Connecting creativity, technology, and communities of practice: Exploring the efficacy of technological tools in support of creative innovation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Creativity is increasingly becoming both an important issue in our rapidly changing society, and a popular subject of research. Research findings are beginning to conceptualize creativity as a much more complex process and studies are now focusing on the effects of social interaction and collaborative efforts on creativity as well as the potential impact of technology on collaboration and the creative process itself. This study looks at the influence of both collaboration and technology on the creative process to develop a clearer picture of the way in which they intersect. Due to the complexity of this study, two theoretical frameworks (Communities of Practice and Genex Framework) have been employed to inform the development of the study and to assist in contextualizing the results. To this end, this mixed-methods study collected data both from fashion design students enrolled in the third year of a Bachelor of Fashion Design program, and from their faculty. Data gathering methods included personal semi-structured interviews with both students (n = 13) and faculty (n = 9) and an online questionnaire with a larger group of students (n = 65). The research questions that framed this study focus on developing an initial understanding of the creative process as experienced by these students and then exploring in depth the ways that collaboration and working in community affect the creative process, as well as the impact of technology in supporting both creativity and collaboration. Results suggest that technology was indeed a valuable support in the creative process through its ability to facilitate particular kinds of collaborative practices, including brainstorming, developing and sharing ideas, and giving and receiving feedback. Such practices directly affected the creative process by enhancing the development of more professional sketches as well as facilitating the collaborative efforts of the members of the design community. Finally, the implications of these results for curriculum design and the appropriate choice of pedagogical approaches are discussed. The results presented will help to support curriculum designers and instructors who seek to encourage creative endeavour to focus on effective technological tools as well as strategies that promote collaboration and a sense of community in order to achieve these ends.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».