EAI international conference on technology, innovation, entrepreneurship and education TIE2018

The F-TAM posited four factors at the personal level, five factors at the firm level, and four fac-tors at the societal level that interrelate to realize firm level adoption of digital i

Ping Zheng · Vic Callaghan

David Crawford · Tiina Kymäläinen

Angelica Reyes-Munoz Editors

TIE’2018

EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing

EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing

Series editor

Imrich Chlamtac, European Alliance for Innovation, Gent, Belgium

The impact of information technologies is creating a new world yet not fully understood The extent and speed of economic, life style, and social changes already perceived in everyday life is hard to estimate without understanding the technological driving forces behind it This series presents contributed volumes featuring the latest research and development in the various information engineering technologies that play a key role in this process.

The range of topics, focusing primarily on communications and computing engineering include, but is not limited to, wireless networks, mobile communication, design and learning, gaming, interaction, e-health and pervasive healthcare, energy management, smart grids, internet of things, cognitive radio networks, computation, cloud computing, ubiquitous connectivity, and more generally smart living, smart cities, and more The series publishes a combination of expanded papers selected from hosted and sponsored European Alliance for Innovation (EAI) conferences that present cutting-edge, global research as well as provide new perspectives on traditional related engineering fields This content, complemented with open calls for contribution of book titles and individual chapters, together maintain Springer’s and EAI’s high standards of academic excellence The audience for the books consists of researchers, industry professionals, advanced level students as well as practitioners in related fields of activity include information and communication specialists, security experts, economists, urban planners, doctors, and, in general representatives from all walks of life affected ad contributing to the information revolution

About EAI

EAI is a grassroots member organization initiated through cooperation between businesses, public, private, and government organizations to address the global challenges of Europe’s future competitiveness and link the European Research community with its counterparts around the globe EAI reaches out to hundreds of thousands of individual subscribers on all continents and collaborates with an insti-tutional member base including Fortune 500 companies, government organizations, and educational institutions by providing a free research and innovation platform.Through its open free membership model, EAI promotes a new research and innovation culture based on collaboration, connectivity, and recognition of excel-lence by community

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15427

Ping Zheng • Vic Callaghan

David Crawford • Tiina Kymäläinen

Angelica Reyes-Munoz

Editors

EAI International Conference

on Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship

and Education

TIE'2018

ISSN 2522-8595 ISSN 2522-8609 (electronic)

EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing

ISBN 978-3-030-16129-3 ISBN 978-3-030-16130-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16130-9

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors

or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims

in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Polytechnic University of Catalonia

Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain

Vic Callaghan Department of Computer Science University of Essex

Colchester, UK Tiina Kymäläinen VTT Technical Research Centre

of Finland Ltd

Human Factors in Complex Systems Tekniikankatu, Tampere, Finland

Preface

We are delighted to introduce the proceedings of the second edition of the European

Alliance for Innovation (EAI) International Conference on Technology, Innovation,

Entrepreneurship and Education (TIE), which was held at Ravensbourne University

London, UK, on September 4, 2018

The conference aimed to provide a platform to support cross-fertilization of ideas between the worlds of business, science, technology and the arts The special theme for this edition was ‘Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality’ and how these tools could facilitate creativity and innovation

The conference was organized as a 1-day event featuring a keynote speech by Professor Richard Scase (Professor of Organizational Change at the University of Kent, UK) on innovation, a main programme of some ten full papers, a workshop (holonovels) featuring four presentations that examined potential for Star Trek-like technologies to be realized and, finally, two mini-workshops organized by Ravensbourne University: ‘Computer Art in the Age of Augmented/Mixed Reality’

and ‘Immersive Audio/Creation of 3D Audio Content’ that combined to make an

informative and vibrant day

As with all conferences, success is dependent on team effort, and we are pleased

to acknowledge the important contribution made by the TIE’18 organizing team and the reviewers Finally, we wish to thank all the contributors to this event which are,

of course, the main source of value for the day and these proceedings; thank you one and all

TPC Chair and Co-Chairs

Special Theme Chair

Publicity and Social Media Chairs

Conference Manager

Technical Program Committee

Malek Alrashidi, University of Tabuk

Gazi Erkan Bostanc ı, Ankara University

Gonçalo Brás, IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research – Instituto Superior Técnico

Vic Callaghan, Essex University

Graham Clarke, University of Essex

David Crawford, University of Essex

Marc Davies, University of Essex

Kieran Delaney, Cork Institute of Technology

Muhibuddin Fadhli, Universitas Muhammadiyah Ponorogo

Emmanuel Ferreyra, University of Essex

Samuel Fosso Wamba, Toulouse Business School

Michael Gardner, University of Essex

Hazel Grian, Pervasive Media Studio

Anne Holohan, Department of Sociology, Trinity College Dublin

Xini Hu, Canterbury Christ Church University

Chantel Chen, University of Essex

Meghna Chhabra, K. R Mangalam University

Kevin I-Kai Wang, The University of Auckland

Andrew Jackson, Canterbury Christ Church University

Dr S Suresh Kumar, CMR University

Caleb C Y Kwong, University of Essex

Tiina Kymäläinen, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Melissa Laird, National Institute of Dramatic Art

Carrie Lane, San Diego State University

Laura Macias Velasco, Universidad del Valle de Atemajac

Jennifer O’Connor, NUI Galway

Anasol Pena-Rios, University of Essex

Dan Petrovici, University of Kent

Angelica Reyes, Polytechnic University of Catalonia

Jonathon Richter, Salish Kootenai College

Oluwatimilehin Salako, University of Essex, Colchester

Richard Scase, University of Kent

Carl Smith, Rave University

Claire Street, Canterbury Christ Church University

Yoke Eng Tan, Canterbury Christ Church University

Minjuan Wang, San Diego State University

Fang Wang, Brunel University

Hsuan-Yi Wu, Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Taiwan University Sunny Yang, National Taiwan University

Victor Manuel Zamudio Rodríguez, Instituto Tecnológico de León

Shumei Zhang, Leeds Beckett University

Ping Zheng, The Business School, Canterbury Christ Church University

Advisors

Part I TIE Main Track

Delphi Panel Discussion of F-TAM: Industry Experts

and Academic Perspectives 3

Joshua Kofi Doe, Rogier Van de Wetering, Ben Honyenuga, Johan

Versendaal, and Richard Boateng

Embedding Creativity in the University Computing Curriculum 25

Ed Currie and Carl James-Reynolds

Generating Virtual Worlds for Collaborative

Innovation Activities: A Responsive Templating Approach 37

Oluwatimilehin Salako, Michael Gardner, and Vic Callaghan

Holodeck as a Medium for Future Enacted, Immersive,

Narrative Experiences 55

Tiina Kymäläinen

The Impact of Universities’ Entrepreneurial Activity

on Perception of Regional Competitiveness 67

Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás, Miguel Torres Preto, Ana Dias Daniel,

Andreia Vitória, Carlos Rodrigues, Aurora Teixeira, and Ana Oliveira

Use of Wearable Technology to Measure Emotional Responses

Amongst Tennis Players 91

M A Hannan Bin Azhar, Tommy Nelson, and Anthony Casey

Importance of the Use of Technology by Young People

with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve Their Quality

of Life and the Relationship with University Students 107

Laura Macias and Victor Zamudio

Contents

Liminality: Thinking Through Creative Practice,

Unpredictability and Pedagogy of Collaboration

Arts-Based Knowledge Translation Frameworks 119

Melissa Laird

The Role of ICT in SMBs Growth: An Analysis

of ICT Intervention at Different Levels of Small

Businesses Lifecycle 129

Messina Ntede Cécile Angéla, Kala Kamdjoug Jean Robert,

and Fosso Wamba Samuel

Effects of Students’ Preferences in Use of Lighting

and Temperature on Productivity in a University Setting 139

M A Hannan Bin Azhar, Tasmina Islam, and Matthew Alfieri

Part II HOLONOVELS Workshop

The Holodeck Is My Oyster 149

Bake Believe (a Holonovel) 183

Lena Arent Bennedsen

Index 193

Part I

TIE Main Track

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

P Zheng et al (eds.), EAI International Conference on Technology, Innovation,

Entrepreneurship and Education, EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication

and Computing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16130-9_1

Delphi Panel Discussion of F-TAM:

Industry Experts and Academic

as mobile phone payment systems, has similarly realized a total subscription rate of 14,697,570, as at the first quarter of 2016 [4] This represents approximately 52% market penetration since it was introduced in 2009 [2] This increased industrial and academic interest in the debate on digital innovations for marketing and business purposes is apparent due to the need for further expansion of mobile technologies and its allied innovations for accelerated growth of SMEs

J K Doe, PhD Candidate ( * )

Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

R Van de Wetering · J Versendaal

Faculty of Management, Science & Technology, Open University of the Netherlands,

Heerlen, The Netherlands

e-mail: rogier.vandewetering@ou.nl; johan.versendaal@ou.nl

Studies have found that the factors indicated in earlier models and theories have been, in many cases, present in developing countries, yet many digital innovations have not been widely adopted [5] This is partly because they have posited anteced-ents of behavioral intention, sidestepping the context within which this intention will occur The contextualization of adoption factors has, therefore, become very imperative in the quest for factors that enhance widespread and speedy adoption of innovations such as the case of mobile technologies.

As an initial step toward the development of a model of adoption within the Ghanaian context, Doe et al [6] developed an initial firm level technology adoption model (F-TAM) through a systematic literature review and analysis The F-TAM posited four factors at the personal level, five factors at the firm level, and four fac-tors at the societal level that interrelate to realize firm level adoption of digital inno-vations, as shown in Fig. 1 From this model, the authors posited the following propositions:

Firm Level Factors

Technological Readiness

Managerial Innovativeness

Organizational Readiness

Strategic Fit with Operations

Societal level factors

Government Championship Government Policy Risk-taking Culture Trust in Digital Operations

Personal Level factors

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) Perceived Usefulness (PU) Perceived Indispensability Perceived Social Influences

FIRM LEVEL ADOPTION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION

Fig 1 Initial F-TAM Source: Doe et al [6]

Proposition 1: Individual level factors directly lead to firm level adoption of digital innovation Proposition 2: Individual level factors of adoption directly influ- ence firm level factors of adoption Proposition 3: Firm level factors of adoption lead to firm level adoption Proposition 4: Firm level adoption is moderated by societal level factors.

Doe et al [6] recommended an exploratory study of industry experts to further strengthen the F-TAM model for the context of its development The objective of this Delphi discussion, therefore, is to further develop the initial F-TAM [6] by interviewing experts in industry and academia Specific research questions to be addressed in this study are:

(a) To what degree does the F-TAM reflects the adoption pattern among SMEs

in Ghana?

(b) Are there other factors that are not accounted for in this model?

(c) Could changes in the model make the model more valid?

2 Context of the Study

Developing Country

The World Bank defines a developing country as having low to middle income (0–$3255 per capita income) Bannock et al [7] define a developing country as a country that has reached neither growth of industrialization nor a level of national income sufficient to finance investment for further growth One crucial aspect of Bannock’s (1992) definition is that developing countries, such as Ghana, lack domestic savings required to finance investment that is necessary for further growth such as mass adoption of mobile technology innovations

While digital innovations in general could accelerate Ghana’s development cess [8, 9], SMEs in Ghana live with the digital divide [10, 11], which has been argued to be a poverty gap [12]

Impediments to the Adoption of Digital Technologies

SMEs are in an excellent position to adopt new technologies due to low cracy [16] However, Karanasios [17] reported macro factors that impede effective adoption by SMEs as inadequate telecommunications infrastructure, lack of pay-ment options, legal and regulatory issues, trust and security, socio-cultural factors, and lack of skills in the workforce Micro-level factors include financial con-straints, lack of knowledgeable employees, internet security issues, among other factors [17]

bureau-3 Methodology

This exploratory study employs the Delphi panel discussion in examining the F-TAM model, primarily because of its ability to assemble groups of experts to reply to interview rounds involving the discussion of a specific question or ques-tions The technique helped to sample views of both academics and industry experts who may have varying opinions on the adoption of mobile technology innovations

in Ghana The rounds procedure repeats itself with the goal of reducing the variety

of responses until a consensus is achieved [18] Two rounds of interviews were conducted

Round 1 Delphi Interview: In the first round of interviews, the respondents were asked to comment on the original variables of the F-TAM model [6], as well as the relationships that were posited to exist Respondents were asked to suggest any vari-able they believe should be added or deleted based on their experiences and knowl-edge of how SMEs adopted mobile digital innovation Any new variable discovered was added as part of the second round of interviews

Round 2 Delphi Interview: In the second round, respondents were asked to ment on the revised variables, restricting the comment to agreement, disagreement, and neutrality Respondents were given an option to indicate any other comment they may have

com-The role of the researchers in this study was restricted to that of a planner, tator, recorder, and reviewer or synthesizer of the data [19]

Qualification for Participants Membership

For both industry and academic participants, the authors conferred to be sure that they are willing to give either oral or written communication, had time to respond, and have an interest in the topic [19] Industry participants were completely anony-mous Academic membership, however, was not entirely anonymous due to the use

of snowball sampling Industry criteria for inclusion were that the participant/

company had introduced a mobile technology innovation (payment, SMS, etc.) into the Ghanaian business community that had been adopted by SMEs Academic par-ticipants must have five years academic (teaching and publication) experience in addition to industry practice, or an academic with at least a Ph.D., and has published

in the areas of mobile technology innovation or any related field

Sampling

Purposive sampling enabled the authors to select industry experts who have duced mobile innovations into the marketplace [20] For manageability purposes, ten (10) industry experts were purposively sampled [21, 22] from The 7th Ghana Information Technology & Telecom Awards nominee list (http://gittawards.com

intro-gh) These are firms or individuals who have excelled in introducing and managing mobile technology innovations in Ghanaian society Only five responded to the first interview, and four responded to the second interview Seven academics were tar-geted, using snowball sampling in the first round Five responses were received in both first and second round of interviews

Delphi Discussion Process

Appointments with the sampled experts were made a week ahead of time The model and the questionnaire to be discussed were likewise given to them ahead of time [23] The first interviews were administered between November 2017 and February 2018, covering 16 weeks The second round of interviews was conducted mid to late March 2018 Both interviews were administered orally or sent by email Interview data was collected with either a voice recorder or an open-ended ques-tionnaire Voice data was transcribed into text, using content analysis [24] to scan out the main issues being discussed

Data Analysis

Qualitative data analytical processes, content analysis, and pattern matching were employed to fish out relevant issues that confirm, add to, or subtract from the origi-nal model (Table 1)

Within Case Analysis Process Content analysis, a systematic analytical technique

to compress large amounts of words into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding [25], became a useful mode of analysis to confirm or test a pre- existing theory [26], in this case, the variables, and relationships of the F-TAM model

Cross-Case Analysis Process The concept-centric approach to qualitative data organization [27] was used after that to arrange the contents of discussion into building blocks or themes.

Model Refinement Pattern matching compares an observed pattern with a dicted one, theoretical realm [24] The inferential task involves the attempt to relate, link, or match these two patterns

pre-Consensus Typically, the consensus within Delphi studies ranges from 55 to 100% agreement, with 70% considered the standard [28] New variables discovered from the first round of interviews were tested in the second interview before accepted or rejected A variable index was developed by first giving the responses a weighting

of two (2) for agree, one (1) for neutral, and zero (0) for disagree Second, the scores were multiplied by the frequency and then summed up to arrive at the index The index formula is thus∑[(fA) + (fN) + (fD)] Variables that realized a mean index

score of 12 (0.67) or above were maintained For the expected linkages between the constructs, each linkage was expected to realize an index of 10 (0.56) or above For linkages where reverse relationships were realized, the linkage with the higher index was chosen These are explained further under the discussion of the results At the personal level, a total of six (6) variables were retained At the firm level, a total

of 10 (ten) variables were retained and reclassified into two sub-groups of firm internal characteristics and industry characteristics At the societal level, a total of seven (7) variables were retained

Validity Validity concerns in this study are researcher bias, reactivity [29], and interpretive validity [29] Validity was improved in this study by participant feed-back embedded in the Delphi discussion process, and the use of pattern matching in the data analysis process

Generalizability Generalizability [30] concerns in this study mainly involve nal dimension of generalizability Generalizability is enhanced through the verifica-tion of the findings in round one, as well as the use of triangulation of evidence from industry to academia, and the synthesis of the results with theoretical patterns [31]

inter-4 Findings and Discussion

Personal Level Factors

From the discussions, it appears that personal level factors can better be described

as employee attitudes and perceptions This clearly demarcates a particular firm’s

employee factors from the general public human factors captured in society level factors

Perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) both received

over-whelming support with a variable index of 18 (1.0) in both the first and second round

of interviews PEOU and PU are therefore accepted in the model for further testing

Perceived indispensability [6] realized a variable index of 16 (0.89) in the first round and 15 (0.83) in the second round, and is therefore accepted in the model

Trial feedback is a consequence of triability of an innovation [36] In the sion theory, triability is posited as one of the technology characteristics that enhances adoption Trial purchase is known in the adoption process as an initial usage [36] In

diffu-the second round interview, trial feedback realized an index score of 15 (0.83) and

therefore is accepted in the model

to be positively related to task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) [37] Employee self-interest has been reported from both industry and aca-demic interviews as a major determinant of employee adoption of innovation In the

second round interview, employee self-interest realized an index score of 16 (0.89),

and therefore is accepted in the model

Perceived social influences were described in the first round of interviews as completely irrelevant by two industry experts, while two academic respondents said

it was generally relevant as a personal level factor Given that these are qualitative responses, perceived social influence was included as part of the variables at the

personal level factors for the second round of the interviews Perceived social

influ-ence realized a variable index score of 15 (0.83) in the second round and therefore was accepted in the model

Firm Level Factors

Firm and industry trust in digital operations came up as an indicator of firm tion Vize et al [38] found that industry trust and past experience of the firm lead to firm technology readiness Thus, it can be measured under technology readiness of

adop-the firm

experts and one academic as an important factor in firm level adoption of an tion This is the ready availability of a technical hand to assist the firm in resolving initial problems that may arise Grandon and Pearson [39] in the study of e- commerce

innova-adoption by SMEs found it to be very relevant Ease of support realized an index

score of 13 (0.72) in the second round of interviews, and therefore is accepted in the model

vari-able in the developing country context Choi et al [40] reported a similar outcome

In the second round of interviews, however, firm ownership structure realized an index score of 11 (0.61), and therefore is rejected

experts and an academic as very influential in firm level adoption Škerlavaj et al

[41] reported that an organizational learning culture has an impact on organizational

innovativeness In the second round interview, organizational culture realized an

index score of 15(0.83), and therefore is accepted in the model

industry experts and two academics) as very important in firm adoption of ogy This falls in line with the marketing orientation where an organization responds

technol-to its custechnol-tomer innovativeness by adopting an innovation [44] Customer needs was implied in the initial F-TAM model [6] as an item under industry adoption; however, industry adoption is now decomposed into competitor pressure, customer or market

needs, and industry partner requirements In the second round interview, Customer

needs realized an index score of 18(1.0) and is therefore accepted in the model

under industry adoption This is described in the diffusion theory [36] as tive pressure, and in the institutional theory as mimetic pressure [43] Competitive

competi-pressure realized an index score of 18 (1.0), in the second round of interviews and

is therefore accepted in the model

[6] This is described as coercive pressure [42] or normative institutional pressure [47] In the second round of interviews, partner requirements realized an index

score of 16(0.89), and is therefore accepted in the model

Technology Factors

Technology related factors have been mentioned by respondents as influential in

firm level technology adoption These include innovation flexibility, observability,

and relative advantage of innovation. These are constructs posited by Rogers [36]

in addition to innovation triability, and innovation complexity as innovation related

characteristics that affect adoption of any innovation Triability of the innovations is subtly measured under trial feedback Technology factors variables are classified as

a construct called technology characteristics In the second round interview,

tech-nology characteristics realized an index score of 18 (1.0) for innovation flexibility,

12 (0.67) for observability, 17 (0.94) for relative advantage of innovation, and 14

(0.78) for complexity (negatively related) Thus, these technology characteristics

are accepted in the model

Societal Level Factors

Societal risk culture as a variable did not get enough support from the first round of

interviews One respondent indicated that “risk culture is dependent on the type of

innovation being adopted Innovations with implicit risks will depend on risk sciousness of the adopters Especially innovations in which financial loses easily

con-occur.” This appears to be a passive response Another respondent who disagreed

said that “for societal level, risk-taking culture might not be very relevant and

impactful when it comes to adoption of mobile innovations at firm level.” The only respondent who agreed gave a general endorsement for each of the variables at the societal level This dilemma was resolved by measuring risk culture at both the firm

level and societal level From responses of the second round interview, firm level

risk culture realized an index score of 15 (0.83), while societal risk culture realized

an index score of 11 (0.61); therefore, societal risk culture is rejected from the

model

Trust is another variable of culture In the first round of interviews it did not get any negative comment or disagreement It got three supports from industry with one

stating its effect as “trust is built over time But it (trust) affect the continuous use of

the innovation This is directly linked, and fundamental.” In the second round

inter-view societal trust realized an index score of 10 (0.56), and therefore is deleted from

the model

In the discussion of government policy there was a distinction made by one

aca-demic respondent and two industry respondents, between laws and policy One

explanation was that “laws are legal instruments to enable the mobile innovation,

their view, government policies regarding an innovation may simply indicate what government preference and direction will be and what government chooses to sup-port Laws on the other hand indicate what is permitted and what is not permitted

In this regard therefore, government regulation on innovation [45] is now decoupled

from government policy From the second round interview, government laws

real-ized an index score of 16 (0.89), while government policy realreal-ized an index score of

15 (0.83); therefore, both government laws and government policy are accepted in

the model

The availability of a reliable digital media infrastructure was mentioned as a necessary bedrock for adopting mobile innovations One example was that “the

availability of 2.0 internet technology in Ghana enabled the use of social media in

infrastructure [45] Innovation Infrastructure is cited in the second round on

inter-views as an overarching construct to cover all technical readiness and it realized an index score of 14 (0.78) Therefore, it is accepted in the model

as another important environmental factor that affects its adoption This is firmed from the diffusion theory by a construct called opinion leadership [36] Rogers [36] argued that the active adoption, promotion, or discussion on an innova-tion by opinion leaders escalates the adoption of an innovation In the second round

con-interview, opinion leadership realized an index score of 13(0.72), and therefore is

accepted in the model

Successive government commitment to promoting an innovation has been cited as

an important variable in the developing country context This is summarized from one

respondent as follows: “there needs to be a new variable on political actions That is

commitment of successive governments’ actions towards the previous government

championed innovations, and policy For developing country context, the politics associated with any innovation can affect the success of the innovation.” The discus-sions noted that, for developing country contexts, successive governments have con-sistently abandoned previous government’s initiatives in an attempt to undo their achievements or to commit the limited resources to their own initiatives This has been the bane of innovation initiatives of every government If successive govern-ments are committed to previous government innovative initiatives, it will inspire organizations to adopt that innovation, knowing that the innovation has a future use in the country In the study of government initiatives Mathews [46] found that the com-mitment of successive government to a previous government initiative is critical to the success of an initiative (innovation) Successive government commitment realized an

index score of 15 (0.83) from the second round responses; therefore, successive

gov-ernment commitment is accepted in the model

New Relationships Discovered

Data collected from the first round suggested an overwhelming support from both industry and academia for some new relationships, which were not anticipated in the F-TAM model [6] These include:

Personal Level Factors Influence Societal Level Factors and Vice Versa It is widely expected that the employees of the firm will influence their peers who do not work within the same working environment, and their peers will likewise do the same From the second round of interviews, the link from personal level factors to societal level factors realized an index score of 9 (0.5) and therefore is rejected The link from societal level factors to personal level factors received an index score of

10 (0.56) Thus societal level factor is accepted in the model to lead to personal

level factors.

Personal Level Factors Moderate the Link Between the Firm Factors and Firm Adoption The personal attitudes and perceptions of employees will make them support and embrace the innovation faster, thus being a moderating effect The second round of interviews shows that this link realized an index score of 14 (0.77)

Thus, personal level factors are accepted in the model to moderate the link between

the firm factors and firm adoption

Firm Level Factors Have a Reciprocal Effect on Personal Level Factors As firm level factors are realized, it affects the perceptions and attitudes of employees This linkage realized an index score of 9 (0.5) in the second round of interviews,

and is therefore rejected.

Firm Adoption Leading to Societal Level Factors As one respondent captures it

“private firms are always first to adopt an innovation before government reacts with

policies and regulations But where governments champion the adoption of an vation, it diffuses (mass adoption) faster.” Thus, when a firm adopts an innovation, that firm becomes an opinion leader within the innovation society, thereby creating the need for government regulations, discussions, and support This linkage realized

inno-an index score of 10 (0.56) However, this linkage is suspended as it results in a loop (feedback effect) in the model as the dependent construct (endogenous construct) of firm adoption, and will end up being an exogenous construct for one of its anteced-ents More so, the inverse relationship of societal level factors leading to firm adop-tion realized a higher index score of 12 (0.67) and was accepted

Firm Level Factors Influencing Societal Level Factors and Vice Versa It is widely expected that firm level factors influence societal level factors Firm level factors leading to societal level factors realized an index score of 7 (0.37) and were therefore rejected Societal level factors leading to firm level factors realized an index score of 13 (0.72) and therefore accepted in the model

Societal Level Factors Moderate the Link Between Firm Factors and Firm Adoption This was already anticipated in the initial F-TAM model This relation-ship realized an index score of 16 (0.89) and was therefore accepted

Firm Level Adoption Influences Personal Level Factors (Reciprocal Effect) It

is widely expected that, just as personal level factors influence firm level adoption, firm level adoption influences personal level factors This relationship realized an index score of 11 (0.61) This creates a look effect in the model, as the dependent construct (endogenous construct) ends up becoming an independent construct (exogenous construct) for one of its antecedents Moreover, personal level factors lead to firm adoption with a higher score of 15 (0.83) Thus, firm adoption leading

to personal level factors is suspended in the model

Firm Adoption Influences Firm Level Factors As a firm adopts an innovation, its internal and external environment is influenced to adopt the innovation, thereby increasing the firm level factors further This relationship realized an index score of

11 (0.611); however, this creates a loop effect in the model as a dependent construct (endogenous construct) of firm adoption and ends up becoming an exogenous construct of one of its antecedents Thus, firm adoption leaning to firm level factors

is suspended in the model

Whether societal level factors directly lead to firm level adoption it became an

albatross that could not be unraveled easily Whereas one academic and one try respondent faintly suggested that relationship, an industry respondent vehe-

indus-mently disagreed with a clear explanation as “societal level factors do not directly

lead to firm level adoption of innovations However they serve as a strong marketing point, which indirectly aids in boosting a firms interest in innovations.” This dis-agreement was supported by another academic respondent Thus in their view, soci-

etal level factors can lead to the firm level adoption only through firm level factors

(indirect) and moderate the speed with which firms adopt Given that the responses were qualitative, this relationship was included in the second round of interviews, and realized an index score of 12 (0.67) Societal level factors leading to firm adop-tion are therefore accepted in the model.

In the revised F-TAM model shown in Fig. 2, the following propositions are confirmed:

Proposition 1 Personal level factors lead to firm adoption

Proposition 2 Personal level factors lead to firm factors

Proposition 3 Firm factors lead to firm adoption

Proposition 4 Societal level factors moderate the relationship between firm level factors and firm adoption

The following new propositions made are:

Proposition 5 Personal level factors moderate the relationship between firm tors and firm adoption

fac-Proposition 6 Societal level factors influence personal level factors

Proposition 7 Societal level factors influence firm level factors

Proposition 8 Societal level factors lead to firm adoption

Proposition 9 Technology factors influence employee factors

Proposition 10 Technology factors influence firm level factors

Proposition 11 Technology factors influence societal factors

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

In this study, the authors sought to examine: (a) the degree to which the F-TAM reflects the adoption pattern among SMEs in Ghana, (b) whether there are other fac-tors of variables that are not accounted for in the F-TAM, and (c) whether a change

in the model makes the model more valid?

(a) To what degree does the F-TAM reflects the adoption pattern among SMEs in Ghana? Data from the first and second round of Delphi interviews indicates a very high degree of facial validity All variables at the personal level, as well as the firm level, were seen to be valid None were rejected Only two variables at the societal level were rejected at that level, but they were re-introduced at the

firm level and found to be valid On the whole, the variables in the revised F-TAM model contain 62% of variables from the initial F-TAM model [6] While some old variables, such as industry adoption at the firm level, were decomposed into three variables of customer demands, industry pressure, and partner requirement, others were reclassified Thus, the F-TAM model of Doe

et al [6] reflects the adoption pattern of SMEs in Ghana

(b) Are there other factors that are not accounted for in this model? By the end of the second round of Delphi interviews, two new variables were realized at both the personal level and the firm level; four new variables were realized at the societal level; thus, there were eight new variables within the constructs on the initial F-TAM model A new construct of technology characteristics was intro-duced into the model, containing four variables These were unaccounted for in the initial F-TAM model, reflecting a stronger reality of mobile technology adoption among SMEs in Ghana

(c) Could changes in the model make the model more valid? Thirteen (13) changes

in the model pattern were suggested by the industry as well as the academia Three (3) of these changes were rejected Another three (3) were suspended due

to their ability to cause a loop effect in the model Thus, seven changes or linkages between the constructs have been accepted to make the model more representative

Recommendation for Future Studies

The revised model (Fig. 2) reflects industry experts and an academic view point of what explains the adoption of mobile innovations among SMEs in Ghana The authors recommend further testing of the model, using advanced statistical tools with a large sample of quantitative data from SMEs Technology characteristics and firm adoption must be measured reflectively, while the other constructs of employee attitudes and perceptions, firm level factors, and societal level factors should be

Employee Attitudes and Perceptions

1 Perceive Ease of Use

Firm Internal Characteristics

6 Successive Government Commitment

Firm Industry Characteristics

measured reflectively In the process of building the revised model, some linkages or relationships were suspended due to their ability to cause loop effects in the model

We recommend independent testing of these linkages as well The verification of these suspended linkages will throw further light on the total structure or linkages in the SME innovation adoption ecosystem in a developing country like Ghana

3 N.A. Tagoe, Who regulates the mobile money operations by Telco’s? The need for an effective

and robust legislative and regulatory framework in Ghana J. Bus Fin Aff 5(208), 2167–0234

(2016)

4 National Communications Authority, in Industry Information  – Telecom Subscribers for March 2016 (2016) Retrieved from http://www.nca.org.gh/downloads/Telecom_subscription_ trends_for_March_2016.pdf

5 P. Datta, A preliminary study of ecommerce adoption in developing countries Inf Syst J. 21,

3–32 (2011)

6 J.K Doe, R Van de Wetering, B Honyenuga, J Versendaal, Toward a firm technology

adop-tion model (F-TAM) in a developing country context, in MCIS 2017 Proceedings, (2017),

p 23 http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2017/23

7 G. Bannock, R.E. Baxter, E. Davis, The Penguin Dictionary of Economics, 5th edn (Penguin

Books, London, 1992)

8 R. Boateng, R. Hinson, R. Heeks, A. Molla, E-commerce in least developing countries:

sum-mary evidence and implications J. Afr Bus 9(2), 257–285 (2008)

9 R.  Hinson, O.  Sorensen, E-business and small Ghanaian exporters: preliminary micro firm

explorations in the light of a digital divide Online Inf Rev 30(2), 116–138 (2006)

10 M. Falch, Tele-centres in Ghana Telematics Inform 21(1), 103–114 (2004)

11 UNCTAD, Use of the Internet for Efficient International Trade: Guide for SME Managers

(United Nations Publication, New York, 2004)

12 P.G. Zachary, in Ghana’s digital dilemma, 2002 Available from http://www.ghanaweb.com/ GhanaHome Page/features/artikel.php?ID=25024

13 S.  Mensa, in A review of SME financing schemes in Ghana Paper presented at UNIDO

Regional conference on SME financing small and medium scale enterprises, Accra, Ghana 15–16th March, 2004 (SEM International Associates Limited, Ghana, 2004)

14 G. Bannock, The economics and Management of Small Business: An International Perspective

(Routledge, New York, 2005)

15 R.M.  Kennedy, S.  Hobohm, in Supporting Private Industry: Capacity Building for Private

Sector Development in Africa Working Paper 3 United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, 1999

16 J.E.  Payne, in E-Commerce Readiness for SMEs in Developing Countries: A Guide for Development Professionals, Academy for Educational Development/LearnLink, 2002

17 S.S. Karanasios, in An E-commerce framework for small tourism enterprises in developing countries, Faculty of Business and Law Victoria University, Australia (2008)

18 H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff, in The Delphi method: techniques and applications (2002) Retrieved from http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf

19 J.R.  Avella, Delphi panels: research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges Int

J. Doct Stud 11, 305–321 (2016)

20 M Saunders, P Lewis, A Thornhill, Research methods, in Business Students, 4th edn.,

(Pearson Education, England, 2007)

21 K.M.  Eisenhardt, Building theories from case study research Acad Manag Rev 14(4),

25 B. Berelson, Content Analysis in Communication Research (Free Press, New York, 1952)

26 D. Ezzy, Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2002)

27 J.  Webster, R.T.  Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature

review MIS Q 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)

28 W Vernon, The Delphi technique: a review Int J Ther Rehabil 16(2), 69–76 (2009)

29 J.A.  Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd edn (Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2005)

30 J.W.  Schofield, Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research, in The Qualitative

Researcher’s Companion, ed by M. B Miles, A. M Huberman (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2002), pp. 171–203

31 D. Finfgeld-Connett, Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings

J. Adv Nurs 66, 246–254 (2010)

32 V. Venkatesh, H. Bala, Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on

interven-tions Decis Sci 39(2), 273–315 (2008)

33 S. Gurtner, R. Reinhardt, K. Soyez, Designing mobile business applications for different age

groups Technol Forecast Soc Chang 88, 177–188 (2014)

34 C.C. Chang, C.F. Yan, J.S. Tseng, Perceived convenience in an extended technology tance model: mobile technology and English learning for college students Australas J. Educ

accep-Technol 28(5), 809–826 (2012)

35 L Schiffman, L Kanuk, Consumer Behaviour, 10th edn (Prentice Hall, 2009)

36 S. Yun, R. Takeuchi, W. Liu, Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance iors: investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial percep-

behav-tions of employee commitment J. Appl Psychol 92(3), 745 (2007)

37 R.  Vize, J.  Coughlan, A.  Kennedy, F.  Ellis-Chadwick, Technology readiness in a B2B online retail context: an examination of antecedents and outcomes Ind Mark Manag

42(6), 909–918 (2013)

38 E.E. Grandon, J.M. Pearson, Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and

medium US businesses Inf Manag 42(1), 197–216 (2004)

39 S.B. Choi, B.I. Park, P. Hong, Does ownership structure matter for firm technological

innova-tion performance? The case of Korean firms Corporate Governance Int Rev 20(3), 267–288

(2012)

40 M Škerlavaj, J.H. Song, Y. Lee, Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and

inno-vations in South Korean firms Expert Syst Appl 37(9), 6390–6403 (2010)

41 P.  DiMaggio, W.W.  Powell, The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional

isomorphism in organizational fields Am Sociol Rev 48(2), 147–160 (1983)

42 A.  Soares-Aguiar, A.  Palma-dos-Reis, Why do firms adopt e-procurement systems? Using

logistic regression to empirically test a conceptual model IEEE Trans Eng Manag 55(1),

120–133 (2008)

43 J. Hauser, G.J. Tellis, A. Griffin, Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing

science Mark Sci 25(6), 687–717 (2006)

44 L.G.  Tornatzky, M.  Fleischer, A.K.  Chakrabarti, Processes of Technological Innovation

(Lexington Books, Lexington, 1990)

45 J.A. Mathews, Green growth strategies—Korean initiatives Futures 44(8), 761–769 (2012)

46 C.L. Iacovou, I. Benbasat, A.S. Dexter, Electronic data interchange and small organizations:

adoption and impact of technology MIS Q 19, 465–485 (1995)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

P Zheng et al (eds.), EAI International Conference on Technology, Innovation,

Entrepreneurship and Education, EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication

and Computing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16130-9_2

Embedding Creativity in the University

Pink [1] explored the importance of imagination and creativity in employment and suggests that technology needs more than functionality to sell Successful designs such as the iPhone provide evidence that creativity and design are important

in engineering and can provide the USPs that enable a product to stand out against competitors’ products

In order to achieve this we need to equip our graduates with the appropriate knowledge, skills and creative flair that will enable them to tackle existing problems

as well as identifying new opportunities for solutions Capraro [2] explores STEM project based learning (PBL) and believes that “PBL provides the contextualized, authentic experiences necessary for students to scaffold learning and build mean-ingfully powerful science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concepts sup-ported by language arts, social studies, and art”

Traditionally, HE practitioners tend to classify and compartmentalize, keeping course content strictly within the discipline of study There is also the temptation to homogenize educational content for the purposes of quality and adherence to stan-dards, which also facilitates transfer of content between educators and the global-ization of material, ensuring that all content can be taught anywhere by anyone from the field of study, as exemplified by MOOCs and the national curriculum

E Currie ( * ) · C James-Reynolds

Middlesex University, London, UK

e-mail: e.currie@mdx.ac.uk

This might be seen as a positive step, allowing for easy access to resources and facilitating quality audits However Eisner [3] states that “The more we feel the pressure to standardize, the more we need to remind ourselves of what we should not try to standardize” Standardization carries a risk of stifling innovation and lim-iting creativity.

In the rest of this paper, we examine trends and initiatives for creativity in cal subjects generally and computer science in particular, and reflect on some of the attempts made to introduce more creativity into the curriculum in the Department of Computer Science at Middlesex University We endeavour to address questions such as why we should teach creativity to computer scientists, how we can teach creativity and indeed, is creativity teachable?

techni-2 Some Motivations for Technical Creativity

The separation of arts and science is a relatively recent phenomenon and the study

of the arts and a liberal education are seen less of a right and more as a pastime for those who do not need to earn a living In part this has been encouraged by the com-moditization of education

Many leading scientists throughout history have been involved in the arts from Einstein who played violin, to Da Vinci who often designed machines in his art-work In education it has emerged that the meaningful integration of arts with the sciences can provide rewarding educational experiences that focus on creativity as playing a key role in problem-solving and allows left and right brain skills to be integrated

Mishra et al [4] discuss the synergies between the creative processes in physics and those in music, through the experiences of Ludwig Boltzmann, a leading nine-teenth century physicist who was also a talented musician He compared reading James Clark Maxwell’s work on the theory of dynamic behaviour of gases, the interplay of the various equations and formulae, with the experience of listening to the interplay of the various instruments in the performance of a musical composi-tion It is interesting to speculate whether this is merely an interesting analogy, or whether there is some common thought process or mental mechanism that engages

in each of these apparently different areas of activity Mishra et al state that “…great thinkers in the areas of math and science often relate their efforts to music or the arts, highlighting the aural and visual experiences of their work, much more than the logical or formulaic” They cite a number of other examples of creative thinkers being inspired by the connections between their own discipline and many others, and furthermore argue that this should have a profound effect on how we approach teaching and learning; that we should be attempting to break down the boundaries between disciplines to nurture this process

Scoffham and Barnes [5] discuss engaging children in “personally meaningful activity” and state that “Teachers also frequently affirm that the most effective learning happens when children are fully engaged creatively”

The importance of creativity in engineering is well documented and applies to computer science and multi-dimensional systems design, as we will discuss below Indeed, the term “functional creativity” was coined to express the idea of meeting functional requirements in novel ways [6] A case study by Daly et al [7] found that some aspects of creativity were present in the engineering courses they considered, whereas others were not as prevalent In particular, the need for convergent thinking such as analysis and evaluation was common, but divergent thinking such as explo-ration and generation of ideas was not.

Even in the domain of “pure” computer programming, experts find it easy to identify so-called elegant solutions, which differ from more crude solutions not in how they meet the functional requirements of the system, but in their simplicity and economy of style This is also sometimes, but not always, a function of how well they meet well-known design criteria that enable understanding, modification and extending of systems

Students’ perception of what is required in the real world and relevant to their subject areas has been shaped by their courses at school and popular media repre-sentations of the subject area and associated professionals Graham and Latulipe [8]

in their exploration of recruitment and retention of female computer science dents discuss the “geek with a monitor tan” stereotype that most women wish to avoid and also that women have a stronger interest in real-world problem-solving that will benefit people, which they do not associate with computing Art and design based subjects are seen as creative, whereas sciences are often viewed as areas requiring the remembering of lots of facts and equations, with little room for cre-ativity The growth of creativity in science should help to redress the gender imbal-ance in student recruitment

stu-3 Creativity and Collaboration

Intuitively, we tend to think that collaborative learning is “good for” students, although it raises many issues where assessment is concerned Our intuition is sup-ported by the fact that such learning has been shown to have a positive influence on critical thinking A study by Gokhale [9] found that student performance when tested on the so-called drill and practice activities was not significantly different whether they had studied individually or collaboratively However, those who had engaged in collaborative learning performed significantly better on tests involving critical thinking than did those who had learned individually These results sup-ported the learning theories proposed by proponents of collaborative learning.Gokhale states that “… it can be concluded that collaborative learning fosters the development of critical thinking through discussion, clarification of ideas, and eval-uation of others’ ideas”, and for effective collaborative learning, “The instructor’s role is not to transmit information, but to serve as a facilitator for learning This involves creating and managing meaningful learning experiences and stimulating students’ thinking through real world problems” The importance of collaboration is

also shared by Steiner [10] who discusses creativity as involving collaboration or co-creation.

There has been a large increase in the number of online courses in recent years, and these present further challenges that might be addressable through the introduc-tion of creativity in the curriculum Levy and Ramin [11] investigated the skills needed for student success on e-learning courses, which have notoriously high non- completion rates It is possible that a contributory factor to the high drop-out rates

in e-learning could be the sense of isolation and lack of a learning community to motivate and inspire students in this mode of study We hypothesize that this could

be mitigated in computing programmes by introducing some element of creativity into the learning process

By their very nature, online computing programmes tend to somewhat rigid in content and involve less divergent computational thinking; students are often not encouraged to take an exploratory approach to problem-solving However, micro-controller kits can be very cheap and are easily sent through the post and collabora-tive creative activity using such devices is possible through online study groups

4 Technical Creativity in Schools

Foster [12] states that “perhaps the two educators who had the greatest influence on the genesis of what is now known as technology education were Lois Coffey Mossman (1877–1944) and Frederick Gordon Bonser (1875–1931)” As early as the 1920s, they identified problems in technical education, such as not relating work

to the real world, poor motivation, not taking account of individuality and the emphasis of the product over the educational process These issues, recognized so long ago, are still prominent in the teaching of technology in higher education today.When computers were first introduced to schools, children used LOGO and tur-tle graphics to draw patterns and explore computing concepts such as loops and conditionals Computers were also used to support artistic endeavours such as story writing Henderson and Miner [13] observed that “Computers used effectively can become tools to build the minds and imaginations of future generations of creative thinkers”

STEM was an American initiative from 2006 to try to improve student mance by adopting an interdisciplinary approach, primarily in schools and colleges This has since become STEAM with an acknowledgement that art plays a critical role in applications of scientific knowledge and that creativity is fundamental to solving problems These initiatives have been adopted throughout the world and are increasingly finding their way into further and higher education

perfor-Introducing creativity into a curriculum is not always easy; students are often risk-averse and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) points out that innovation is urgently needed for economic growth and that risk-taking is essential to innovation They also point to lost opportunities for encouraging risk-taking in STEM subject areas [14] Csikszentmihalyi [15] records

that Madeleine L’Engle stated “But we’re allowed to learn from our mistakes and from our failures” Encouraging risk-taking is possible, but it is important to have sufficient time to fail and learn from mistakes before assessment takes place.Many schools now have cross curriculum days where they tackle problems using

a wide range of skills They also make use of STEM ambassadors who volunteer to assist in schools and provide examples of real-world problems and careers Some initiatives, such as BBC Microbits, are allowing children to play with embedded technologies and explore these in a wider context than just computing

With the increased need for teachers to meet grade targets for their pupils to ensure career progression, there is an incentive for teachers to be risk-averse and avoid making changes unless they can see these being rewarded Whilst the syllabi try to facilitate flexibility, the exams and coursework together with limited resources available often significantly limit freedom in teaching From a school perspective, literacy and numeracy are seen as being more important than other subjects as per-ceived by OFSTED and these subject areas are given priority in order to ensure the school’s status is retained or improved This is not a new phenomenon; Craft [16] discussed performative and creativity agendas co-existing and “the tendency among educators and policy makers, even then, to reduce creativity to the arts”

5 Technical Creativity in HE

The issues of poor motivation, lack of individuality and emphasis of the product over the educational process recognized in school teaching so long ago by Mossman and Bonser [12] are still prominent in the teaching of technology in higher educa-tion today The emphasis on the product manifests itself at the level of individual module assignments and also in the bigger picture of the purpose and intended outcomes for technical degree programmes In the former, students are rewarded according to how well their constructed product meets the specification, with little regard to the processes the student has engaged with along the way In the latter, our programmes are increasingly designed to be “vocational” which is often interpreted

to mean that they should anticipate and teach the same technologies that will be used in future employment, making them into glorified training courses We hypoth-esize that nurturing polymaths requires a much more creative approach to technol-ogy higher education That does not mean that repetitive practice of technique is not important, and indeed this is as vital a part of the training of artists and musicians as

it is in computer programming or mathematics Csikszentmihalyi [15] states “A musician must learn the musical tradition, the notation system, the way instruments are played before she can think of writing a new song”

However, we believe that this needs to be placed in a different context, in which such work is complemented by creative individual and collaborative activities that help to produce more rounded individuals

The shift from a “silo” approach to subjects in school is now being explored in higher education and in the way we approach teaching and curriculum design

Employers often look for creativity in employees and see this as a key skill Integrated creative STEM approaches have often been seen in particular areas such

as engineering and product design where strong technical and design skills are equally important However good practice does not always spread from one area to another

It is difficult to measure creativity, although a number of techniques have been tried Bennett et al [17] explore the use of computation creativity in game design and use divergence from the tutorial norm as an indicator of creativity They showed very different results for three different classes and it is possible that the tutor’s style and perceived attitude has significant impact on the amount of risk that a student is prepared to take It is interesting to note that an online course showed far less diver-gence All students produced variations of the same game It becomes more difficult when all students produce different games, as there is no tutorial norm However, such coursework encourages a creative approach from the start and the student essentially is specifying their own game criteria as a contract with the tutor

6 Embedding Technical Creativity in Our Computing

Curriculum

How can we teach creativity to computer science students? Indeed, can it be taught?

A very eminent professor once told one of us that computer programming could not

be taught Whilst this might be a somewhat extreme view, we believe it does have some factual basis, inasmuch as learning programming is a voyage of exploration for the student, in which the role of the teacher is to facilitate the journey and help students overcome the obstacles along their way If this is true of what is the core subject of computer science, then it seems the learning of creativity should follow a similar trajectory

Whether creativity can be taught is a moot point In the arts, great emphasis is placed on developing technique, with the understanding that mastery of such tech-nique allows individuals’ innate natural creativity to blossom Within technical dis-ciplines such as computer science, technique is also heavily emphasized (computer programming, mathematical ability, etc.) but sometimes what follows is merely assessment to prove that the technique has been assimilated

A dominant idea in the discipline is that of computational thinking in problem- solving Computational thinking is in itself a highly creative process However, the creativity required by computer scientists goes well beyond this, as computer scien-tists are required to work with experts in many other fields when developing soft-ware The ability to communicate with others is key, as modern development methods involve continuous dialogue with clients and their involvement in the development process This might be in the field of business, entertainment, infotain-ment or the arts The ability to adapt and adopt is vital in such an environment Many university computer science programmes follow a traditional pattern that does not emphasize the development of such skills

Beaubouef [18] discusses the importance of communication skills for computer scientists, in order to succeed as computing professionals It is important to have a wider knowledge beyond the discipline, or at least the ability to quickly acquire a grasp of an unknown domain, in order to model it This emphasizes the role of the instructor in teaching students how to learn, as they will be required to continue learning throughout their careers The ability to communicate with experts in other fields in a productive way to develop requirements, etc is key in modern software development Extending this concept beyond the obvious areas of the sciences, medical, engineering, accounting, finance and economics, the ability to understand and appreciate the significance of the arts not only prepares students for careers involving the application of computer science in creative industries, but also devel-ops creative and critical abilities that facilitate creativity in more conventional forms

of system development All of this supports the assertion that collaborative and perhaps multidisciplinary learning is important for the development of computer scientists

The concept of abstraction is central to computer science; it is concerned with the ability to view a computational structure or code at different levels of detail and

is vital when dealing with complex systems and development in teams Defining and working with abstractions is another highly creative activity in the subject

At Middlesex University, we have tried to encourage the development of dents’ creative abilities through individual and group project work that requires students to think beyond their current level of knowledge, to work with incomplete information and with existing systems, in order to produce new artefacts [19] First year students work with electronics including programmable microcontrollers and sensors to model physical systems such as games and traffic lights They extend this work to projects that involve programming bespoke robots with on board Raspberry

stu-Pi computers [20], infrared and bump sensors, etc Such projects are more ing than more conventional screen and keyboard programming exercises, particu-larly as students can choose their own ideas for projects Students are assessed according to how they demonstrate a number of key observable skills during the process of conducting these projects, rather than on the final product itself This means that they can express themselves more creatively and take more chances, safe

motivat-in the knowledge that they will not be penalized if their artefact is not fully tional This addresses the issue discussed in Section 5, of assessment rewarding the final product rather than the quality of the process followed by the student and also assists in embedding Csikszentmihalyi’s trait of embedding playfulness and disci-pline [15]

func-This kind of work does not involve direct teaching of creativity Rather, the role

of the staff is to provide the environment and motivation to allow creativity to ish Therefore, staff are learning and creativity facilitators rather than deliverers although, of course, a few well-chosen words of encouragement or advice here and there can sometimes prod the creative process back into gear

flour-This approach enables students to build a portfolio of interesting completed ects which they can then share with potential employers, which should be more impressive than a CV alone We often use a blog-style portfolio as assessment and