Evidence from technology-based creativity interventions

• Computer as a nanny. This role refers to the capacity of technology to facilitate the management of the creative process by providing a supportive environment and access to creative mindset. Technological tools ‘acting’ as nanny in the creative learning process may include applications that help monitor students’

creative work processes as well as offer electronic environments that afford engagement in creativity, or create conditions favourable to its expression.

• Computer as a pen-pal. Technology may also facilitate the act of communication and collaboration during the creative process, thus allowing learners to share perspectives, which potentially lead to creative insights. Such technologies range from chat, email, video and audio conferencing, and social media applications to more complex tools, such as co-working platforms that allow distant collaboration on shared objects. Thus, learners may take part in diversified, collaborative projects involving heterogonous teams.

• Computer as a coach. Computers as expert systems may be used to enhance student’ creativity by providing tutorials and exercises for advancing creativity-relevant cognitive process, strategies, and techniques.

• Computer as a colleague. Computers may work in partnership with learners in the creative process by actively contributing to the generation, evaluation, and refinement of ideas. Glăveanu et al. (2019) note that this role will be more emphasized in the future with the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in education.

The models presented here are based on theoretical associations rather than empirical evidence, nevertheless they provide useful frameworks to discuss the relationships between creativity, technology, and learning. Also, the reviewed theories suggest that digital technology can be applied to promote and expand students’ creativity, but knowledge about both the specific features of digital tools and the characteristics of creativity are necessary to make informed choices of how and when to use them.

technology-enhanced learning interventions on students’ creativity (Lai et al., 2018; Ma, 2006; Scott et al. 2004a, 2004b).

The effects of technology-based creativity interventions were examined in earlier meta-analyses already presented in this literature review (Scott et al. 2004a, 2004b; Ma, 2006). Overall, these studies provide meta-analytic evidence that creativity can be stimulated in technology-enhanced environments revealing large average effect sizes for technology-focused interventions: 0.77 (Scott et al., 2004b) and 0.63 (Ma, 2006). These positive results are nevertheless somewhat tempered by the fact they were derived from three early small scale studies which all proved to be successful in promoting students’

creativity (Clements, 1991; Howe, 1992; Kobe, 2001). Also, again the real question might not be whether technology-based creativity interventions are effective but rather what technologies and under what circumstances can become powerful creativity-enhancement tools. Clements (1991), for example found that programming with LOGO in project-based mathematics learning increased primary students’ divergent thinking both in the figural and the verbal domains, while composing texts with electronic editors had positive effect on their figural creativity. Howe (1992) reported that the use of computer graphic design software in an undergraduate design course significantly increased students’

creativity. Kobe (2001) showed that creative problem-solving training can effectively be applied to computer-based environments.

Findings of the recent research on technology-based creativity interventions have not been synthetised in systematic literature reviews or examined through meta-analytic methods. In what follows I will review experimental evidence after 2004 based on studies (1) employing single group, experimental and quasi-experimental designs, (2) providing a basic description of the interventions, and (3) emanating from the past 20 years, identified through hand-searching creativity¹ and educational technology-focused journals² as well as through forward-referencing key articles. Findings are synthetized along the seven themes found in literature of technology-enhanced creativity.

1Creativity Research Journal, Journal of Creative Behavior, Journal of Psychology, Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, Thinking Skills and Creativity, International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving

2 Computers and Education, Educational Technology Research and Development, Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, Journal of Research on Technology and Education

Computer-based creative thinking training

Recent research suggests that computer-based creative thinking training (similarly to its traditional counterpart) can be applied successfully to enhance students’ creativity-relevant abilities. For example, in an experimental study involving 24 participants Benedek, Fink, & Neubauer (2006) found that computer-based divergent thinking training positively affected participants’ ideational fluency when compared to traditional training. In another study conducted with 51 students and applying single group design, Robbins and Kegley (2010) recorded a significant increase in participants’ creative self-efficacy and divergent thinking after taking part in an online creative thinking course based on Thinkertoys (Michalko, 2006).

Computer-based problem-solving

There is some evidence to support the positive impact of computer-based problem-solving on creativity in the recent literature. In a quasi-experimental study conducted with 107 fourth grade students, Chang (2013) investigated the effects of an online problem-solving training integrated in the curricular area of technology on participants’ creativity.

During the intervention, the experimental groups received instructions online through a webpage which included the instructions to various tasks, animations, discussion boards, paint board, and links to various resources, while controls received traditional instruction on creative problem-solving based on lecturing, designing and making with non-digital tools. At the end of the intervention all participants were asked to construct their own electric model cars. Findings indicated that the intervention group outperformed the control both in terms of divergent thinking and creative production.

Digital game-based creativity enhancement

One recent avenue of research on creativity involves examining the impact of electronic game-based instruction to enhance students’ creativity as well as the effects of commercially available video games on young people’s creative capacities. Hsiao, Chang, Lin and Hu (2014), for example, evaluated the impact of digital game-based instruction on fifth-graders’ creativity and learning in a science course. During the game-based instruction the 27 students in the experimental group engaged in a virtual environment to find the best solutions to game tasks using their imaginative and creative

thinking, and to acquire knowledge in the field of science by collaborating and discussing with peers. This study demonstrated that digital game-based learning may facilitate students’ flow experiences and enhance creativity leading at the same time to better learning performance.

While there is a strong theoretical argument that gameplay should increase creativity directly, or mediated through its cognitive, social, emotional, and motivational benefits (Jackson & Games, 2105), empirical evidence on the effects of commercially available video games on players’ creativity is still scarce and inconclusive. Moffat, Crombie and Shabalina (2017) compared the effects of three types of videogames, a sandbox game (Minecraft), a puzzle game (Portal 2), and a first-person shooter (Serious Sam) on novice players’ divergent thinking skills. 21 undergraduate students in three groups played one of the games for 30-minutes. With findings revealing non-significant short-term effects on participants’ fluency and originality, but a significant effect for flexibility in case of Portal 2 and Serious Sam, the authors themselves concluded that further research is required to validate and interpret the results. In contrast, Gallagher and Grimm (2018) conducting a study with an all-female undergraduate sample found that playing Portal 2 improved participants’ creative and spatial abilities over the control group with those in the experimental condition also showing a growing interest and confidence in a variety of STEM-related activities. Also, there is some experimental evidence in the literature to suggest that the high level of arousal associated with playing certain types of video games such as the action game Light Heroes (Yeh, 2015) or the party game Dance Dance Revolution (Hutton & Sundar, 2010) might positively affect participants’ creativity as measured immediately after the game play.

Creative ideation enhancement through electronic brainstorming (EBS)

EBS is a widely researched area in the field of human-computer interaction.

Literature suggests that group brainstorming in electronic environments in certain cases may be more effective than traditional brainstorming (DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula, 2007;

Michinov, 2005, 2012). This advantage is generally explained by the capability of technology to reduce group inhibiting factors such as production blocking (when group members are prevented from contributing ideas as they occur because only one person may speak at a time), free riding (when group members rely on others to accomplish the task), and evaluation apprehension (when group members withhold ideas and comments

due to fear of negative evaluations) (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991). There is meta-analytic evidence of quantity and quality benefits of idea generation in electronic environments (DeRosa et al., 2007). The success of EBS appears to depend on the size of the group and the way the idea sharing is structured: EBS seems to be more effective than traditional brainstorming when larger groups are involved, and especially when members are allowed time to first produce ideas on their own (DeRosa et al., 2007).

Virtual reality-based creativity enhancement

VR environments offer users access to a theoretically infinite range of experiences, therefore, may have great potential in supporting the creative process (Ward &

Sonnebronn, 2009). A number of recent studies have investigated the use of virtual environments to enhance and expand creativity (Guegan et al., 2016; Guegan, 2017; Ritter et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2018). Some studies focused on conditions created in virtual environments that may have a positive effect on users’ creativity. It has been found, for example, that using inspiring avatars (i.e. inspiring digital representations of the self) during electronic brainstorming may enhance creativity. Guegan et. al (2016) examined the use of avatars with 54 engineering students who participated in three brainstorming conditions: a face-to-face setting, using neutral avatars, and using inventor avatars perceived as creative by engineering students. Results showed that embodying inventors increased students’ originality and fluency. In addition, those who used inventor avatars in the first session continued to be more creative in a subsequent face-to-face task. In another study, Guegan et al. (2017) explored the effects of contextual cues provided in a virtual environment on students’ creative performance. 135 psychology students completed a creativity task in three environments: a virtual creativity-conducive environment, a real meeting room, and its virtual replication. Results showed that participants produced more original and elaborate ideas in the creativity-conducive virtual environment than in the other two conditions.

Other studies point at the distinctive role immersive VR environments can play in creativity enhancement. Immersive VR environments are computer system generated three-dimensional (3D) simulation environments in which users can interact with the system in a seemingly real way via electronic devices such as a helmet and a sensor handle or a glove (Riva, 2006). Creating in immersive VR environments or experiencing conditions designed to stimulate creativity also seem to positively affect creativity. Yang

et al. (2018) conducted a study with 60 undergraduates who were asked to design a wearable device that would perform or function as a smart phone. Participants worked in two conditions: in a paper-and-pencil condition and in an immersive VR environment incorporating three dimensional (3D) drawing tools and a human-like 3D model. The immersive VR environment was found to be more beneficial for the quality of the individual creative products as well as helped participants to enter the ‘flow’ state more easily. The immersive VR environment also led to greater attention levels and more tension for participants. In another study, Ritter et al. (2012) showed that immersive VR environments are effective in diversifying experiences for participants which may lead to greater creativity (Ritter et al., 2012). 61 students were randomly assigned in three conditions: one immersive in which they encountered three unexpected events each violating the laws of physics, one immersive in which the same events happened with expected outcomes, and a non-immersive one in which students watched a video of the same events with unexpected outcomes. Results showed that actively experiencing complex unusual and unexpected events in virtual reality environments increased cognitive flexibility which in turn may allow people to break old patterns and approach problems in new and creative ways.

Stimulating creativity through technology-based communication and collaboration

Communication and collaboration were identified as important elements of the creativity conducive learning environment in the literature (Davies et al., 2013). Research suggests that technology may ease and facilitate communication and collaboration during creative activities. Stolaki & Economides (2018) examined how the use of Facebook groups during a creativity-enhancement intervention may contribute to enhancing participants’ creativity. 90 undergraduate students enrolled in an information system course took part in the intervention in which small groups of students generated and answered questions to stimulate higher-order thinking posting in a Facebook group.

Results on the post-test indicated a significant increase in all four areas of student’

divergent thinking. It is important to note though that the study adopted a single group design, therefore the positive effect found might not be entirely due to the intervention.

Creating with technology

Though technology has been suggested to offer a variety of new tools for students to create (Loveless, 2003, 2007), only few empirical studies in the reviewed literature investigated the effects of creating with digital tools on students’ creativity, the process of their creation, or on the products created. Saorin et al. (2017) examined the effects of digital editing tools and three-dimensional printing used in an educational activity developed to stimulate engineering students’ creative competence. 44 engineering students took part in two-hour small group activity in which they created and individualized toy dolls using a wide range of technologies such as a 3D software to create and edit the doll models, a 3D scanner to scan their own heads, and a 3D printer to print the dolls designed by them. Results showed a significant increase in students’ figural creativity after the activity. Findings are again somewhat tempered by the convenience sampling and lack of control group in this study.

Limitations of the intervention research reviewed

Findings of the interventions presented here should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations this review was subject to. First, while there was a vast amount of published literature on the topic, most work was either theoretical in nature or failed to provide rigorously available empirical evidence. Second, many of the reviewed studies presented methodological limitations or were not well-suited to provide research-based recommendations for education. For example, few studies incorporated control or comparison groups, thus the increase in students’ creativity might not have been due to the interventions, but caused by some other factor. Also, some studies were conducted with voluntary participants and mostly with university students, results are therefore difficult to generalize to primary or secondary student populations. Then, while most studies were conducted over a short period of time, little is known about the long-term effects of technology-enhanced creativity interventions. Finally, the review presented here has its own limitations, in that it is by far not comprehensive or systematic. With limiting the literature search to certain journals though relevant for the topic, important research result may have well been overlooked.

Despite these limitations the following general conclusion can be drawn. Overall, technology-supported creativity interventions highlighted that digital tools may offer new media for teaching creativity, environments to stimulate creativity, as well as new tools

to create, communicate, and collaborate during the creative process, the evidence they provide is, nevertheless, quite limited both methodologically and in scope without revealing much about how digital technologies can be applied to promote creativity across the curriculum.