Ce

MF

a

ARRAA

KSCOO

1

eorhflra

apt

P

1

Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j ourna l h o mepa ge: h t tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

reativity in virtual spaces: Communication modesmployed during collaborative online music composition

ichele Biasutti ∗

ISPPA Department, University of Padova, Via Beato Pellegrino, 28, 35139 Padova, Italy

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 1 October 2014eceived in revised form 8 June 2015ccepted 16 June 2015vailable online 4 July 2015

eywords:ociocultural creativityollaborative creativitynline collaborative learningnline music creativity

a b s t r a c t

Using a sociocultural theory of creativity as a framework, the current study aims to analyzethe communication modes employed by adult musicians during the collaborative onlinecomposition of a new music piece and to define how creativity was expressed and sup-ported. The study task was an authentic activity for the participants, who interacted ina virtual environment using synchronous and asynchronous tools to develop a project.The study employed a qualitative case study approach that involved video observation ofthe participants’ interactions during the online activities and individual semi-structuredinterviews. The findings showed that collaborative creativity involved musical and socialpractices. Furthermore, collaboration, identity and meta- cognition were considered crit-ical in supporting participation and interest. The mediational role of the technologicalcontext and how it reshaped thinking strategies and collaborative strategies were ana-lyzed. The participants demonstrated awareness of the potentialities of the online toolsand the achievement of consciousness about the performed task. The results are discussedin relation to the framework of the sociocultural research on collaborative creativity, andimplications for education are considered.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

There is a growing interest in research on the application of information and communications technology (ICT) in musicducation. This research field is based on the continuous development of new devices and software that offer the possibilityf realizing challenging activities, such as interacting online in real-time to perform and compose music. There are severaleasons why an educator should use the computer for music instruction (Dillon, 2006), and the advantages of online learningave been largely considered (Biasutti, 2011). These advantages include organizational and educational aspects such asexibility in time management, flexibility in location (accessing the Internet in comfortable and quiet places in any country),educed costs and travel time, personalized definition of the course contents, strengthened interactions among students,nd the ability to encourage students to develop responsibility for their learning.

Today, there is a proliferation of music tools, and many of them are available free of cost on the Internet and potentially

doptable in schools. Several applications have been conceived for leisure or free time, but they can also be used for didacticurposes if they are inserted in an educational framework. One issue is developing new forms of online music educationhat allow learners to interact mediated by the computer. However, it is difficult to become oriented in this jungle of new

∗ Correspondence to: Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Via Beato Pellegrino, 28, 35139adova, Italy. Fax: +39 049 8277153.

E-mail address: michele.biasutti@unipd.it

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.06.002871-1871/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

118 M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

products because millions of programs for music learning can be found through any web search engine. Conole, De Laat,Dillon, and Darby (2008) argued that students choose technologies according to their own personal learning needs. Althoughthe technology for music making is diffused in schools, there is little understanding of the forms of musical interactions thatthe technology might influence (Dillon, 2006). A relevant issue is that many of the online programs have not been evaluated,and the educational processes that they induce are little considered. It is crucial to not only examine the power of the virtualtools but also assess the teaching models and the processes activated by the music e-learning programs.

In music education, a common approach is to base learning on instruction and consider the computer as merely supportfor practice. This approach allows students to practice constantly and to improve their performing abilities. However, thisapproach does not stimulate the divergent thinking skills of participants. It is important to modify the instructional approachby introducing more interactive didactic methods based on sociocultural theory (Biasutti & EL-Deghaidy, 2012, 2015). Thesemethods value the learners’ experience and stimulate students’ understandings of their own constructs; participants playan active role and are engaged in questioning through cooperative learning activities (Donnelly & Boniface, 2013). Thesocial dimension is an important factor for the effectiveness of asynchronous learning environments, and courses must bedesigned to support community building (Wegerif, 1998). Fischer (2014) described a variety of sociotechnical environmentsthat foster social creativity. Wegerif (2006, p. 144) noted that “computer-supported collaborative learning is particularlysuited to the induction of students into dialogue as an end in itself and, through this, to promote the skills of creativityand of learning to learn.” The learner-centered method facilitates the expression of divergent thinking skills, and studentsare prompted to find their own solutions to the posed tasks. Music activities such as composition and improvisation areconsidered to be directly connected to the expression of creativity because they involve the generation of new music ideas(Biasutti & Frezza, 2009; Lewis & Lovatt, 2013; Locke & Locke, 2012; Kokotsaki, 2011). Music also provides the opportunityto work collaboratively to generate a shared creative product, engaging participants in cooperative tasks.

In the current research project, an online learning environment was designed according to the framework of the socio-cultural theory. In this environment, participants interacted to collaboratively compose a new piece of music. The study’saim is to analyze the communication modes employed during the online activities and the differences between face-to-faceand online composition.

2. Theoretical background

The current study is grounded in the sociocultural theory of creativity, and the theoretical background focuses on theresearch on peer collaboration and collaborative creativity. In addition, communication modes, mechanisms of collaborativecreativity in the domain of music and online music learning are considered.

2.1. Sociocultural conceptualization of collaborative creativity

The study of creativity has attracted the attention of researchers since the last century, and a large number of researchstudies and theoretical models in a variety of domains have been carried out. In general, researchers’ attention has beenfocused on the individual creative act, with less importance given to the social context in which creativity was developed.More recently, a sociocultural approach has been applied in creativity research, with the aim of furthering the individualisticanalysis of cognition, to focus on the social interactions and the cultural context in which creativity behaviors are expressed.Fischer (2014, p.198) argued that “although creative individuals are often thought of as working in isolation, much humancreativity arises from activities that take place in a social context in which interaction with other people and the artifactsthat embody collective knowledge are important contributors to the process.” The challenge for education is joining theindividual and the social dimensions to promote the connection of individual learning for creativity and social creativity andlearning (Sawyer, 2006). The sociocultural theory of creativity have witnessed a paradigmatic shift from positivistic researchparadigms to more complex, constructivistic, systems-oriented research models (Glaveanu, 2010). Burnard (2012) arguedthat research must analyze the multiplicity of processes underpinning the practice of creativity, including the relationships,practices, systems and modes involved, rather than a linear conception of creativity.

More approaches have been developed in the study of collective creativity. Glaveanu (2011) noted the distinction betweena sociocognitive and a sociocultural approach of collective creativity. In the former, the social dimension is external andcreativity is embedded in the mind. In the latter, the social dimension is intrinsic to creativity and creativity is embedded ininteraction. The focus of the sociocultural approach is collaborative creativity, creative learning, intersubjectivity, and co-construction of knowledge rather than group and team creativity and innovation. Glaveanu (2011) argued that within thesociocultural approach, creativity is considered social in nature and located in the space between self and others. The focusis a more interaction-oriented account of the collective work rather than merely outcomes and products (Rojas-Drummond,Albarrán, & Littleton, 2008), and a multiplicity of processes and interactions are analyzed to interpret collaborative creativity.

Research has conceptualized several features of creativity expressions, such as a cyclical design process. Sharples (1996,p. 132) points out that “Creativity in writing occurs through a mutually promotive cycle of engagement and reflection,

both guided by constraint. A session of engaged ‘knowledge telling’ generates written material for consideration. Reflectioninvolves reviewing and interpreting the material as a source for contemplation. Contemplation generates new ideas which areexplored and transformed, producing plans and constraints that drive a further period of engaged writing. This basic creativemechanism supports a variety of writing strategies, depending on the timing and relative emphasis given to reviewing,

caclmos

2

tttHeitDm

sattitp2cmwa

2

o(aasacoiejdta(i

dnrp

M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129 119

ontemplation, planning and engagement.” There is evidence that a cyclical design process also occurs in other creativectivities such as music creation (Dillon, 2003, 2004; Biasutti 2012). In an interpretative analysis of the collaborative andreative processes, Dillon (2003, 2004) provided evidence that participants were engaged in a cyclical process of selecting,istening, evaluating, editing and refining music samples. Evaluation and refinement allowed participants to reflect on the

aterial that they constructed and induced them to create new ideas. Although the literature on sociocultural modelsf collaborative creativity is scarce (Glaveanu, 2011), several studies have been developed under the framework of theociocultural theory of creativity to unpack the social and cultural nature of creative acts.

.2. Communication during collaborative creative activities

The research on communication during collaborative creative activities developed quite recently, and verbal communica-ion is considered a core aspect of the knowledge construction process. Although the research on creative writing highlightshe importance of verbal dialogues (Rojas-Drummond et al., 2008; Vass, Littleton, Miell, & Jones, 2008), there is evidencehat different forms of communication are used to exchange information in other creative domains such as music. Morgan,argreaves, and Joiner (2000) argued that a dialogue can occur through the music itself rather than through words, asmerged in a research study in which they analyzed the factors associated with group productivity in children engagedn collaborative music composition. The findings indicated that verbal communication was dependent on the compositionask and that a dialogue could be developed in musical terms, i.e., through music performance rather than through words.iscussions about composition may not always be relevant because of the unique experience of music. The complexity ofusic making may not be replaced easily by forms of communication other than music itself.

Different forms of communication have been highlighted in the research on collaborative music performance and compo-ition, which have been developed in face-to-face environments. Seddon and Biasutti (2009a) proposed a coding scheme fornalyzing creative interactions in music based on two main modes of communication, verbal and nonverbal, each containinghree distinct modes of communication: instruction, cooperation, and collaboration. Burnard and Younker (2008) analyzedhe communication processes of students engaged in small group music-composing activities. The following two types ofnteractions were described: vertical and horizontal. The vertical interactions are hierarchically driven, whereas the horizon-al interactions are characterized by democratic leadership. The horizontal interactions involve a shared decision-makingrocess and activities such as arguing, describing, discussing, explaining, evaluating, negotiating and playing. Dillon (2003,004) carried out a series of studies in a secondary school context with the aim of understanding the students’ creativeollaborative process through analysis of their verbal dialogues. Participants were asked to compose and arrange pieces inusic dance, rave and hip-hop styles using the eJay software. The findings demonstrated that the most used types of dialogueere musical suggestions (introduction of new musical ideas), musical extensions (development of previous suggestions)

nd positive support (agreement and support for interaction).

.3. Mechanisms of collaborative creativity in music

Several research studies have analyzed how creativity is expressed and supported. Furthermore, mechanisms of collab-rative creativity, such as flow, collective flow, empathetic attunement and collaborative entrainment, have been examinedClayton, 2007; Croom, 2015; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Seddon & Biasutti, 2009a). Some mechanisms share common featuresnd involve particular states of consciousness such as flow, which is defined as a state of mind that combines cognitive,ffective, and physiological factors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow experience corresponds to an optimal psychophysicaltate that inspires peak performances and is outlined by the following nine characteristics: challenge and skill balance,ction and awareness merging, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, concentration on the task, sense of control, loss of self-onsciousness, distorted sense of time and autotelic experience. Many of these aspects are common to collective flow, whichriginates in creative activities that involve group performances. Group flow emerges when group members are working

n the same direction and are focused on the same objectives (Sawyer, 2006). During collective flow, group members sharemotions and feelings and are mentally attuned to self and other. Musicians of several genres, from classical to rock andazz, have experienced flow. During flow, musicians take risks with musical factors such as timbre, phrasing, timing, andynamics, challenging each other’s musical creativity. Risk taking is a relevant process in group performances because ofhe interactions and the challenges between participants (Biasutti, 2011). Kenny (2014) highlighted that collaborative cre-tivity involves musical practices and that challenge is crucial for sustaining membership and interest. Seddon and Biasutti2009a) proposed the concept of empathetic attunement, which can be considered as synonymous with collective flow ands described as a collective state of mind that is characterized by the production of spontaneous musical ideas.

In addition, some effects based on rhythm have been studied as constituents of collaborative creativity. Clayton (2007)

efined entrainment as the process by which two or more independent rhythmic processes interact, leading to synchro-ization in some cases. A method of studying musical entrainment based on time analysis was developed in an Indianaga performance. Entrainment is considered a concept that might lead to an understanding of music making and musicerception as an integrated, embodied and interactive process.

120 M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

2.4. Online music learning

The impact of technology on music composition has been analyzed in several studies, although these studies havegenerally been conducted in face-to-face environments. Most of the music research that has been carried out in virtualenvironments concerns instrumental practice rather than collaborative music composition. Seddon and Biasutti (2009b)conducted a qualitative study on the strategies that students involved in online learning adopted to play improvised blueson a musical keyboard. The results showed that the online activities developed the students’ abilities to organize, plan,monitor and assess their competencies.

2.5. Summary of the theoretical background

In the reviewed literature, collaborative creativity has been contextualized within a systems-oriented paradigm (Burnard,2012; Glaveanu, 2010), and several features of collaborative creativity have been considered, such as a cyclical design process(Sharples, 1996). Research on collaborative creativity in music making has shown specific communicative strategies basedon music communication rather than verbal dialogue. Furthermore, mechanisms based on nonverbal communication, suchas flow, collective flow, empathetic attunement and collaborative entrainment, have been examined. Previous studies oncollaborative music composing have been conducted mainly in face-to-face environments. The research on online musiclearning has focused primarily on music performance rather than music composing and has provided evidence that it ispossible to develop performance skills in virtual environments (Seddon & Biasutti, 2009b).

The current study aims to cover new aspects of collaborative music composing by analyzing the communication modesthat occur during online activities and testing how a virtual environment influences the strategies that are adopted duringan online composing task. Two types of collaborative interactions were possible on this platform, asynchronous and syn-chronous. Participants interacted asynchronously while discussing the organization of the activities and the development ofthe music piece in several forums. Conversely, participants interacted synchronously in music sessions to experiment withthe ideas to be used during the composition process and to rehearse and play the music piece. The realization of participants’ability to interact synchronously was difficult to achieve and involved complex technical solutions for real-time interaction,such as minimizing the response time of signal transmissions.

3. Method

3.1. Research design

The current research is a pilot study of the communication modes that are activated during the collaborative compositionof a piece of music in a virtual setting. The research design is a qualitative case study approach that involves video recordingobservation of the participants’ interactions. A qualitative analysis of the video recordings is performed, and individual semi-structured interviews are conducted with participants at the end of the learning sessions to analyze the participants’ viewsof the processes that were activated during the online activities. The participants are members of a well-functioning andexperienced music group, and the current study also explores how the online context changes the strategies and outcomesof their collaboration. Affordances and constraints of the online setting with regard to collaborative music composition arealso highlighted. The following research questions are considered:

1. What communication modes do participants employ during the online activities?2. What are the differences between face-to-face and online composition?

3.2. Participants

The following three musicians participated in the study: Marco (guitar), Matteo (bass guitar) and Paolo (com-puter/keyboards/vocals). The participants were members of the band Reeta Pawone, which was formed in 2001. The ReetaPawone musicians performed electronic rock, a form of rock music that involves computers and other electronic instrumentsin generating sounds. The musicians of the band were interested in producing new compositions; they recorded two CDsof their music and are preparing a third CD. The group normally composed in a face-to-face situation and had no previousexperiences of online composition. The participants were Italian and had approximately twenty years of experience in per-forming in bands with genres such as rock and electronic rock. The participants’ ages ranged from 37 to 39 years (mean age38). One participant was studying at a University in the North of Italy at the time of the research.

3.3. Equipment

The online activities were developed within the Moodle platform, and the participants used PCs with webcams to interact.

The technological devices were considered tools for promoting the participants’ interaction and discussion in the realizationof the task. Several synchronous and asynchronous tools were activated. The synchronous rehearsing activities used eJAM-MING for the audio software and ooVoo for the video software. eJAMMING was used due to its high-quality audio connection(compared to the poor audio quality of ooVoo), and ooVoo was used because it allows a real-time video connection of more

tbip

3

aiitocm

tpfm

wwlcp

•

•

•

••

soa

3

spdiao

3

drtmv

M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129 121

han two people. The ooVoo sessions were video-recorded. The tools that were used for working asynchronously included alog, a diary set up as a wiki, a Dropbox database to upload and share the live rehearsals, and several forums for discussing

deas concerning composing, music content, and technical issues. In addition, three external video cameras (one for eacharticipant) were used to record the live sessions for further video analysis.

.4. Procedure

The learning task that was assigned to the participants was an open-ended task consisting of collaboratively composing new piece of music that could be added to their catalog within a virtual environment. The online activity intended tonduce the creation of an entirely new composition rather than a remix of old materials. The aim was to stimulate thenternally owned creative strategies of the participants rather than to propose pre-imposed techniques and frameworks tohem. An open-ended task was used to allow the spontaneous expression of the participants’ creative processes becausepen-ended situations support social creativity (Fischer, 2014). In open-ended tasks, there is no correct solution, while inlosed tasks, there is often only one correct solution to the problem. In open-ended tasks, the problem orientation centersore on exploration and discovery than on solution and closure (Dillon, 2003).

The aim of the current study was to focus on the natural process in which a composition is collectively formed ratherhan to impose on the musicians a lab situation in which several conditions and a pre-constructed scheme affect theirerformance. The current study documented several stages of the process. The learning task was an authentic activity

or musicians rather than an artificial experimental task. This task provided ecological validity to the study and offered aeaningful and motivating activity for participants (Ferguson, 2011; Kump et al., 2013; Robbins & Kegley, 2010).

An online tutor was available on the platform. During the virtual work, a set of rules was conceived to ensure that theork would be conducted entirely online and avoid admixture between face-to-face and online conditions. Participantsere asked to interact only online with the aims of collecting material and documenting all steps of their work rather than

imiting their creativity or forcing them to use an external method of music composing. During the research, no musiconstraints (e.g., style, genre, framework or technique) were imposed on the participants, who were free to decide how toroceed in the composing process and how to develop the music piece. The rules were as follows:

It is not permissible to discuss the new piece of music on the phone or in the presence of another. The work must only beperformed online in the designed platform.In the case of individual work, please take notes and inform the other participants of your work through the platform.Please, use the forums and the other tools for these purposes and consider that in the platform, you can also uploadadditional multimedia files if necessary.Maintain a weekly diary of the work progress to which all the participants can contribute their observations. It is set on awiki tool so that all participants can integrate or modify the text.Compose a new piece of music and not a reworking of a previous piece.Immediately inform the tutor of any inconvenience or technical problem.

Participants worked asynchronously on the platform to define general aspects, exchange ideas and develop the compo-itional process. In addition, participants interacted synchronously to experiment with their ideas in four real-time sessionsf approximately ninety minutes each. All these group composition sessions were video- and audio-recorded. The onlinectivities took place over a period of approximately two and a half months.

.5. The semi-structured interview

At the end of the activities, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. The semi-tructured interviews were focused on collecting participants’ reflections on their virtual experience. Broad questions wereroposed to provide the participants with the opportunity to describe the actions carried out during the activities and theifferences between face-to-face and online composition (see Appendix 1). Any problems that the participants raised were

nvestigated in additional questions. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim fornalysis. Before presenting the results, a description of the virtual activities is provided below to inform the reader of whatccurred during the online group composing sessions.

.6. Description of the live sessions and the composing process

During the online activities, the participants actively collaborated with experimentation, including sharing ideas andiscussing, constructing, performing, assessing, and making decisions together. The participants were engaged in a collabo-

ative group process in which the ideas were rehearsed and discussed. The work started with an online session of listeningo music by other rock bands followed by discussions. The aim was to take inspiration from listening to the atmosphere of

usic by other bands and to define general aspects of the music piece to be composed. The live sessions started with impro-isation, which was a way to experiment with ideas and material. Paolo proposed a backing track using the computer, and

122 M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

Table 1The online interactions within the platform.

Online resource Interactions Content description

Marco Matteo Paolo Tot.

Forum: listening 8 26 25 59 Links to music by other rock bands for inspiration and listeningto the atmosphere of other music; detailed comments on themusic; proposals of demos

Forum: software foron-line performance

0 4 3 7 Characteristics of the software for the online performances;indicating passwords; comments on the functionality of thesoftware; technical problems such as the latency of internetstreaming

Forum: session planning 5 17 7 29 Planning of the synchronous (real-time) sessions; makingappointments for the sessions (synchronous activity);discussing the technical resources; suggestions for a betterorganization of the compositional activity

Forum: composition 1 8 11 20 Comments on and detailed evaluation of the live sessionsperformed by the group; proposals for selecting andorganizing the material; proposals for modifying sounds andparts of the music piece

Forum: instruments 2 1 0 3 The musical instruments available for the overall project andthe instruments that the musicians intended to use duringindividual sessions

Forum: technical 1 8 2 11 Discussions about the technical set up and technical problemsForum: Events 0 4 3 7 Events and concerts by other rock bands

Blog 1 0 0 1 Personal feelingsDiary 0 12 0 12 Descriptions of how the activities proceeded, including

personal comments

the participants engaged in improvisation. Paolo manipulated the backing tracks on the computer during group live compo-sition sessions, and the other musicians developed their sound ideas. During the live sessions, the verbal communicationswere mostly short and focused on specific issues rather than long and argumentative.

All the video and audio recordings of the live sessions were uploaded on the platform, and the participants listened tothem. The participants exchanged ideas on the web platform about the improvisations and the music material that weredeveloped during the sessions, including the new ideas and other features of the music. Participants evaluated the varioussessions and collaboratively made selections and decided how to develop the sound material for the new music piece.

The participants interacted online via the platform in several forums, a diary (activated within a wiki resource) and ablog. The platform was useful to plan the work, organize virtual meetings, discuss technical issues, develop the compositionprocess, and share feelings. The following seven forums were opened by participants: listening, software for online perfor-mance, session planning, composition, instruments, technical, and events. Although the forums had different names, therewas an overlap of topics because, for example, composing issues were discussed both in the composing forum and in thelistening forum. A detailed description of the online interactions is reported in Table 1. A screenshot of the compositiondiscussion forum is reported in Fig. 1.

4. Data analyses and results

The collected data consisted of four video recordings of the composing sessions, which were approximately 90 min each,the interactions within the platform and transcripts of the semi-structured interviews. The framework developed by Seddonand Biasutti (2009a) was adopted for the analysis of the modes of communication in the video recordings. Transcripts of thesemi-structured interviews were analyzed with the Constant Comparative Method (CCM), and the interactions within theMoodle platform were used for the triangulation process, with the aim of validating the researcher’s interpretations of theresults.

4.1. Analysis and results of the video recordings

The video recordings of the live sessions consisted of the ooVoo recordings (the recordings of the computer screen) andthe data from the three external video cameras (one for each participant, providing different perspectives of the video data).These video recordings were synchronized and mounted in a single file for further video analysis using Adobe Premier Prosoftware (see Fig. 2).

The modes of communication in the synchronized video recordings were analyzed using the coding scheme developed

by Seddon and Biasutti (2009a) (see Table 2). The modes of communication were sorted in two main categories, verbaland nonverbal, each containing three distinct modes of communication: instruction, cooperation and collaboration. Thefollowing definitions of sympathetic and empathetic attunement by Seddon and Biasutti (2009a, pp. 127–128) were usedto code the videotapes in terms of nonverbal cooperation and nonverbal collaboration:

M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129 123

Fig. 1. Screenshot of the composition discussion forum.

Fig. 2. Screenshot of the video data used for analysis.

“When sympathetically attuned, the musicians were perceived to be drawing on their musical knowledge base play-ing without taking risks or challenging their individual or collective creativity. Sympathetic attunement was visuallyevident in expressions of relative disinterest (e.g., no smiles, affirmative nods, or energetic body movements). Sym-pathetic attunement was musically evident in comparatively predictable performance providing musical cohesionwithout creative risk through adhering to previously rehearsed interpretations.

When empathetically attuned, the musicians seemed to respond to each other in an atmosphere of risk taking andchallenge, which extended their joint creativity. They took risks with musical phrasing, timing, and dynamics in thatthey challenged each other’s musical creativity. Empathetic attunement was visually evident in expressions of interest

124 M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

Table 2Modes of communication (Seddon & Biasutti, 2009a).

Mode ofcommunication

Verbal Non-verbal

Instruction Musicians are instructed when to start playing. Notes inthe score are verified, and instruction on how to playcertain sections of the piece is given

Musicians are instructed through music notation or auraldemonstration

Cooperation Musicians discuss and plan the organization of the piece inorder to achieve a cohesive performance and addresstechnical issues (e.g. bowing)

Musicians achieve sympathetic attunement producing acohesive performance employing body language, facialexpression, eye contact, musical cues, and gesticulation

Collaboration Musicians collaborate to evaluate performance and discuss Musicians achieve empathetic attunement and take

remedial action if required in the music in order to developinterpretation and/or style of the piece

creative risks, which can result in spontaneous musicalvariations. When they do, this signals empathetic creativity

(e.g., smiles, collective affirmative nodding, and animated body movements). Empathetic attunement was musicallyevident in the production of a more animated performance of the piece. On occasion, this more animated, risk-takingperformance could result in the production of unpredictable musical variations to interpretation when participantsengaged each other in challenging musical interaction.”

4.1.1. Verbal modes4.1.1.1. Verbal instruction. Verbal communication was classified as verbal instruction when a verbal command was givenfrom one to another member of the group, such as a command to increase the level of amplification or to repeat a fragment.For example, instructions were given to increase the level of a microphone or replay a part of the piece.

“Please, increase the level of your microphone.” (Matteo)“Go, go again with that sound.” (Marco)“Wait a moment, let us hear that fragment!” (Paolo)Verbal instruction was not particularly present during the online sessions, and only a few instructional interactions were

identified.

4.1.1.2. Verbal cooperation. Verbal communication was classified as verbal cooperation when a discussion between themusicians took place regarding organizational or technical problems but did not imply creative matters. Verbal cooperationinvolved a democratic interaction. For example, verbal cooperation was observed when the musicians collaborated to solvea problem concerning sound distortion.

“Oh, guys here I hear a terrible sound.” (Marco)“Very bad?” (Matteo)“Can you do something? . . . Now I hear Paolo well.” (Marco)Verbal cooperation appeared in several moments during the online sessions when musicians needed verbal clarification

or to cooperate to solve issues.

4.1.1.3. Verbal collaboration. Verbal communication was classified as verbal collaboration when a discussion between themusicians took place regarding creative issues such as how to organize the music piece or how to use the music ideas thatwere generated during the improvisation sessions. Verbal collaboration involved a democratic interaction that allowed themusicians to evaluate fragments, collaborate in shaping the piece and make decisions about the framework of the piece. Forexample, Paolo evaluated a fragment that Marco played, and there was a discussion about how to shape a transition sectionof the piece.

“Just a minute, we have to define the individual lines. It is clear more or less what Marco is playing in the first part. Ithink in this last improvisation, his part was too repetitive, while during the first improvisation, it was more varied. I wantto understand what Matteo is doing in the first part.” (Paolo)

“My part?” (Matteo)“Yes, because we defined the transition fragment where in the middle, the drum is changing but the first part is undefined.”

(Paolo)“Eh . . . yes because it is free . . .” (Matteo)“In my opinion, the issue is that free parts are needed in the transition fragment; but in effect, in this way, there is a lot

of variability and you never know what to do in this transition point . . . I think we have to systematize the performancehere....” (Paolo)

“Indeed, I think the drum should enter later, when the transition is at the end, marking the moment when the piece is

developing, and in that moment, the E-Bow has to grow up as happened in the first recording . . . it goes on . . . and after itgoes down . . . and later the drum begins.” (Matteo)

Verbal collaboration was used often during the live sessions and was alternated with music communication when soundexamples were proposed. The musicians utilized verbal collaboration to share and discuss their creative orientations and

M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129 125

ss

44aid

4cvr

4wmctbteac

4

pw

awocIe

actv

Fig. 3. Diagram of the three phases of the semi-structured interview data analysis.

olutions for defining the framework of the new piece of music. A sense of collective creativity developed because all theolutions were discussed and agreed.

.1.2. Nonverbal modes

.1.2.1. Nonverbal instruction. Nonverbal communication was classified as nonverbal instruction when a musician informednother member of the group how a specific part of the music piece should be played. For these demonstrations, partic-pants sang or played the fragment on instruments. For example, during a session, Paolo provided Matteo with an auralemonstration of how the bass line should be developed.

.1.2.2. Nonverbal cooperation. Nonverbal communication was classified as nonverbal cooperation when cohesive modes ofommunication such as looking behaviors and sympathetically attuned musical cues between performers emerged. Non-erbal cooperation promoted a cohesive performance and helped the performers to stay in time and to listen to each otherather than to focus on creative matters.

.1.2.3. Nonverbal collaboration. Nonverbal communication was classified as nonverbal collaboration when the musiciansere concentrated on creative exchanges. Empathetic attunement between the musicians is necessary to achieve a creativeusical communication. In this situation, the musicians’ creativity was amplified, and they interacted in an atmosphere of

hallenge. Nonverbal collaboration was musically evident when the musicians generated music ideas, rhythmical patterns,imbre combinations and sound effects, challenging each other’s musical creativity. Nonverbal collaboration was discernibley observing behaviors such as smiles, looking behaviors, collective beating of the time, body movements and animated ges-ure. These types of behaviors expressed positive feelings and tended to be stressed by the musicians as communicating theirnjoyment thorough body movements. Nonverbal collaboration was evident especially during the improvisation sessionsnd was considered when the musicians’ behaviors moved from cohesive modes of communication to creative modes ofommunication.

.2. Analysis and results of the semi-structured interview transcripts

The transcripts of the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using the CCM, which has been successfully applied inrevious studies on composition strategies (Biasutti, 2012) and interview data (Biasutti 2013a,b). The following five stagesere adopted (McLeod, 1994, p. 85):

“(1) Immersion. The researcher intensively reads the material, assimilating as much of the explicit and implicit meanings possible. (2) Categorization. Systematically working through the data, assigning coding categories or identifying meaningsithin the various segments/units of the ‘text’. (3) Phenomenological reduction. Questioning or interrogating the meanings

r categories that have been developed. Are there other ways of looking at the data? (4) Triangulation. Sorting through theategories. Deciding which categories are recurring and central and which are less significant or are invalid or mistaken. (5)nterpretation. Making sense of the data from a wider perspective. Constructing a model or using an established theory toxplicate the findings of the study.”

In the immersion phase, the transcripts were read several times to acquire a high level of familiarity with the raw data,

nd then discernibly different answers were identified. In the categorization phase, similar behaviors were sorted, and sevenategories emerged from the discernibly different answers. The following two themes emerged from the categories duringhe phenomenological reduction phase: collaboration/meta-cognition and face-to-face/online diversities. A diagrammaticersion of the first three phases of the analysis of the semi-structured interview data is provided in Fig. 3.

126 M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

Table 3Triangulation phase: supporting quotations for the two themes extracted from the semi-structured interviews.

Themes Supporting quotations Interpretation

Collaboration/metacognition

“When you work in a group, things come out collaboratively”“This experience was interesting because it allowed me toexperience new aspects and to express myself through music”“I had the feeling of working in a stratified, perhaps even morelogical way.”

These quotations support the interpretation ofcollaboration and meta-cognition processes because theparticipants refer to the team group, identity andreflection during the online collaborative activities

Face-to-face/onlinediversities

“Certainly, the online work was more flexible.”“The forum gave me a sense of continuity while working...”“The online work was more systematic, better organized.”

These quotations support the interpretation offace-to-face/online diversities because the participantscontrasted the face-to-face with the online modality

Support for the researcher’s interpretations of the themes was defined through the process of triangulation. Examinationof the forum interactions revealed that the participants independently referred to the researcher’s interpretations of thethemes. The data supporting the process of triangulation are reported in Table 3.

The coding of the semi-structured interview data was later checked and validated by an independent researcher. Theoriginal researcher and the independent researcher discussed any disagreements related to the coding. Changes to theoriginal coding were made accordingly. Next, detailed descriptions of the emergent themes are reported.

4.2.1. Collaboration/meta-cognitionIn the collaboration/meta-cognition theme, the following categories were highlighted during the categorization: collab-

oration, identity and meta-cognition.Regarding collaboration, all of the participants demonstrated individual accountability and commitment to quality work,

which were decisive factors for achieving team cohesion. The participants actively cooperated during all steps of the virtuallearning activities, as noted by Marco, “The arrangements were developed following a series of discussions between the threeof us in relation to the material produced with the improvisation ...” All the work was developed in a democratic environmentin which the relationships were egalitarian, as Paolo noted, “The online situation has allowed a more horizontal process . . .”The platform and the online tools provided the participants with the appropriate stimulus, and sharing ideas was a keyaspect, as reported by Paolo, “We have revised the various parts in a sequence that was shared by all of us ...” This statementnotes that the use of the forums and the sharing of recordings were important factors in developing the collaborative work.In addition, participants fortified their feeling of a community of practice and developed a consciousness about what acollaborative situation implies, as reported by Matteo, “When one is alone, you have a single idea, and that’s it. When youwork in a group, things come out collaboratively, and this involves more time. Maybe the ideas are not perfect and one ishappy and the other not. However, group work is positive and creative.” This quote highlights that the musicians were awareof the dynamics of the online collaborative work, including strengths and weaknesses.

Regarding identity, the participants demonstrated self-concepts with respect to music and used music as a means ofexpressing their personalities. The participants were aware of the meaning behind their music making and the meaningunderpinning. Matteo reported, “This experience was interesting because it allowed me to experience new aspects and toexpress myself through music. The music piece that we composed is different from our previous pieces, but, anyway, itis part of our life.” This quote notes that music was used as a medium for expressing the musicians’ perspectives of theworld. Participants recognized their specific roles in music making and that they each had their own speciality within thegroup. Paolo used the computer to design the backing track of the piece, while Matteo and Marco focused on the soundand the music phrases to be arranged on the backing track. Matteo noted, “Performing the instrument for the electronicprogramming, Paolo has a structural role. The construction of the music piece then revolves around the various proposalsand ideas.” This quote highlights that participants were aware of their functions within the group.

Regarding meta-cognition, the platform facilitated the development of reflections about the activities that made thecomposition process more explicit. The online tools supported the musicians in building shared knowledge, and a morelogical approach to composing was developed. Paolo asserted, “I had the feeling of working in a stratified, perhaps evenmore logical way such as improvisation - discussion - processing.” This statement highlights that the online tools facilitatedthe overall composing process and that participants reflected on the music composition method. In addition, participantsdeveloped awareness of the composition processes. As Matteo noted, “The impression is that there is a continuity of stylewhile composing online.” This quote notes that reflection affected the stylistic elaboration of the material. There was alsoawareness of the potentialities of the instruments. As reported by Paolo, “Especially when you do electronic music, I thinkthe use of the computer allows you to create pieces less arranged and more focused on the sound. On the other hand,the advantage of the PC is it gives you many possibilities to experiment with the sound.” In conclusion, the online toolsfacilitated the comprehensive composition process, as participants were stimulated to reflect on the work and demonstrated

improvement in the meta-cognitive dimension, achieving a consciousness about the task performed and the instrumentsused.

4

n

tsofm

rwiswc“scocr

r

fdof

5

c

idboopispepeac

ptwgtjtccse

M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129 127

.2.2. Face-to-face/online diversitiesIn the face-to-face/online diversities theme, the following categories were highlighted during the categorization: orga-

ization, composition process, flexibility, and technical resources.Regarding the organization, working online was considered more regular and better configured than working in a face-

o-face situation. As Paolo stated, “The online work was more systematic, better organized in comparison with a face-to-faceituation . . .” The platform and the online tools facilitated the management of the activities and supported the continuityf the composition process. Paolo asserted, “The forum gave me a sense of continuity while working, which is lost in aace-to-face situation. In face-to-face situations, when we finish the sessions, we ‘pull the plug’ and everyone reworks the

aterial on his own.”Regarding the composition process, the participants reported that it closely resembled face-to-face collaboration with

espect to the basic operations, although there were differences in the overall process. Moreover, the basic principles thatere followed to compose the music piece and the efforts to produce the musical material were considered to be similar

n the two different environments, as reported by Marco, “I think we set up the online work more or less like the one weet up face-to-face, where a large part of the exchange of opinions, ideas and suggestions is via email, SMS, or phone. Here,e have been working exclusively online.” However, it was reported that the online tools facilitated the comprehensive

omposition process and developed the participants’ awareness of the task performed, as previously discussed. Paolo noted,Working online made the process that we followed during the development of the musical material more explicit.” Thistatement demonstrates that the online environment enhanced the participants’ reflection on the performed task. The onlineollaborative work further opened several operational perspectives. For example, Paolo stated that “there is the possibilityf enlarging in a theoretically infinite way the possibility of exchanging, and processing the musical material. (. . .) From aompositional point of view, this was a new perspective that opened an exciting new dimension for me.” In addition, Matteoeported that “having a virtual interaction opens a new window for creativity development; this is very positive.”

Regarding flexibility, working online was considered more adaptable and facilitated time management, as Matteoeported, “There was definitely better time management because everyone made fewer trips with equipment, tools, etc.”

The technical resources that were involved in working online were deemed to be more developed than those in a face-to-ace setting because the online setting required a fast Internet connection to minimize the latency of the signal transmissionuring the synchronous sessions. As Paolo stated, “Good communication requires a telecommunications system that canffer a good capacity for data transmission. The rest does not require additional technical resources than those used inace-to-face situations.”

. Discussion

The current paper reported the communication modes and strategies adopted by rock musicians during an online activityonsisting of composing a new music piece collaboratively.

With regard to the first research question (What communication modes do participants employ during the online activ-ties?), the video recording analysis revealed that participants engaged in verbal and nonverbal communication modesuring the virtual composing experience. These communication modes are in agreement with the categorization developedy Seddon and Biasutti (2009a). Participants employed the previously mentioned six communication modes, which wereften used separately, alternating between cooperative and collaborative modes in relation to the situation and dependingn whether cohesive or creative issues were involved. Participant used the verbal modes of communication for differenturposes. Verbal instruction was used to give a command, verbal cooperation was used to solve organizational or technical

ssues, and verbal collaboration was used to democratically develop creative ideas. In general, verbal communication washort and focused because extensive informative dialogues are not required during a discovery orientation or explorationrocesses, such as in the improvisation sessions. Ideas and thoughts were mediated both verbally and musically and werexpressed through musical actions and the direct manipulation of the sound material rather than through participants’rolonged verbal reasoning. It is likely that a tacit level of knowledge was also reflected during the activity because manyvents were obvious and the participants did not need to comment on or talk extensively about them. This finding is ingreement with that of Dillon (2004), who found a similar quality in dialogues of adolescents who were engaged in musicomposition.

Regarding nonverbal communication modes, nonverbal instruction was used to provide aural demonstration of a musicassage, nonverbal cooperation was used to facilitate a cohesive performance, nonverbal collaboration emerged when par-icipants were empathetically attuned, and this state facilitated the development of music creativity. Empathetic attunementas evident during improvisation and the creative generation of material, which were the core experiences of the music

roup. Participants produced a focused generation of ideas on a specific backing track rather than a completely free produc-ion. For these reasons, the improvisation can be considered a type of jam session, a musical event that is very common inazz and in which players improvise. During a jam session, performers must share a set of implicit conventions that includeechnical knowledge (e.g., knowing a large repertoire of jazz standards, the standard chord substitutions) but also social

onventions such as establishing a music dialogue with the other participants (e.g., supporting a solo improvisation or syn-hronizing with the other performers to avoid delay when starting a solo). The jam session can be a social event or can havepecific purposes, such as to develop new music ideas, as in the current research. While improvising, participants challengedach other by taking risks, and new ideas were generated. These findings are consistent with studies on flow and empathetic

128 M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129

attunement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Seddon & Biasutti, 2009a). The current interviews provided evidence of the musician’feelings during the sessions, as reported by Matteo, “...the group and our heads work together, we synchronize our minds,we get the idea, saying ‘this works’ without even a structural motif, but following our taste.” This statement notes that groupmembers shared goals and perspectives and were empathetically attuned. The terms used by Matteo, “we synchronize ourminds”, are emblematic and reminiscent of Clayton’s (2007) concept of musical entrainment in terms of temporal order inmusical performance.

With regard to the second research question (What are the differences between face-to-face and online composition?),the participants were able to compose a novel music piece, showing that it is possible to develop collaborative compos-ing activities in an online setting, and several differences between contexts were reported. The virtual environment wasconsidered satisfactory for managing compositional activities, such as defining the context, experimenting, arranging theonline meetings, listening to and selecting the sound material and constructing the music piece. In addition, the platformwas deemed as a useful tool for working in a more systematic way than normal. Participants reported a more logical modeof working (improvisation, discussion, and processing), which indicates the perception of a cyclical design process. Listeningand evaluating allowed participants to reflect on the material and to select fragments to construct the music piece. This pro-cess induced the generation of new principles and ideas. This outcome supports Sharples’ (1996) findings concerning writingand Dillon’s (2003, 2004) findings concerning music, which provide evidence of a cyclical process during music composing.Participants demonstrated awareness of the potentialities of the online tools and the achievement of consciousness aboutthe task performed (Dillon, Wang, Vesisenaho, Valtonen, & Havu-Nuutinen, 2013; Lassig, 2013).

Collaboration was a core feature of the online work, characterizing all the stages of the virtual activities, from contextdefinition to listening/evaluating and constructing. During the preliminary work of context definition, the participantslistened to music by other rock bands to receive inspiration for the new music piece. This involved sharing ideas about theinteresting aspects of the music. During the experimenting stage, the musicians collaborated in generating the new musicmaterial. In the listening/evaluating activity, the participants shared ideas about the music material produced and selectedthe music fragments that were relevant for the new piece. The construction was developed following the contribution of allthe group members. The collaboration was developed through online discussions and actions, such as finding solutions forcomposing the music piece and sharing decisions that were made in a participatory manner, as the participants described.These results are in agreement with previous studies about collaborative online activities that found that teamwork wasconsidered a core component (Donnelly & Boniface, 2013; Tseng & Yeh, 2013). Other factors include flexibility in timemanagement and location, and technological resources.

We now discuss what this study implies about the nature of the creative process and the ability to enhance it by employinga certain technology and collaborating with other professionals. The nature of the activity was a relevant aspect of theeffectiveness of the activity. The learning task was an authentic activity for musicians rather than an artificial experimentalassignment, and the use of an authentic activity is crucial for facilitating participants’ expressions of creativity (Ferguson,2011; Robbins & Kegley, 2010). In addition, the open-ended nature of the task stimulated the participants to experimentduring the production of the new piece of music, developing their spontaneous conceptions. This result is in agreementwith previous studies that found that open-ended tasks facilitate exploration and discovery rather than solution and closure(Dillon 2003).

6. Conclusions

The current study highlighted the communication modes that were adopted by the musicians to compose a new musicpiece online and examined how creativity was expressed and supported. The findings showed that collaborative creativityinvolved musical and social practices. Furthermore, collaboration, identity and meta-cognition were considered criticalin supporting participation and interest. The mediational role of the technological context and the way that it reshapesthinking strategies and collaborative strategies were analyzed. The online tools stimulated the participants to reflect on thework and they demonstrated improvement in the meta-cognitive dimension, developing a consciousness about the taskperformed. There is evidence that music is a discipline that allows the study of creative processes expressed effectively inonline collaborative activities and may become a starting point for developing models that can be applied in other disciplines.

The present paper contributed to the literature by defining a methodology for studying collaborative online composingactivities. The current research employed a more comprehensive data collection than previous research (Biasutti, 2012),as participants were asked to take notes and to inform their bandmates of their home activities through the platform.In this way, all the activities and the processes that occurred during the collaborative composing task were documented.The results must be considered in relation to the study’s exploratory nature because only one music group that includedthree participants was involved. Relevant communication modes that were developed during collaborative composing wereidentified, but more data are needed to extend the current findings to other contexts. A study involving a larger number ofparticipants would be useful to guarantee greater validity of the results.

A final consideration concerns the educational implications. The relevance of compositional activities and an approach

based on creativity rather than mere instruction is widely acknowledged in music education (Fautley, 2005; Kokotsaki, 2011).In the current research, the technological devices and the platform were efficient scaffoldings for sustaining the developmentof the participants’ divergent thinking skills. Thus, it is evident that a teaching method that fosters creativity can be appliedin online learning. It would be interesting to propose virtual composing activities in educational music programs in higher

ebl

A

1

1234

R

BBBBB

B

BBB

C

C

C

CDD

D

D

D

FFF

GGKKK

LLLMM

RR

SSSS

T

V

WW

M. Biasutti / Thinking Skills and Creativity 17 (2015) 117–129 129

ducation institutions to aid in developing composing students’ skills through peer collaboration. The platform can alsoe used in future research projects about collaborative music composing with musicians with different backgrounds and

ocated in different parts of the world.

ppendix 1 The semi-structured interview

. The semi-structured interview

. Please describe briefly how you proceeded in the realization of the music piece.

. How did you organize the online group work?

. Please indicate the differences between composing music online and composing music face-to-face.

. What were the benefits of the collaborative online work?

eferences

iasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1865–1875.iasutti, M. (2012). Group music composing strategies: A case study within a rock band. British Journal of Music Education, 29(3), 343–357.iasutti, M. (2013a). Improvisation in dance education: Teachers views. Research in Dance Education, 14(2), 120–140.iasutti, M. (2013b). Orchestra rehearsal strategies: Conductor and performer views. Musicae Scientiae, 17(1), 57–71.iasutti, M., & EL- Deghaidy, H. (2012). Using Wiki in teacher education: Impact on knowledge management processes and student satisfaction.

Computers & Education, 59(3), 861–872.iasutti, M., & EL- Deghaidy, H. (2015). Interdisciplinary project based learning: An online wiki experience in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and

Education, 24(3), 339–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.899510iasutti, M., & Frezza, L. (2009). The dimensions of music improvisation. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2/3), 232–242.urnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.urnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2008). Investigating children’s musical interactions within the activities systems of group composing and arranging: An

application of Engeström’s Activity Theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 60–74.layton, M. (2007). Observing entrainment in music performance: Video-based observational analysis of Indian musicians’ tanpura playing and beat

marking. Musicae scientiae, 11(1), 27–59.onole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of

students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524.room, A. M. (2015). Music practice and participation for psychological well-being: A review of how music influences positive emotion, engagement,

relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. Musicae Scientiae, 19(1), 44–64.sikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.illon, T. (2003). Collaborating and creating using music technologies. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 893–897.illon, T. (2004). It’s in the mix baby: Exploring how meaning is created within music technology collaborations. In D. Miell, & K. Littleton (Eds.),

Collaborative creativity contemporary perspectives (pp. 144–157). London: Free Association Books.illon, T. (2006). Hail to the thief: The appropriation of in music in the digital age. In K. O’Hara, & B. Brown (Eds.), Consuming music together: Social and

collaborative aspects of music consumption technologies (pp. 293–312). Dordrecht: Springer.illon, P., Wang, R. L., Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2013). Using technology to open up learning and teaching through

improvisation: Case studies with micro-blogs and short message service communications. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 13–22.onnelly, D. F., & Boniface, S. (2013). Consuming and creating: Early-adopting science teachers’ perceptions and use of a wiki to support professional

development. Computers & Education, 68, 9–20.autley, M. (2005). A new model of the group composing process of lower secondary school students. Music Education Research, 7(1), 39–57.erguson, R. (2011). Meaningful learning and creativity in virtual worlds. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 169–178.ischer, G. (2014). Learning, social creativity, and cultures of participation. In A. Sannino, & V. Ellis (Eds.), Learning and collective creativity:

Activity-theoretical and sociocultural studies (pp. 198–215). New York (NY): Taylor & Francis/Routledge.laveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93.laveanu, V. P. (2011). How are we creative together?: Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers. Theory & Psychology, 21(4), 473–492.enny, A. (2014). ‘Collaborative creativity’ within a jazz ensemble as a musical and social practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 1–8.okotsaki, D. (2011). Student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in the secondary music classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 100–113.ump, B., Moskaliuk, J., Dennerlein, S., & Ley, T. (2013). Tracing knowledge co-evolution in a realistic course setting: A wiki-based field experiment.

Computers & Education, 69, 60–70.assig, C. J. (2013). Approaches to creativity: How adolescents engage in the creative process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 3–12.ewis, C., & Lovatt, P. J. (2013). Breaking away from set patterns of thinking: Improvisation and divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 46–58.ocke, M., & Locke, T. (2012). Introducing a mentor into a children’s composition project: Reflections on a process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 8–20.cLeod, J. (1994). Doing counselling research. London: Sage.organ, L., Hargreaves, D., & Joiner, R. (2000). Children’s collaborative music composition: communication through music. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D.

Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 52–64). London: Free Association Books.obbins, T. L., & Kegley, K. (2010). Playing with Thinkertoys to build creative abilities through online instruction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 40–48.ojas-Drummond, S. M., Albarrán, C. D., & Littleton, K. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills

and Creativity, 3(3), 177–191.awyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.eddon, F. A., & Biasutti, M. (2009a). Modes of Communication between members of a string quartet. Small Group Research, 40(2), 115–137.eddon, F. A., & Biasutti, M. (2009b). Evaluating a music e-learning resource: The participants’ perspective. Computers & Education, 53(3), 541–549.harples, M. (1996). An account of writing as creative design. In C. M. Levy, & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), Science of writing: Theories, methods, individual

differences and applications (pp. 127–148). Hillsdale, (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.seng, H. W., & Yeh, H.-T. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning experiences and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study.

Computers & Education, 63, 1–9.

ass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Jones, A. (2008). The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration.

Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 192–202.egerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.egerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.