–192). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  51. Varenne, H. (1998). Local constructions of educational fact. In H. Varenne & R. McDermott (Eds.), Successful failure: The school America builds (pp. 183–206). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  52. Vass, E. (2007). Exploring processes of collaborative creativity – The role of emotions in children’s joint creative writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Federal University of Paraná – UFPR (Littoral Sector)MatinhosBrazil
  3. 3.Federal University of Paraná – UFPR (Littoral Sector)CuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations