=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2524/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Assessing competences for digital creativity
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2524/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2524
|authors=Kathy Kikis-Papadakis,Foteini Chaimala
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/psychobit/Kikis-Papadakis19
}}
==Assessing competences for digital creativity==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2524/paper5.pdf
Assessing competences for digital creativity
Kathy Kikis-Papadakis1 and Foteini Chaimala2
1
Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), Greece
2
Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), Greece
Abstract. This paper deals with assessment issues pertaining to digital creativi-
ty in educational contexts. Following a short introduction about the concept of
digital creativity, the first part of the paper discusses tensions and challenges in
its assessment– rooted on the complexity of the interplay between creativity and
digital technologies. The focus is then turned on teaching competences for digi-
tal creativity from an assessment perspective. Presented are areas and compo-
nents of the DoCENT framework for digital creative teaching competences, re-
lated to the assessment of the teaching and the learning process - namely the ar-
eas “creative assessment” (i.e. the use of digital strategies to assess students’
creativity), and “learners’ digital creativity” (i.e. the competences required to
enhance students’ digital creativity). A way to operationalize the DoCENT
framework for self-assessing purposes through rubrics tool under the five-level
conscious competence learning model is then proposed. Concluding remarks re-
flect on implications of the work presented for further research and study, out-
lining the need to explore the effects of assessing teaching competences for dig-
ital creativity on the promotion of students’ creative mind-set.
Keywords: Digital creativity, Teacher competences, Formative assessment
1 A Snapshot to Digital Creativity
Creativity is considered as a key competence for education, as expressed in EU policy
rhetoric, evidenced in national curricula and supported by recent research and aca-
demic discourse. EU strategic frameworks have set the enhancement of creativity as a
strategic objective at all levels of education and training [1], and EU policy docu-
ments outline recommendations for promoting creative ways of teaching and learning
[2]. At policy mediation level, creativity is explicitly referred in all national curricula
of the EU27 [3]. In addition, recent research shows that teachers consider creativity as
a relevant cross-curricular competence; nevertheless, they find it challenging to apply
practices, assessments, and technologies to support its development [4].
In recent years, rapid advancements in digital technologies have caused researchers
and practitioners to rethink more traditional ways to support the development of stu-
dents’ creativity. Henriksen et al. refer to the reciprocal relationship between creativi-
ty and technology, mentioning that “technological change is driven by human creativ-
ity, and in turn provides new contexts and tools for creative output’, and suggest that
Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Com-
mons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2
teaching and learning should emphasize their connection [5, p.28]. Currently there is
consensus that the affordances of technologies may have a strong influence on crea-
tive processes and achievements. Loveless for example, outlining the potential roles
of digital technologies in supporting creativity mentions that “digital technologies can
be tools which afford learners the potential to extend or enhance their abilities, allow
users to create novel ways of dealing with tasks which might then change the nature
of the activity itself, or provide limitations and structure which influence the nature
and boundaries of the activity” [6]. Nevertheless, understanding the interplay between
“digital” and “creative” still appears as a challenge in academic and research dis-
course and teaching practice.
The notion of digital creativity expresses the concern to consider issues pertaining
to creativity and digital technologies in tandem. Broadly speaking it can be defined as
working creatively within a digital medium [7]. In a more comprehensive definition -
digital creativity refers to a “purposive imaginative activity, mediated by digital tech-
nologies, generating outcomes that are original and valuable in relation to the learn-
er” [8]. As applied to education, digital creative teaching consists of applying digital
technologies with the aim to support creative pedagogies, i.e. learner-centred ap-
proaches, open-ended ethos, synergistic collaboration and knowledge connection.
2 Tensions and Challenges in Assessing Digital Creativity
Dealing with assessment issues relating to digital creativity in educational contexts is
complex and challenging. Difficulties in assessing digital creativity mainly emerge
from the challenge to conceptualize creativity and digital technologies in tandem, and
the complex interplay between the two notions.
The assessment of creativity per se involves tensions for different reasons, which
are mainly rooted both on the dispense notion of creativity and on decisions need to
be taken relating to the assessment purpose. Definitional challenges that may be faced
by educators trying to assess ‘creativity’ can be illustrated by the questions: Person –
is the student a creative person and have his/her learning experiences made thin/her
more creative? Process – is the process through which the person learnt or the product
was made creative? Product – is the essay or other piece of work creative? [9]. On the
other hand, questions relating to the purpose of assessing creativity may include: Do
we want measures of creativity for summative assessment purposes, for structures in
which quantifiable outcomes are valued (for example national examinations)? Do we
want to be able to assess creativity for formative purposes in order to give feedback to
individuals on their achievements and ways forward for progression? Do we want to
have means to recognise meaningful and original personal expression? [10]
According to Henriksen et al. ‘the theme of creativity and assessment revolves
around the challenge of navigating tensions in evaluating and assessing creativity’ [5,
p.34]. Their study identifies the following dichotomous tensions: Psychometric vs.
behavioral (i.e identification of psychometric characteristics of creative individuals,
such as cognitive flexibility vs. behavioral measures such as alternative uses test);
process vs. product (i.e. focusing on the learning process for creative solutions vs.
3
focusing on the output of the creative activity); individual vs. group (i.e. how to en-
gage students in collaborative open-ended projects that support creativity, while also
assessing individual performance?); domain general vs. domain specific (i.e. whether
creativity is located specifically within domains or whether it is something more gen-
eral and extendable). Challenges that arise from decisions to be taken by educators in
relation to these tensions include: Exploration and use of a range of alternative as-
sessment formats and technics that consider how technology and creativity interact;
Definition of criteria for assessing both the creative process and the product of the
creative activity; Contextual challenges (e.g. formal-informal settings; disciplinary-
transdisciplinary – multi-disciplinary contexts).
The assessment of students’ digital capabilities for creativity is no less challenging.
Starting points for the discussion of assessing creativity and digital technologies have
been offered by Jonassen [11] - who suggests dimensions for assessment along a
range of criteria and Sinker [12] - who offers a detailed discussion of the issues asso-
ciated with evaluating young people’s creative multimedia production. Nevertheless,
work on assessing creativity and digital competences in tandem is still in its infancy
[13]. The use of digital technologies for enhancing students’ creativity raises ques-
tions about the evaluation and judgement of creative processes and products that are
different from more traditional tools. The main challenge according to Loveless
(2002) is that it is difficult to find correlations between the use of digital techniques
and their attainment in other subjects (for example to identify the indirect effects of
the use of ICT on motivation, attitude, and problem solving capability, critical think-
ing and information handling abilities) [10].
3 Teaching Competences for Digital Creativity: the DoCENT
project framework
For educators to be able to deal with assessment challenges for digital creativity, they
need to develop competences so as to undertake assessment tasks effectively (achiev-
ing the desired outcome) and efficiently (optimizing resources and efforts). The Do-
CENT framework for digital creativity competences – developed in the frame of the
DoCENT ERASMUS+ project – proposed a set of competences for digital creative
teaching [8]. The methodological processes for the development of the DoCENT
framework included: an audit of existing competence frameworks (General compe-
tence frameworks, Teacher competence frameworks Teacher educator frameworks,
Digital competence frameworks, and creative teaching competences); and negotiation
and expert validation of the framework in consultation workshops with teacher educa-
tors and teachers.
Figure 1 here below presents the areas of DoCENT framework for digital creative
teaching competences. Highlighted are areas and competences relating to assessment
namely: a) creative assessment – i.e. the use of digital strategies to assess students’
creativity, and b) assessment of learners’ digital creativity – i.e. the competences re-
quired to assess students’ digital creative competences.
4
Fig.1. The DoCENT framework of digital creative teaching competences. Highlighted
are competences relating to assessment for digital creativity
4 Operationalization of the DoCENT competence framework
for assessment purposes
This section presents a proposal for operationalizing the DoCENT framework through
rubrics for self-assessing competences for digital creativity. Rubrics are useful tools
for formative assessment purposes, designed to clarify criteria and standards against
which teaching and learning processes can be assessed.
Proposed here below are a) criteria for self-assessing the teaching and learning
process for digital creativity informed by the DoCENT framework of digital creative
teaching competences and b) mastery competence levels, informed by the five-level
conscious competence learning model [14].
4.1 Criteria and sub-criteria for assessing competences for digital creativity
Table 1. Criteria and sub-criteria for assessing competences for digital creativity –
Focus on the teaching process
Criteria Sub-criteria
Actively engage Involve students in self-evaluation and peer-evaluation
students in assess- Focus on both the learning process and the outcome, so to
5
ment processes encourage students to critically reflect on their learning path,
which foster meta- competences, mistakes and progress
cognition and critical Use a variety of assessment formats and approaches
thinking Use digital technologies to carry out formative and summa-
tive assessment (e.g., learning analytics)
Use technologies to Apply criteria (e.g., fluency, flexibility, originality, elabora-
evaluate students’ tion) for evaluating students’ little-c (personal) creativity
creativity
Apply tools (e.g., digital rubrics) for evaluating students’
little-c (personal) creativity
Table 2. Criteria and sub-criteria for assessing competences for digital creativity –
Focus on the learning process
Criteria Sub-criteria
Divergent and con- Encourage students to identify and solve real-world problems
vergent thinking using creative thinking skills, i.e., generate and apply original
ideas and solutions by forming remote associations, concep-
tual combinations, and approaching problems from different
angles (divergent thinking)
Encourage students to evaluate and select ideas using deci-
sion-making strategies, so to produce the best possible an-
swers (convergent thinking)
Digital creation and Adopt a “maker culture” which fosters students’ creative
expression expression of ideas, experiences and emotions in a range of
media, through the creation of digital or tangible objects
Allow for knowledge construction processes and expression
based on students building, making, storytelling, prototyping,
engineering and sharing objects that are relevant to a larger
community
Information literacy Encourage students to articulate information needs
and digital citizen- Encourage students to find information and resources in digi-
ship tal environments
Facilitate students to organise, process, analyse and interpret
information
Facilitate students compare and critically evaluate the credi-
bility and reliability of information and its sources
Encourage students to participate safely, effectively, critically
and responsibly in the digital world
Creative dispositions Use digital technologies to promote students’ openness to
experience, responsible risk taking, tolerance of ambiguity,
learning from failure, and viewing challenges as possibilities
for learning
6
Computational Stimulate students to solve problems and model systems, as
thinking and design well as understand mindsets and behaviors, by drawing on the
thinking concepts fundamental to computer science and design think-
ing
4.2 Mastery competence levels under the 5-level conscious learning model
The five stages of competence, or the "conscious competence" learning model, relates
to the psychological states involved in the process of progressing from incompetence
to competence in a skill. It involves Stage 1 - Unconscious incompetence (the person
is blissfully unaware of their ignorance); Stage II – Conscious incompetence (the
person aware of their skills shortage); Stage III – Conscious competence (the person
is able to demonstrate their competence with a high level of concentration or focus);
Stage IV – Unconscious competence (the person is able to demonstrate their compe-
tence with a low level of concentration or focus); Stage V – Shared competence (the
person is able to teach others by explaining not only how but also the why’s to
achieve a level of competency).
In conjunction to the above stages, the following items for the rubrics (relating to
the mastery competence level) are proposed, illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Mastery competence levels – items for the rubric distinction between levels
Mastery competence levels
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Unconscious Conscious Conscious Unconscious Shared/reflective
incompetence incompetence competence competence competence
I consider the I need to I perform I perform I can help others
Rubric items
competence work more to the compe- the compe- to develop the
X as non- master the tence X tence X competency X
useful competence efficiently efficiently
X when I am without
mindful thought
The above mastery levels can be used both for teachers’ self-assessment of the
teaching process (see Table 1 for the according criteria) and for teachers’ assessing
students learning process (see Table 2 for the according criteria) for enhancing digital
creativity.
5 Concluding Remarks
In this paper it has been outlined that assessing digital creativity in educational con-
texts is a complex task. Tensions and challenges in this endeavour are rooted on the
dispense notion of creativity and on difficulties in conceptualizing creativity and digi-
tal technologies in tandem. In the view of these challenges, it has been argued that if
7
teachers are to undertake assessment tasks effectively and efficiently, they need to
practice competences relating to digital creativity assessment. Under this concern, we
presented the DoCENT framework’s teaching competences for digital creativity relat-
ing to assessment issues. We also proposed a way to operationalise the framework for
self-assessment purposes through rubrics– by illustrating criteria for assessing the
teaching and learning process for digital creativity, and by proposing mastery compe-
tence levels informed by the five-level conscious competence theory.
The work presented in this paper should be considered as a preliminary step in fa-
cilitating the assessment of competences for digital creativity. The applicability and
the feasibility for adoption of the proposed tool is yet to be seen through validation
studies. Of interest would also be to explore teachers’ competence development path
through the five-level conscious competence theory - for example to identify critical
incidents that allow the progression from one mastery level to another in relation to
competences for digital creativity and challenges in teachers’ mastering the reflective
competence level. Finally, investigating implications of the proposed approach for
assessing competences for digital creativity on the promotion of students’ creative
mind-set would be an area for further research and study.
References
1. European Commission: Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for
European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’). 2009/C 119/02 (2009).
2. European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re-
gions: Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-economic Outcomes,
20.11.2012 COM (2012) 669 final, Strasbourg: European Commission (2012).
3. Wyse, D., & Ferrari, A.: Creativity and education: Comparing the national curricula of the
states of the European Union and the United Kingdom. British Educational Research Jour-
nal, 41(1), 30–47 (2015).
4. Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y.: Creative learning and innovative
teaching: Final report on the study of creativity and innovation in education in the EU
member states. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
doi:10.2791/52913 (2010).
5. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P.: Infusing Creativity and Technology in 21st Centu-
ry Education: A Systemic View for Change. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3),
27–37 (2016).
6. Loveless, A.: Creative learning and new technology? A provocation paper. In J. Sefton-
Green (Ed.), Creative learning (pp. 61-72). London, UK: Creative Partnerships (2008).
7. Sefton-Green, J. & Brown, L.: Mapping learner progression into digital creativity A state
of the art review written for Nominet Trust (2014).
8. Barajas, M., Frossard, F. & Alcaraz-Domínguez, S.: DoCENT – Digital Creativity EN-
hanced in Teacher Education Framework of digital creative teaching competences
http://www.ub.edu/euelearning/O1_FRAMEWORK_DIGITAL_CREATIVE_TEACHIN
G_COMPETENCES.pdf, last accessed 2019/04/07 (2018).
9. Charyton, C., Ivcevic, Z., Plucker, J. A. & Kaufman, J. C. : Creativity Assessment in
Higher Education, Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies, Methods, and Ap-
plications in Higher Education, C. S. Schreiner, ed., Hershey: IGI Global, 78-96 (2009).
8
10. Loveless, A.: Literature Review in Creativity, New Technologies and Learning. 2002. hal-
00190439 (2002) https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190439, last accessed
2019/04/07 (2018).
11. Jonassen, D.H.: Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. 2nd
Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Columbus, Ohio: Merrill/Prentice Hall (2000).
12. Sinker, R (2000). Making Multimedia: Evaluating young people's creative multimedia
production in J.Sefton-Green and R. Sinker (eds) Evaluating Creativity. London:
Routledge (2000).
13. Cerrato, A., Siano, G., De Marco, A. & Ricci, C. : The Importance of Spacial Abilities in
Creativity and Their Assessment Through Tangible Interfaces. International Conference in
Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 89-95 (2019)
14. Pivotal Education Homepage, https://pivotaleducation.com/hidden-trainer-area/training-
online-resources/levels-of-competence/, last accessed 2019/07/04