The Dialogue of Creativity: Teaching the Creative Process by Animating Student Work as a Collaborating Creative Agent

References

• Bache, C. (1995). The study of aspect, tense and action: Towards a theory of the semantics of grammatical categories. Peter Lang GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566–580. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. D. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277–303). Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The “right kind of telling”: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 839–858. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9254-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 25–129). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2), 187–215. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS11,2-3n_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard.
   Google Scholar
• Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooren, F. (2010). Agency and action in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cooren, F., Matte, F., Benoit-Barné, C., & Brummans, B. H. J. M. (2013). Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in-action approach to the study of organizational tensions. Communication Monographs, 80(3), 255–277. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.788255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cossentino, J. (2002). Importing artistry: Further lessons from the design studio. Reflective Practice, 3(1), 39–52. doi:10.1080/14623940220129861
   Google Scholar
• Craft, A., Cremin, T., & Burnard, P. (Eds.). (2008). Creative learning 3-11: And how we document it. Trentham Books.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, V., Sandoval, W. A., Bienkowski, M., & Hurst, K. (2002, April). Understanding how phenomenological and discursive representations mediate collaborative learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, R. K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 329–363). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studies. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160. doi:10.1080/03634520500213165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. P., Gaffney, A. L. H., & Martin, K. N. (2011). Students' talk about the climate of feedback interventions in the critique. Communication Education, 60(1), 95–114. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.487111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, S. D. (2002). Gesture, verb aspect, and the nature of iconic imagery in discourse. Gesture, 2(2), 183–206. doi:10.1075/gest.2.2.04dun
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (Eds.). (1996). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington Publishers (Wiley).
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In K. Sotaro (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halverson, E. R. (2013). Digital art-making as a representational process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 121–162.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. C. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1855–1878. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00122-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holquist, M. (1981). The politics of representation. In S. J. Greenblatt (Ed.), Allegory and representation (pp. 163–183). Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1997). Mediation and automatization. In M. Cole, Y. Engeström, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (pp. 338–353). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171–183. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, P. (1996). The construction of learning and teaching in a sculpture studio class. Studies in Art Education, 37(3), 145–159. doi:10.2307/1320708
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2019). Agency in the making: Analyzing students' transformative agency in a school-based makerspace. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 266–281. doi:10.1080/10749039.2019.1647547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. In H. Kuklick & E. Long (Eds.), Knowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1–40). JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1995). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167–192). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Luria, A. R. (1928). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 35, 493–506.
   Google Scholar
• Lymer, G. (2009). Demonstrating professional vision: The work of critique in architectural education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(2), 145–171. doi:10.1080/10749030802590580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1990). Representation in scientific practice. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCawley, J. (1999). Participant roles, frames, and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(6), 595–619. doi:10.1023/A:1005563915544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1202_3
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J. (2016). Scaffolding practices: A study of design practitioner engagement in design education. Design Studies, 45, 9–29. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(3), 170–195. doi:10.1080/10749039909524725
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225. doi:10.1177/1461445607075346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33(6), 530–556. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nardi, B. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 37–51. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1201_4
   Google Scholar
• Oak, A. (2012). You can argue it two ways": The collaborative management of a design dilemma. Design Studies, 33(6), 630–648. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down I'm in the domain state": Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2018). Teaching and learning how to create in schools of art and design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 137–181. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1381963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2019). The role of failure in learning how to create in art and design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100527. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K., & Berson, S. (2004). Study group discourse: How external representations affect collaborative conversation. Linguistics and Education, 15(4), 387–412. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92. doi:10.1037/a0013282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxe, G. B., & Bermudez, T. (1996). Emergent mathematical environments in children's games. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 51–68). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397–417). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (Eds.). (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer, D. W., & Clinton, K. A. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1304_2
   Google Scholar
• Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 501–521). Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Shreeve, A. (2007). Learning development and study support: An embedded approach through communities of practice. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(1), 11–25. doi:10.1386/adch.6.1.11_1
   Google Scholar
• Shreeve, A., Sims, E., & Trowler, P. (2010). “A kind of exchange”: Learning from art and design teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 125–138. doi:10.1080/07294360903384269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70–88. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1201_6
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, R., Jona, K., Penney, L., Champion, D., Ramey, K. E., Hilppö, J., … Penuel, W. (2016). FUSE: An alternative infrastructure for empowering learners in schools. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. A., & Trigg, R. H. (1993). Artificial intelligence as craftwork. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 144–178). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002, April). Influence of representations on students' elaborations during collaborative learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Tolbert, D., Buzzanell, P. M., Zoltowski, C. B., Cummings, A., & Cardella, M. E. (2016). Giving and responding to feedback through visualisations in design critiques. CoDesign, 12(1–2), 26–38. doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1135244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• White, T. (2019). Artifacts, agency, and classroom activity: Materialist perspectives on mathematics education technology. Cognition and Instruction, 37(2), 169–200. doi:10.1080/07370008.2019.1578775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar