exploring a creativity assessment technique for use in ...

EXPLORING A CREATIVITY ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE FOR USE IN 21ST CENTURY LEARNING, LIBRARY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATIONS H. Patricia McKenna1, Sarah A. Chauncey2 1

2

AmbientEase (CANADA) Rockland BOCES (UNITED STATES)

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to introduce the consensual assessment technique (CAT) to library, information, and learning spaces as an approach for assessing the creativity, innovativeness, and value of products. This paper proposes adaptation of the CAT to accommodate everyday, real-world activities integral to library and learning practices, research, and support for technology-rich learning environments. Based on case study research, an aware-enabled social radio tool in a postsecondary virtual distributed educational environment is used as an example to illustrate the application and potential of the technique. Contributing to the literature across multiple domains (e.g., assessment, creativity, information science, learning, and innovation), this paper has the potential to provoke new or revised approaches to assessment for practice and research. This paper also gives rise to new partnering and collaborative opportunities for libraries, learners, and educators in relation to data and learning analytics and other emerging digital learning issues. A conceptual framework for integration of the CAT into library and learning spaces is advanced. The proposed framework is expected to ignite st interest in the CAT, opening the way for extension of the technique to 21 century technology-rich library and learning spaces with implications for practice, research, and methodology. Keywords: Assessment, consensual assessment technique, creativity, information science, innovation, learning, libraries, methodology, technology-rich learning environments, value.

1

INTRODUCTION

This paper is motivated by the need for new ways to assess library tools, resources, processes, and st services [1] in support of learning in 21 century digital information environments [2]. Considering the importance of creativity for learning [3], and the combined importance of creativity and innovation for librarians [1], information professionals, and workplaces of the future [4], [5], this paper proposes adaptation of the consensual assessment technique (CAT) for use in the library and information science (LIS) space. CAT was developed for assessing the creativity and innovativeness of products, processes, tasks, and ideas [6], [7] and is increasingly being used in real-world environments [8]. The two main objectives of this paper are: first, to discuss CAT as a tool for assessing a new technology in relation to creativity, innovation, and value based on real world use experience; and second, to propose adaptation of the CAT to accommodate assessment of everyday, real-world LIS technology use experiences, important for practice, learning, and research. This paper is significant because it extends earlier explorations [9] and discusses how to use the CAT in assessing an emerging type of social media tool based on early-stage use experience with the product. Further, this paper points to the potential for use of the CAT in the LIS community in assessing real-world tools, extensible to resources, processes, services, and performance for learning. As such, this paper has the potential for breaking new ground for libraries and learning spaces by proposing a technique for the assessment of creativity, innovativeness, and value. Additionally, this paper makes a contribution to the assessment literature across several domains, including creativity, the CAT, and LIS. A mixed methods case study approach was used to gather qualitative and quantitative data about use experience with an early stage aware-enabled social radio/media tool. Focus group, interview, and open-ended survey questions were used as data collection methods to gather qualitative data. Tool use activity and closed-ended survey questions were used to gather quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis and descriptive statistics for analysing quantitative data. This dataset was then used to demonstrate use of the CAT, following recommended procedures and guidelines [7]. Assessments of the social radio tool use experience were conducted on creativity,

Proceedings of ICERI2015 Conference 16th-18th November 2015, Seville, Spain

5371

ISBN: 978-84-608-2657-6

innovation, and value. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha calculation was used to generate internal reliability statistics for inter-judge reliability and inter-item consistency. A more detailed description of the methodology is provided in section 3. A review of the LIS and CAT literature in relation to the key constructs used in the study (e.g., creativity, innovation, and value) is presented in section 2 providing the theoretical perspective for this work. In section 3 the methodology for this study discusses how to apply the CAT with an emerging social radio tool as a type of social media product in a distributed learning environment. A discussion of the study is presented along with a proposed framework. Challenges and mitigations are identified and a summary conclusion is provided with recommendations for CAT potentials for libraries, the library and information science (LIS) domain, and learning spaces.

1.1

Definitions

For the purposes of this paper, definitions are provided from the research literature for three key constructs used in this study – creativity, innovation, and value.

1.1.1

Creativity

Creativity is “the production of novel, appropriate ideas in any realm of human activity” [10].

1.1.2

Innovation

Innovation refers to the “successful implementation of those novel, appropriate ideas [10].

1.1.3

Value

Value in a library and learning context is determined in relation to impact [11].

2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This review focuses on the research literature for library and information science (LIS) in the context of st 21 century digital library, information, and learning spaces. An overview of the LIS literature in relation to creativity and innovation and to assessment and value is presented. The consensual assessment technique (CAT) literature is discussed, highlighting development of the technique for the assessment of creativity, innovation, and value. For the purposes of this paper, creativity is described as “the production of novel, appropriate ideas in any realm of human activity” [10]. However, it is important to note that novel ideas must be “different from what’s been done before” and not “simply bizarre” but rather, “appropriate to the problem or opportunity presented” [7].

2.1

Library and Information Science (LIS)

The digitization of LIS products, services, processes, and spaces is increasingly taking shape, st enabled by 21 century technology-rich tools and environments [1]. Library collections are increasingly available in electronic form [1]; social media tools are often incorporated into library services and interactions [1]; and libraries are steadily developing new forms of collaboration and deep collaboration [12] in the delivery of services and resources. Lankes [13] notes that greater interactivity is occurring in relationships emerging within information communities enabling new understandings. And new conceptualizations of libraries, librarians, information services, and information interactions are emerging [13], [4]. In contemporary information environments, libraries and information centers become spaces for key facilitators, contributors, and partners in broader information, education, and learning communities [1]. Of note are makerspaces [14] as library extensions, where new services are offered, including media production studios, an example of where making can occur. Libraries are reconfiguring learning spaces to accommodate and leverage makerspaces, which are “intended to appeal to people of all ages and are founded on openness to experiment, iterate, and create” [15].

2.2

LIS and Creativity/Innovation

Coveney [16] conducted case study research for assessing the fostering of creativity in public library environments using an adaptation of Amabile et al’s [17] KEYS: Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity instrument. Pointing to future research possibilities, Coveney [16] expressed interest in learning more about new technologies as facilitators for the generation of new ideas. Looking more closely at the CAT literature, specifically at the intersection of LIS and education, Orme [18] is

5372

concerned with creativity in the school teacher-librarian environment and argues for the importance of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique as a way of fostering creativity and distributing assessment activities by engaging students, educators, parents, and the community, more broadly. Exploring organizational creativity, Basadur and Basadur [19] look for the generators or those who seek out new problems and opportunities, as part of the creative process, by occupation. The schoolteacher tops the list of generators, followed by the occupation of academic. By extension, the school teacher-librarian would seem to align with the generator categorization. Similarly, the academic librarian would seem to align with the academic category as a generator. The LIS community is concerned with creativity and innovation in a multitude of ways. For example, the Journal of Library Innovation has existed for several years now. Also, innovation in libraries is addressed in the research literature by a range researchers, including, Olaisen, Lovhoiden, & Djupvik [20] and Lu & Guo [21]. The importance of creativity and innovation for the information professional in st the 21 century workplace is advanced by the work of Heye [22]. Coveney [16] assessed the organizational climate in a public library for creativity and innovation using the KEYS instrument and scale for assessing the work environment. Diess [23] focuses on theories of innovation in libraries and Walton [24] emphasizes the importance of creativity for library management. Rubleske, Kaarst-Brown, and Strobel [25] demonstrate that library administrators are concerned with the generation and st evaluation of ideas for new services. The American Library Association (ALA), concerned with 21 century literacies, sponsored a session at an annual conference on experimentation and innovation in libraries, featuring Marcus & Evans [26] presenting on lean startups. A creativity and innovation research forum was sponsored by the ALA Library Research Round Table (LRRT) [27] and Pendleton-Julian [28] delivered a presentation to the Association of Research Libraries entitled "designing an ecosystem of change for the future of the American research library." These examples serve to demonstrate the concern for creativity and innovation by librarians and LIS researchers, contributing to the rationale for adaptation of the CAT for assessment in the LIS environment. Further, such examples give rise to the need for adaption of research designs involving assessment of LIS environments (including tools, processes, ideas, and resources) to include the CAT. When interviewed about creativity, Heye [22] suggests that libraries "start small – don't try to change everything at once and provide mitigations for the identified risks.” A comprehensive report on assessment, accountability, and value was prepared for academic libraries by Oakleaf, extending well beyond academia with relevance for all types of libraries [11]. Creativity and innovation received mention in the report in terms of: a) librarians demonstrating value by “fostering environments that encourage creativity and risk taking”; b) cautioning against “viewing library value through a financial lens” as this “can stifle creativity”; c) a call to librarians to “be creative and employ multiple measures” of assessment since the perfect assessment tool may not exist and those that exist may pose adequacy, validity, and reliability concerns; and d) assessing value based on essential learning outcomes in the form of students authentic work including creative products.

2.3

Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) and Creativity/Innovation

The CAT was developed by Amabile [6] as a subjective assessment method in determining the general measures of the creativity of a product. Eventually the technique was extended to include processes [29] and further developed in recognition of the importance of context in terms of the social environment [6]. Initially centered on creativity, Amabile [6] came to realize the importance of innovation and developed a more integrated and comprehensive model of creativity and innovation [30]. Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile [31] extended the CAT to writing products and Baer and McKool [32] discuss the unique challenges and opportunities posed by the study of postsecondary education in the assessment of creativity using the CAT. Amabile & Pillemer [33] identify potential utilization of the CAT in educational and business spaces. The participatory nature of the CAT contributes to the potential for engagement in the creativity and innovation process. The CAT affords the opportunity for the LIS domain to learn about information needs; keep current with the learning needs of students; gather and analyze information relevant to LIS as part of the emergent data analytics movement [1]; conduct impact studies with real world products and services, in real time; and conduct interdisciplinary research with learners, educators, and communities of interest, crossing boundaries and diversities. Creativity has been studied over time by researchers [7], [34] and the same is true for innovation [7], [35], [36]. Fischer [37] describes the design and support of an enriched framework for creativity in

5373

support of social creativity and distributed intelligence. Key features of the framework include metadesign [38], reflective communities, personally meaningful activities, and the autonomy afforded by open systems enabling modification and adaptability by users [37]. Aragon and Williams [39] advance the notion of collaborative, distributed creativity supported by socio-emotional or affective communication. Focusing on context awareness, Fischer develops a multidimensional framework [40] emphasizing the control and autonomy dimensions of creativity. Vian, Liebhold, and Townsend [41] describe context awareness as “having information about the immediate situation”, extending this to “meaning and meaning making”, across a multi-dimensional spectrum of technologies. Fischer [3] advanced an integrative approach incorporating perspectives from learning, social creativity, and cultures of participation, in keeping with the increasing complexity, interdisciplinarity, and adaptability st of 21 century information environments [4]. This paper takes up the challenge of discussing use of the CAT in technology-rich library, information, and learning spaces, responding to the call to expand the technique to new domains and tasks different from those originally envisioned or imagined [7]. The CAT will be described in terms of how it was systematically employed to assess creativity, innovation, and value.

3

METHODOLOGY

The methodology for demonstrating use of the CAT in technology-rich environments for learning is described in terms of the process, sources of evidence, and data analysis techniques.

3.1

The Process

The research design for this study incorporated a mixed methods case study approach to investigate the use experience with a social radio tool among students and faculty in a postsecondary virtual distributed learning environment. Research was conducted by a researcher with a library science/librarian background, through the Syracuse University School of Information Studies, where some participants (e.g., faculty and students) had a background in library and information science. With minimal guidance and instruction, participants were invited to download and install the social radio application and then tasked to: set up a radio station; create a radio broadcast using their choice of content; host or co-host the show with one or more individuals; and live-stream the broadcast for shared listening within the social radio application, with Facebook friends, and with others wishing to tune-in over the Internet to the website broadcast. In instances where participants were unable to install or use the social radio tool, exposure to the application was enabled through viewing a brief video. The faculty and students participating in the study represented highly diverse demographics in terms of interests, skills, and age.

3.2

Sources of Evidence

Several sources of evidence were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data during the study. Data were gathered based on tool use (activity data); participants were invited to discuss their use experience through in-depth interviews and focus groups; a survey instrument with open-ended and closed questions was developed and tested based on interview and focus group responses; and the survey was administered to participants online. In gathering data on creativity, innovation, and value, participants were asked a question corresponding to each category, as follows: Q-Creativity: Were novel ideas generated during your use experience (by you or someone else)? Q-Innovation: Did your use experience make you think of the transformative potential here? Q-Value: What if any impact did the tool have for you?

3.2.1

Data Setup for the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)

Qualitative data collected from interviews, focus groups, and open-ended survey questions were used to explore application of the CAT in relation to creativity, innovation, and value. In preparation for data analysis, data were transcribed, loaded into a Microsoft Access database, and searchable in multiple ways. For the purposes of the CAT, it was important to be able to search by data collection method, by questions asked during data collection, and for content pertaining to creativity, innovation, and value.

5374

3.3

Data Analysis Techniques

Content analysis was used with qualitative data involving the sorting of interview, focus group, and open-ended survey data into text segments. A glossary of terms was generated from an inductive analysis of the research literature and deductive analysis of the text segments. A second coder was engaged in development of the glossary and all text segments (1000) were coded, based on the glossary, by both coders. The CAT was used to assess ideas generated from the social radio use experience drawn from the text segments coded during content analysis. Assessments were conducted on three categories – creativity and the two associated constructs of innovation and value.

3.3.1

Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)

Qualitative data generated from interviews, focus groups, and open-ended survey questions were organized into a database of 1000 text segments during content analysis. This data provided the content for conducting the CAT. Searching the database for content pertaining to each of the three categories – creativity, innovation, and value – 10 text segments were randomly selected for each category. It was important to conduct an initial pre-test of CAT questions and text segment items to be assessed by judges and address any issues that arose contributing to the need for adjustments. Two judges independently assessed the 10 text segments for each of the three categories in response to a category-specific question using a Likert type 5-point scale. Assessments submitted online by judges for creativity, innovation, and value were analyzed for internal reliability using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Microsoft Excel was used to conduct Cronbach’s coefficient alpha and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) could also be used for this calculation employing the reliability procedure. A description of the analysis and results is presented in an earlier paper [9] using the five constructs of creativity, meaning, transformativeness (innovation), value, and satisfaction.

4

DISCUSSION

Analysis of assessments by judges for creativity, innovation, and value reveals that use of the consensual assessment technique yields a good level of internal consistency for creativity and innovation, based on the alpha of 0.86 and a less than acceptable level for value at an alpha of .55. With creativity assessed in this study based on an alpha of .86, students and faculty as study participants support the creativity generator profile [19] using an emerging technology in spaces for learning. As a first iteration with faculty and students, some of whom are librarians, this study provides an example of a social media tool that may be similar to what libraries and librarians are regularly called upon to assess in support of new and evolving services, resources, ideas, and approaches. As such, the CAT may hold promise and potential for assessments in digital learning environments by libraries in determining the creativity, innovativeness, or value of tools and by extension, resources, services, ideas, and approaches. This use example of the CAT also sets the stage for adaptation of the technique for assessment of products, services, ideas, and approaches by libraries and librarians. CAT has been described as time-consuming yet Kaufman et al. [42] claim to have reduced the time factor. For the purposes of the study described here, individual assessments by two judges were conducted online using a survey tool. Online tools enable assessments to be conducted easily and quickly and can be used for any number of judges. Assessment results are downloadable to a Microsoft Excel for SPSS or analysis. This paper proposes that the social radio/media case study example is appropriate to LIS and may hold relevance and importance for libraries and librarians. As such, this study points to application st potentials for the assessment of creativity, innovation, and value in the context of 21 century library, information, and learning spaces, as advanced in section 4.1.

4.1

The CAT for LIS Assessment

This paper proposes that the consensual assessment technique (CAT) is important, relevant, and appropriate for LIS assessments of creativity, innovation, and value in relation to at least three factors: analytics, engagement, and participation. It is expected that additional dimensions will emerge over time and existing dimensions may undergo refinement.

5375

4.1.1

Analytics

The CAT offers a means to engage the LIS community, on many potential levels, in subjective and reliable ways to assess products, processes, services, approaches, and ideas for creativity, innovation, and value in real-time, real-world contexts. As such, the opportunity exists to leverage and adapt the CAT to the pervasive interest in ranking, liking, and other forms of deeper, more meaningful collaboration and engagement as described by Argument Web researchers [43]. Leinonen [44], during a conference presentation, emphasized the importance of not just crowdsourcing but motivated crowdsourcing. Employing the CAT to leverage real-time interaction data aligns with the increased forms of participation, collaboration, and sharing afforded by technology-rich environments. In LIS st spaces, the CAT may contribute to new notions and interpretations of assessment for 21 century digital learning environments, with the potential for creative, innovative, and valued outcomes. In the meantime, analytics based on real-time feedback with interaction data (e.g., comments, likes/favorites/ranking, recommending, searching/awareness, and tags) could be leveraged for assessment. Employing the CAT in the assessment of digital learning environments contributes to the potential for LIS partnering in the development of information analytics, learning analytics, predictive analytics, and other forms of data analytics in support of learning.

4.1.2

Engagement

Engagement for practice and research (including theory development and refinement) in relation to st 21 century work and learning skills and literacies (e.g., adaptability, collaboration/partnership, imagination, and technology-mediated spaces) would be amenable to LIS assessment. Arnone et al. [45] address the importance of curiosity, interest, and engagement in technology-rich learning environments, including the library as context. The early stage, pre-standards state of the social radio tool supports an approach that enables movement beyond a transmission model to interactivity, engagement, and participation [3]. Such an approach aligns with makerspaces [15] and the efforts by libraries to foster and support informal environments for learning and engagement. Makerspaces offer a natural environment for adaptation of the CAT for LIS assessments.

4.1.3

Participation

The participation dimension is based on use experience in relation to products, services, processes, or ideas, and evolving approaches. Attentive to Oakleaf’s report [11] on assessment, accountability, and value and the importance of creativity for libraries, discussion of the CAT in this paper develops the st rationale for adaption of the CAT for use in assessing: a) student learning in 21 century digital information environments, and b) library tools (adopted or adapted) in support of student learning. LIS communities, whether located in business, academic, school, public, professional association, non-profit, or ad hoc and emergent environments, exist in symbiotic relationships. Tighter integration of the learning environment for learners, educators, and researchers is enabled by technology-rich spaces. Such spaces feature affordances supporting autonomy, context and other forms of awareness, and interactivity fostering participation. The need for improved access and participation is amplified by the emergence of new learning modalities such as ambient learning, emergent learning, and pervasive learning spaces (PLSs) enabled by aware social media tools in education [46]. Chauncey articulates the concept of frictionless learning, where environments are designed to “provide optimal space, time, resources, and community interaction to support achievement of individual and group learning goals" [47]. Frictionless learning environments foster and accommodate participation, leveraging new partnerships formations and the idea of smart teams.

4.2

Conceptual Framework for CAT Assessments in the LIS Space

A conceptual framework proposed for integration of the CAT into the LIS space for assessing creativity, innovation, and value is depicted in the synthesis in Fig. 1. This framework draws on the Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) developed by Massart and Shulman [48] and is used as an example, adaptable to incorporate five components, as follows: a) Any emerging technology (e.g., LIS Resource/Tool) along with associated metadata; b) The social media dimension of an LIS resource or tool along with pardata in the form of interaction data (e.g., likes/favorites, recommending, tags, and comments); c) Real-time analysis of meta and paradata (e.g., analytics); d) Inform the development and enhancement of survey and evaluation tools;

5376

e) Use paradata (e.g., comments) in developing assessments of creativity, innovation, and value.

Fig. 1 Conceptual Framework of the Consensual Assessment Technique for Assessments in the LIS Space Paradata may also provide insights into emerging and evolving indicators pertaining to creativity, innovation, and value in the LIS environment. It is worth noting the potential for moving beyond popularity with “likes” and so on to more semantically meaningful data as evidenced through the Argument Web [43] and ArguBlogging [49] in support of linked data and the semantic web [50]. Indeed, the CAT holds potential to be adapted for use in: a) assessing various types of LIS-related performance; b) involving students, users, and staff in the implementation of a ‘culture of assessment’ as an extension of evolving social media practices, processes, and approaches; and c) supporting research initiatives to learn more about librarians (e.g., faculty/educators) and students as generators st of creative and innovative ideas and assessments constituting part of the 21 century learning commons ecosystem. Also, CAT provides an opportunity to discover, explore, develop, and correlate new or adapted indicators for creativity, innovation, and value in a library and learning context.

5

CHALLENGES AND MITIGATIONS

A key challenge of the consensual assessment technique (CAT) is the concern with subjective measures for assessments of creativity, innovation, and value. This concern is mitigated by the long, reliable, and durable history of the CAT in various domains. Some researchers note how difficult it is to measure creativity [51] yet this is mitigated by the work of other researchers who identify a number of new and promising self-report scales, applauding the state of creativity assessment. The early-stage, under-designed social media tool used in this exploratory case study was challenging for some to understand, much less assess for creativity, innovation, and value. However, this is precisely the type of scenario facing LIS communities where social media tools emerge daily for assessment and adaptation to technology-mediated learning and instructional environments. Time to administer the technique, which has traditionally provided a challenge to use of the CAT in offline environments [8], is mitigated by technology-rich spaces holding the potential for development of new approaches to accommodate new uses and implementations.

6

CONCLUSION

This paper introduces and discusses application of the consensual assessment technique (CAT) for assessing creativity and the related constructs of innovation and value based on use experience with an early-stage social radio/media tool in a learning environment. A description of the CAT as a general measure for assessing the creativity and innovation of a product, service, process, or idea is provided. A review of the literature points to the importance of creativity, innovation, and value as increasingly central to the efforts of library communities, librarians, and LIS researchers.

5377

A case study of students and faculty using a social radio tool in a collaborative, distributed postsecondary environment generated the dataset for conducting the CAT. A selection of text segments, describing everyday use experience, were assessed by two judges for creativity, innovation, and value. Using an emerging social media tool as an example, this paper develops a rationale for use of the CAT in the library and information science (LIS) domain in support of collaborative, distributive approaches to assessing creativity, innovation, and value. A conceptual framework for integration of the CAT into the LIS domain is proposed. This framework is intended for application by practitioners in order to foster and support greater engagement and participation; inform and enrich survey and evaluation tools; and conduct assessments of creativity, innovation, and value in relation to LIS products, processes, resources, and services. The CAT offers a timely and perhaps serendipitous method for the LIS domain to utilize in assessing st and interacting in and with 21 century information and learning communities. This technique accommodates the involvement of students and faculty in assessment, possibly extending the learning commons ecosystem to staff and the larger community. Use of the CAT to involve experts and also laypeople [52] may provide an opportunity to surface new measures and indicators for assessment and evaluation in the LIS domain. Indeed, crowdsourcing assessment may have relevance in the assessment of some types of LIS resources and services. This paper proposes that utilization of the st CAT for 21 century LIS environments provides an opportunity to extend, evolve, and adapt the technique. As such, the CAT is proposed as an adaptive assessment tool for the emerging learning technologies and data-driven practices described by Johnson et al. [15]. In evolving and modifying the CAT for the LIS community, further reduction of the time to administer the technique could occur. Finally, the technique could be adapted to leverage various forms of data analytics (e.g., learning) in keeping with the emergence of computational thinking; the wicked challenges of assessment at scale [15]; and challenges posed by the “fluid and malleable” and innovative and agile research library of the future [53]. As a key take-away, this paper identifies a technique for assessing creativity, innovation, and value of interest in digital contexts for libraries, librarians, information professionals, and LIS methodology researchers. This paper will also attract the attention of innovation researchers, technology product developers, policymakers, and anyone concerned with creativity, innovation, and value assessments.

REFERENCES [1]

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014a). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Library Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

[2]

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

[3]

Fischer, G. (2013). Learning, social creativity, and cultures of participation. In A. Sannino, & V. Ellis (Eds.), Learning and collective creativity: Activity-theoretical and sociocultural studies. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

[4]

Fidler, D. (2012). Understanding work skills for the decade ahead. Info Outlook, 6(4), 10-12.

[5]

IFTF. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Palo Alto, CA: The Institute For The Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute, 19 p.

[6]

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.

[7]

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

[8]

Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2011). Consensual assessment. In: M. A. Runco and S. R. Pritzker (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Second Edition, vol. 1, pp. 252-260. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Elsevier Inc.

[9]

McKenna, H. P., Arnone, M. P., Kaarst-Brown, M. L., McKnight, L. W., & Chauncey, S. A. st (2013). Application of the consensual assessment technique in 21 century technologyth pervasive learning environments. Proceedings of the 6 International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (iCERi2013), 6410-6419.

[10]

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), Fall, 39-58.

5378

[11]

ACRL. (2010). Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report. Researched by Megan Oakleaf. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.

[12]

Sheng, B. (2013). Mellon grant to fund collaboration between Columbia and Cornell libraries. Columbia Daily Spectator, 28 January.

[13]

Lankes, R. D. (2011). The atlas of new librarianship. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[14]

Burke, J. J. (2014). Makerspaces: A practical guide for librarians. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

[15]

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

[16]

Coveney B. (2008). Assessing the organisational climate for creativity in a UK public library service: A case study. Library & Information Research, 32(102), 38-56.

[17]

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1185.

[18]

Orme, G. (2010). Creativity in the learning commons: Supporting the development of student creativity through the school library program. MEd paper. Edmonton, AB: Univ. of Alberta.

[19]

Basadur, M., & Basadur, T. (2011). Where are the generators? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 29-42.

[20]

Olaisen, J., Lovhoiden, H., & Djupvik, O. A. (1995). The innovative library: Innovation theory applied to library services. Libri, 45(2), 79-90.

[21]

Lu, X. B., & Guo, J. (2009). Innovation community: Constructing a new service mode for academic libraries. Electronic Library, 27(2), 258-270.

[22]

Heye, D. (2006). Creativity and innovation: Two key characteristics of the 21st century professional. Business Information Review, 23(4), 252-257.

[23]

Deiss, K. J. (2004). Innovation and strategy: Risk and choice in shaping user-centered libraries. Library Trends, 53(1), 17-32.

[24]

Walton, G. (2008). Theory, research, and practice in library management 4: creativity. Library Management, 29(1/2), 125-131.

[25]

Rubleske, J., Kaarst-Brown, M., & Strobel, T. (2010). How do public library administrators generate and evaluate ideas for new services? A proposed model based on evidence from Cuyahoga County Public Library. ASIST 2010, 22-27 October, Pittsburgh, PA.

[26]

Marcus, S., & Evans, W. (2013). Experimentation and innovation in libraries: What we can learn from lean start-ups. 2013 ALA (American Library Association) Annual Conference, June 27-July 2, Chicago, IL. Retrieved 12 July 2012 from Slideshare.net.

[27]

ALA. (2014). Creativity and innovation: LRRJ research forum. ALA Conference – Transforming Our Libraries, Ourselves. Las Vegas, NV: ALA Library Research Round Table.

[28]

Pendleton-Julian, A. (2013). Towards designing an ecosystem of change for the future of the nd American research library. ARL (Association of Research Libraries) 163 Membership Meeting, Chapel Hill, NC, 1 May 2013. Retrieved from Slideshare.net.

[29]

Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Res J, 7(2), 193-208.

[30]

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.

[31]

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creative Research Journal, 16(1), 113-117.

[32]

Baer, J., & McKool, S. S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. In Christopher Schreiner, Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

[33]

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspective on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.

5379

[34]

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

[35]

Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator's dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York, NY: HarperBusiness Essentials.

[36]

Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

[37]

Fischer, G. (2005). Creativity and distributed intelligence. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation (NSF), Workshop on Creativity Support Tools.

[38]

Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). Meta-design: A manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 33-37.

[39]

Aragon, C. R., & Williams, A. (2011). Collaborative creativity: A complex systems model with distributed affect. CHI 2011, Session: Collaboration & Creativity, 1875-1884, Van, Canada.

[40]

Fischer, G. (2012). Context-aware systems: The ‘right’ information, at the ‘right’ time, in the ‘right’ place, in the ‘right’ way, to the ‘right’ person. In G. Tortora, S. Levialdi, & M. Tucci (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conf. on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2012), ACM, 287-294.

[41]

Vian, K., Liebhold, M., & Townsend, A. (2006). The many faces of context awareness: A spectrum of technologies, applications, and impacts. Palo Alto, CA: IFTF.

[42]

Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 96-106.

[43]

Bex, F., Lawrence, J., Snatih, M., & Reed, C. (2013). Implementing the argument web. Communications of the ACM, 56(10), 66-73.

[44]

Leinonen, T., Purma, J., & Ngua, K. (2013). Scenarios for peer-to-peer learning in construction with emerging forms of collaborative computing. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology & Society (ISTAS'13), 27-29 June, Toronto.

[45]

Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181-198.

[46]

McKenna, H. P., Arnone, M. P., Kaarst-Brown, M. L., McKnight, L. W., & Chauncey, S. A. (2013a). Ambient and emergent learning with wireless grid technologies. Proceedings of the 5th Intl Conf on Education & New Learning Technologies (EduLearn2013), 4046-4053.

[47]

McKenna, H. P., & Chauncey, S. A. (2014). Taking learning to the city: An exploration of the th frictionless learning environment innovation. Proceedings of the 6 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EduLearn2014), 7-9 July, Barcelona, Spain.

[48]

Massart, D., & Shulman, E. (2013). Unlocking open educational resources (OERs) interaction data. D-Lib Magazine: The Magazine of Digital Library Research, 19(5/6), online.

[49]

Bex, F., Lawrence, J., Snatih, M., & Reed, C. (2014). ArguBlogging: An application of the argument web. J of Web Semantics: Science, Services & Agents on the WWW, 25, 9-16.

[50]

LD4L. (2015). Linked data for libraries. Anonymous. Retrieved 16 February 2015 from https://wiki.duraspace.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41354028

[51]

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psyc. Faculty Publication, Paper 54.

[52]

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psyc of Aesthetics, Creativity, & the Arts, 7(3), 229-236.

[53]

Shore, E. (2014). Coherence at scale and the research library of the future. EDUCAUSE Review, January/February. Retrieved 15 September, 2015 from http://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1416.pdf

5380