A systematic review approach to the understanding of intercreativity as an educational resource

1 A systematic review approach to the understanding of intercreativity as an educational resource Julia Mañero*a and Carlos Escañob aDepartment of Art Education, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; bDepartment of Art Education, Universit of Seville, Seville, Spain * [email protected]. Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Sevilla. Address: c/Pirotecnia, s/n Post Code: 41013. Seville, Spain. Julia Mañero holds a PhD in Education (University of Seville, 2020) and was graduated with a Bachelor of Marketing and a Master’s Degree in Education. She has collaborated as a teacher in Massive Open Online Courses and in the Master of Network Communication and Education at The National Distance Education University (UNED). She is a member of the Communiars collective and Associate Editor of Communiars Journal. Her current research interests include art education and digital education from a critical and social perspective. Her academic interests also include cooperation projects, having been part of projects and research in India and Greece. She is also an active member of the community of practice Critical Pedagogies and Arts Education of University of Seville. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2721-6947 TW: @juliamancon Carlos Escaño is an associate professor at the University of Seville (Spain). He completed a PhD in Fine Arts (University of Seville, 1999) and a PhD in Education and Communication in Digital Environments (The National University of Distance Education, 2017). His principal teaching and research interests are in arts education at the intersection of the arts and audiovisual and digital culture under a critical pedagogical approach and oriented towards social transformation. He is director of the Research Group Education and Audiovisual Culture (HUM401), coordinator of international cooperation projects developed in India and Greece, co-founder of the Communiars group and Editor in Chief of Communiars Journal. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8018-2347 TW: @carescano 2 A systematic review approach to the understanding of intercreativity as an educational resource Intercreativity is a relevant phenomenon with significant social, cultural and educational implications in the postdigital era. Its meaning refers to the fact of solving problems and making a collective production. However –in a historical and philosophical context that has led to the rise and importance of knowledge production– intercreativity is a phenomenon insufficiently analysed. Searching a variety of interdisciplinary databases, this paper summarises a systematic review conducted among 49 scientific publications that mentioned the term intercreativity and associated it to other theoretical concepts. The period of time covered was 2002-2021 and peer-review papers in Spanish and English languages were collected following the PRISMA checklist and flow diagram. The results suggest that applying intercreative strategies in educational practice is crucial in a social context where participation and communication are essential and in which education moves to digital spaces that are by nature open and cooperative. Not restricted only to digital environments, the nature of these spaces tends to support the intercreative practices as well as the values derived from it. Intercreativity in education entails an intersubjective production of knowledge, collaborative strategies and the development of critical pedagogies that position education in digital environments as a vehicle for social transformation towards solidarity and community. Keywords: education; intercreativity; interdependence; postdigital; systematic review Introduction It is widely recognised that digital processes have taken on superlative social importance since the emergence of COVID-19. One of the pandemic’s most controversial effects has arisen at the educational level, as teachers and learners across the globe have been pushed towards online learning. According to Jandrić (2020), the global pandemic has brought an unexpected opportunity for collaboration and collective processes, and in the educational and digital realms, it has been urgent and essential to reflect on them. Our pandemic era has visualised the need for a collaborative and supportive society, in need of intersubjectivie and reciprocal 3 actions, but these characteristics of social construction are countered by an institutional educational system that on an international scale is still rooted in an ethic and pedagogical praxis related to patterns of individuality and competitiveness (Jandrić, 2020). This is a system located in the coordinates of the so-called postdigital society, where the digital and the natural, the old and the new converge. It is a system with a hybrid social nature that is inevitably penetrated by the network and its algorithm, and one in which education has moved its banking modes from the offline space to the online context (Escaño, 2021; Jandrić et al., 2019). This conceptual struggle challenges us as teachers and researchers, and it is in this framework that we position the idea of intercreativity, a concept that by definition remains related to interrelational and mutually supportive social modes, but which, even with its intellectual weight, has not yet been explored in conceptual depth. Berners-Lee (1999) linked intercreativity to collective creation, defining it as a process by which we create or solve problems together on the web. It is a continuous process of construction and deconstruction (Bugshan, 2015; Rennie, 2003) with a social and cultural dimension, which at the same time is an experience of collective knowledge. On this basis, this study describes intercreativity as a strategy for generating knowledge, but also as a common good at the service of society, and analyses its potential to be a transformative tool used in collaboration, community practices of participation and collectivity in educational processes (Gil-Quintana & Osuna-Acedo, 2020; Osuna-Acedo & Camarero- Cano, 2016), committed to the critique of banking pedagogical praxis. Intercreativity is a pedagogical strategy that can provide insights and, therefore, improve educational praxis in today's postdigital world, as well as facilitate multiple potentialities in learning processes in general, and in digital learning in particular (Mentasti, 2021). Consequently, our priority in this study is to organise a first conceptual framework that reflects on the scientific status of the term and its relationship with other related notions – hence the relevance of a systematic review. 4 We consider this systematic review as a research exercise through which we examine the relevant scientific literature on conceptual grounds in order to more accurately elucidate a premise on which to establish the conceptual foundations of intercreativity and to infer its educational characteristics. Following Petticrew & Roberts (2006), we identify, evaluate and synthesise those studies related to the intercreative conceptual juncture. We approach the systematic review by adapting and framing it in the PRISMA checklist and flowchart (Moher et al., 2009), in order to improve transparency and reporting in our review (see Pusey et al., 2020). Method As we have emphasised above, our major purpose is to establish a conceptual framework for the notion of intercreativity, reflecting on its scientific status and its relations to binding as well as educational concepts. Accordingly, we propose a systematic review to explore the existing literature on theorisations or practices of intercreativity. As explained by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), a systematic review ‘can be used to summarize, appraise, and communicate the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of research’ (p.10). The review was designed with a pragmatic purpose: examine approaches to the ways of generating common knowledge in the postdigital and educational sphere, thus guiding and establishing a contextual demarcation of the term intercreativity. Eligibility criteria Eligibility criteria are based on the scope review conducted by Pusey et al. (2020) and shown in Table 1. The systematic review was initiated in 2000, which corresponds to the date of the first publication collected in this paper. 5 [Table 1 near here]. Information sources The search was conducted in the following academic databases: ProQuest, Dialnet, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Scopus, Web of Sciences (WOS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and SciELO. These databases were chosen for the reliability, quality and relevance of their sources. The most recent search was conducted in October 2021. Search The term ‘intercreativity’ OR intercreatividad (its translation in Spanish) was used exclusively, since the majority of studies regarding this issue have been mainly addressed in these two languages. The search resulted in many records that had to be excluded for the following reasons (see also Table 1). A four-stage documentary analysis was carried out, as proposed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), in order to review the secondary sources (see Figure 1). Selection of sources of evidence Recognising the minimal theoretical and practical development of the term intercreativity but also the efficiency of intercreativity in improving the digital learning experience (Luo et al., 2019), this paper includes any study that establishes a discussion that can favour the development of the term. We understand intercreativity as a process, a strategy with a clear pedagogical potential, and one that is not only inherent in educational practice. Results Study selections 6 The diagram in Figure 1 shows how the selection of sources progressed from the initial database search to the final retained studies. [Figure 1 near here]. Discussion Summary of evidence The following discussion takes a qualitative descriptive approach. This assessment was conducted with the objective of pinpointing the main discourses surrounding the intercreative phenomenon and establishing future lines of research. The utility of this qualitative description is that (1) it stresses which concepts are closely associated with the intercreativity phenomenon and (2) sets a contextual framework that allows for a reflection on intercreativity and its potential. Theoretical foundations In order to achieve the main objective in this study, the relationship between intercreativity and other relevant concepts has been examined. After the main concepts and themes of the papers that have referenced intercreative processes are reviewed, the final categorisation can be seen in Table 2. [Table 2 near here]. The research context of the papers analysed is significant, as it allows us to discern the perspectives from which intercreativity is addressed. It is important to determine that the intercreative practice takes place primarily in two major spaces, as can be seen in Figure 2. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1. PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009) 7 Being both contexts mediated and in constant relation with technological devices, it is necessary to begin by situating ourselves in the postdigital present and in this way help us to understand the need for intercreative processes. [Figure 2 near here]. The postdigital context and the educational present The connections between intercreative processes and technological devices in educational and media environments help us to clarify a first point: the current socio-technological situation has reconfigured the ways in which we communicate, relate to each other and, therefore, the way we approach education. It is worth mentioning that this socio-technological present is of a postdigital nature: the analogue and the digital are imbricated and form part of the same reality. This situation has been enhanced as a result of the global crisis caused by the COVID- 19 pandemic, which has made visible a digitised humanity that, although unable to access the latest consumer gadgets, is influenced by new social modes (Jandrić et al., 2019). Since the end of the 20th century, global society has been facing a technological paradigm in which the network is the main organisational entity (Castells, 1996) and which, in its accelerated evolution, promotes a clash and convergence between digital and non-digital devices (Peters & Besley, 2018). It is worth recalling’Jenkins' (2009) concept of convergence culture as a collision between old and new cultural paradigms, which serves as a binding antecedent and in turn facilitates an understanding of the postdigital. In the last three decades, we have witnessed an increasingly dynamic process of technological and media hybridisation and interrelation that has become a defining characteristic of the social habitat. From the evolution of web 2.0 to the current 4.0, informational and cultural action, as well as their forms of consumption and 8 production, have been associated with collective, co-productive and relational exercise. It is in this clash – or encounter – that the postdigital happens, characterised, as we indicated above, by blurred relations in which the digital is taken for granted and influences all levels of our social sphere (Jandrić et al., 2019). Accordingly, educational processes will always involve emotional and social experiences, and by extension, will be intersubjective, shared, heterogeneous and reciprocal. Assuming this social, cultural and communicative background, we will be facing processes where users share, edit and redistribute information in dynamic systems for the co-creation and co-production of knowledge, both outside and inside digital environments. This situation was already associated with the concept of the network society (Castells, 1996), but the pandemic scenario has enhanced and overexposed its characteristics in the digital sphere. In this way, education on the network is more clearly evidencing teaching and learning experiences in which participation, convergence and interactivity, as central forces, lie in what Lévy (1999) called collective intelligence. Such intelligence manifests the importance of sharing resources and combining skills (Lévy,1999). In other words, it makes clear not only that knowledge production emerges from the collective, but that the collective is a necessity in that production. The prominence of the term 'collective intelligence' is visible in most of the articles reviewed (see Table 2). The intercreative development enables the flow of collective intelligence thanks to the digital technologies that unite individual intelligences working in common. This is evident in the studies by Angel & Barranquero (2016; Aparici & Osuna- Acedo (2013); Coronel-Salas & Mier Sanmatín (2016); Faßler (2016); Fernández Castrillo (2014); Gil Quintana & Martínez Pérez (2018); Hernández (2010); Marta-Lazo et al. (2018); Mentasti (2021); Molina Rodríguez-Navas (2012); Murillo et al. (2020); Osuna-Acedo et al. (2018); Osuna-Acedo & Camarero-Cano (2016); Palmgren-Neuvonen et al. (2017); Ramírez & Caicedo-Alarcón (2014); and Soler et al. (2015). 9 Scientifically established terms directly related to 'collective intelligence' also appear in the systematic review. These terms are used to advocate participation and collectivity, and are clearly linked to intercreativity (see Table 2): • ‘Participatory culture’ – a term coined by Jenkins (2009) – has a clear connection to the research of Aparici & Osuna-Acedo (2013); Gil-Quintana & Osuna-Acedo (2020); Hajli (2018); Molina (2012); Voces (2015); Young & Collins (2010). The participatory web is the epitome of postdigital action in that it concisely summarises the hybridisation of the digital context with the social relationship, which is the defining key. • ‘Architecture of participation’ is an idea developed by O'Reilly (2007). This idea is linked with the research of Ramírez & Caicedo-Alarcón (2014); Coronel-Salas & Mier (2016); Angel & Barranquero (2015); Gil-Quintana & Martínez (2018) and Mentasti (2021). The participative fact is associated today and always to the communicative evolution within the culture of participation (the base of the participative web). This evolution supposes the terrain of the conflict between homo economicus and homo collaborans, a space of technopolitical tensions where participation becomes, on the one hand, a zone of social empowerment and mutual help, and on the other hand an alienating mechanism (Peters & Jandrić, 2019). A large number of the papers examined in this review are clearly bound up with this postdigital context, and make connections between intercreativity and technology (see Table 2). They offer demonstrations of technological influence and the establishment of the postdigital context mentioned above. The technological presence has undoubtedly been reinforced in the immediate response to the global pandemic, but as we observe throughout this review, a number of social and critical issues have also emerged, and now present numerous potentialities. In this way, through intercreative and technological processes, we find social 16 This systematic review provides a conceptual framework related to intercreativity processes and their educational implications. The results obtained conclude that it has a place within different environments which makes it interdisciplinary, resulting in a powerful tool for the development of common and critical practices in the educational scenario. Although in recent years the term has acquired more popularity, we argue that further development of the intercreativity concept is necessary. The findings supplied in this paper have educational implications since they are related to cultural, social and technological issues. In this way, the results contribute to the description of a context for the reality of educational practice and where it should be headed. The educational aspects with which intercreative practice is linked emerge with greater intensity and are more valuable as the number of participants increases. Intercreativity is always an open process – never finished – that accepts any social agent and is interested in being part of this communicative flow, both multidirectional and horizontal. We argue that intercreativity as a powerful process is immersed in the architecture and culture of participation, and empowers people once they move to being homo collaborans and invoke emancipation. The current COVID-19 situation has pushed us towards digital education, a context until now very limited by traditional pedagogies, but which is emerging as a space for collaboration and solidarity. Fostering intercreative strategies in educational practice is crucial in a social and cultural context where participation and communication are essential. Intercreativity goes beyond interthinking and bets on solidarity and democracy. It is not linked to a specific manifestation, but its practice induces collaboration and criticism and works on educational values that we must support if we move away from (digital) education with a merely instrumental aim. 17 In fact, Peters and Jandrić (2018) consider the Internet an ideal sphere in which to develop new modes of collective knowledge. Due to the potentialities of the concept, revising intercreativity results in a new plan of intervention. As proposed by Mentasti (2021), and as we pointed out earlier, intercreativity becomes a pedagogical strategy that provides keys to understanding and improving educational praxis in both digital and non-digital teaching processes. The complexity of the present moment and the global collapse demand social rethinking that leads to collaboration and collective creation. In a generalised way, the articles analysed here, regardless of whether they address media or educational contexts, manifest the need for intercreative practices. What is significant is not the final result or production, but rather the need for collectivity, the recognition of others. This is a fundamental value that education must address. If we have seen anything in recent times, it is that solidarity and interdependence will lead to social transformation. Addressing this in the postdigital educational sphere is necessary, and intercreativity is a strategy to do so. Funding This work was supported by Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Spain under Grant number HAR2017-82825-P. Acknowledgements The authors of this manuscript would like to express their deep gratitude and to acknowledge the help provided by Petar Jandrić, Professor and Director of BSc (Informatics) programme at the University of Applied Sciences in Zagreb (Croatia). References Angel, A., & Barranquero, A. (2016). Mapa de Objetos y Perspectivas en Comunicación, Desarrollo y Cambio Social. Universitas Humanística, 81, 91–118. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.uh81.mopc Aparici, R., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2013). La cultura de la participación. Revista Mediterránea 18 de Comunicación, 4(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM2013.4.2.07 Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Tejiendo la red. Siglo XXI de España. Bertolotti, T., Bardone, E., & Magnani, L. (2011). Perveting Activism: Cyberactivism and its potential failures in enhancing democratic institutions. International Journal of Technoethics, 2(2), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.4018/jte.2011040102 Bugshan, H. (2015). Open innovation using Web 2.0 technologies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(4), 595–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-099 Castells, M. (1996). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers. Collins, S. (2010). Digital Fair: Prosumption and the fair use defence. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354014 Coronel-Salas, G., & Mier Sanmatín, C. (2016). Impacto de la Ciencia y Tecnología iberoamericana en Twitter. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, 668–695. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2016-1115 Dutton, W. H., Gillett, S. E., McKnight, L. W., & Peltu, M. (2004). Bridging broadband Internet divides: Reconfiguring access to enhance communicative power. Journal of Information Technology, 19(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000007 Escaño, C. (2013). Educación move commons. Procomún, Cultura Libre y acción colaborativa desde una pedagogía crítica, mediática y e-visual. Arte, Individuo y Sociedad, 25(2), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ARIS.2013.v25.n2.39078 Escaño, C. (2021). Educación para un mundo postdigital. In R. Aparici & J. Martínez-Pérez (Eds.), El algoritmo de la incertidumbre (pp. 99–107). Gedisa. Faßler, M. (2016). Ingenuity or the emergence of creativity: Some theoretical remarks. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 26(2), 121–139. https://www.lib.uwo.ca/cgibin/ezpauthn.cgi?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1875568728?accountid=1511 5%0Ahttp://vr2pk9sx9w.search.serialssolutions.com?ctx_ver=Z39.88- 2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apsycinfo&rft_val_fmt=info:o Fernández-Castrillo, C. (2014). Prácticas transmedia en la era del prosumidor: Hacia una definición del Contenido Generado por el Usuario (CGU). CIC Cuadernos de Información y Comunicación, 19, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CIYC.2014.v19.43903 Ferri, F., D’Andrea, A., D’Ulizia, A., & Grifoni, P. (2020). Co-creation of e-Learning Content: The Case Study of a MOOC on Health and Cyber-Bullying. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 26(2), 200–219. http://repositorio.unan.edu.ni/2986/1/5624.pdf Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. Gil-Quintana, J., Camarero-Cano, L., Cantillo-Valero, C., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2017). sMOOC and Gamification – A Proposed Ubiquitous Learning. In T. . Wu, R. Gennari, Y. . Huang, H. Xie, & Y. Cao (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for Education. SETE 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10108, pp. 507–513). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71084-6 Gil-Quintana, J., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2020). Citizenship training through smoocs: A participative and intercreative learning. Sustainability, 12(20), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208301 Gil-Quintana, J., & Martínez-Pérez, J. (2018). El empoderamiento del alumnado en los sMOOC. Revista Complutense de Educacion, 29(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.51932 Hajli, N. (2018). Ethical Environment in the Online Communities by Information Credibility: 19 A Social Media Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3036-7 Hernández-Reig, D. (2010). El futuro de la educación superior, algunas claves. REIRE. Revista d’Innovació i Recerca En Educació, 3(2002), 98–113. http://www.raco.cat/index.php/REIRE/article/viewArticle/196168/0 Jandrić, P. (2020). Postdigital Research in the Time of Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00113-8 Jandrić, P., Ryberg, T., Knox, J., Lacković, N., Hayes, S., Suoranta, J., Smith, M., Steketee, A., Peters, M. A., McLaren, P., Ford, D. R., Asher, G., McGregor, C., Stewart, G., Williamson, B., & Gibbons, A. (2019). Postdigital Dialogue. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 163–189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0011-x Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media Education for the 21st. The MIT Press. Knox, J. (2019). What does the ‘Postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 357–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438- 019-00045-y Lazaraton, A. (2014). Aaaaack! The active voice was used! Language play, technology, and repair in the Daily Kos weblog. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.002 Lazaroiu, G. (2008). The Adoption of the Internet As a News Medium. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 3(4), 51–59. Lazaroiu, G. (2009). The new role of the internet in maintaining and increasing social capital. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 8, 193–201. Lévy, P. (1999). Collective intelligence: Mankind's emerging world in cyberspace. Basic books. López-Cepeda, A. M., López-Golán, M., & Rodríguez-Castro, M. (2019). Audiencias participativas en el servicio audiovisual público europeo: Producción de contenidos y derechos de autor. 93–102. Luo, N., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, M. (2019). Retaining learners by establishing harmonious relationships in e-learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(1), 118– 131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1506811 Magnani, L., & Bardone, E. (2008). Distributed morality: Externalizing ethical knowledge in technological artifacts. Foundations of Science, 13(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-007-9116-5 Mañero, J. (2018). Creando desde el ciberespacio : intercreatividad y sMOOC. Communiars. Revista de Imagen, Artes y Educación Crítica y Social., 1, 35–42. Marta-Lazo, C., Frau-Meigs, D., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2018). Collaborative lifelong learning and professional transfer. Case study: ECO European Project. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1451346 Marta-Lazo, C., Osuna-Acedo, S., & Gil-Quintana, J. (2019). sMOOC: A pedagogical model for social inclusion. Heliyon, 5(3), e01326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01326 Mattus, M. (2014). The Anyone-Can-Edit Syndrome. Nordicom Reviewi, 35, 189–203. McGhie-Anderson, R. L. (2017). Advanced nursing education: Critical factors that influence diploma and associate degree nurses to advance. Nursing Education Perspectives, 38(6), E2–E6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000226 Mentasti, S. (2021). Enseñar en tiempos de pandemia: Reflexiones para repensar la escuela en la era digital. Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnología En Educación y Educación En Tecnología, 28, e37. https://doi.org/10.24215/18509959.28.e37 20 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 Molina Rodríguez-Navas, P. (2012). Espacios de participación para la construcción de la memoria colectiva en la prensa digital española. Fonseca, Journal of Communication, 5(5), 140–161. Montemayor Ruiz, F. J., & Ortiz Sobrino, M. A. (2016). Production of Audiovisual Content in Ultra High Definition (UHD): Immersive Experience for Multimedia Viewing Screen TV and Smartphones. Fonseca-Journal of Communication, 12, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc2016124157 Mostmans, L., Vleugels, C., & Bannier, S. (2012). Raise your hands or hands-on? The role of computer-supported collaborative learning in stimulating intercreativity in education. Educational Technology and Society, 15(4), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.15.4.104 Murillo, A., Traver-Martí, J. A., & Sales, M. A. (2020). Sculptors of sound: Creative musical practices as an element of social transformation. Revista Electronica Complutense de Investigacion En Educacion Musical, 17, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.5209/RECIEM.64622 O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. International Journal of Digital Economics, (65), 17-37. Osuna-Acedo, S., & Camarero-Cano, L. (2016). The ECO european project: A new MOOC dimension based on an intercreativity environment. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 117–125. Osuna-Acedo, S., Frau-Meigs, D., Camarero Cano, L., Bossu, A., Pedrosa, R., & Jansen, D. (2017). Intercreativity and interculturality in the virtual learning environments of the ECO MOOC project. In Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs (pp. 161–187). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52925-6 Osuna-Acedo, S., Marta-Lazo, C., & Frau-Meigs, D. (2018). De sMOOC a tMOOC , el aprendizaje hacia la transferencia profesional: El proyecto europeo ECO. Comunicar, 26(55), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.3916/C55-2018-10 Palmgren-Neuvonen, L., Korkeamäki, R. L., & Littleton, K. (2017). Intercreating in the context of learner-generated DV production. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.005 Pan, P., & Davenport, G. (2000). I-Views: a community-oriented system for sharing streaming video on the Internet. Computer Networks, 33(1), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(00)00052-9 Pereira, J., Fernández-Raga, M., Osuna-Acedo, S., Roura-Redondo, M., Almazán-López, O., & Buldón-Olalla, A. (2019). Promoting Learners’ Voice Productions Using Chatbots as a Tool for Improving the Learning Process in a MOOC. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24, 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09414-9 Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2018). Critical Philosophy of the Postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0004-9 Peters, M. A., Besley, T., & Jandrić, P. (2018). Postdigital Knowledge Cultures and Their Politics. ECNU Review of Education, 1(2), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.30926/ecnuroe2018010205 Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018). The Digital University: A Dialogue and Manifesto. Peter Lang. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. In Medycyna Pracy (Vol. 64, Issue 4). Blackwell Publishing. Pusey, M., Wong, K. W., & Rappa, N. A. (2020). Resilience interventions using interactive 21 technology: a scoping review. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1772837 Ramírez Gómez, M. A., & Caicedo Alarcón, Ó. (2014). Apropiación y uso de las tecnologías web 2.0 en investigación: un análisis a partir del SECI model. Revistas Ciencias Estratégicas, 22(32), 199–219. Rennie, E. (2003). Trespassers are welcome. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 10(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2003.11008821 Rodríguez, R., & Peñamarín, C. (2014). Narraciones transmedia y construcción de los asuntos públicos. Introducción. CIC Cuadernos de Información y …, 19, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5209/CIYC.43900 Sedeño-Valdellos, A. M. (2021). El Mal Querer as a visual album: Spanish symbology, appropriation, and transmedia narrative in Rosalía’s music videos. Palabra Clave, 24(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.5294/PACLA.2021.24.2.6 Soler, Y., Antúnez, G., Ramírez, W., Flores, A., & Aguilera, Y. (2015). La Web 2.0 en la producción de contenidos para capacitación del profesional veterinario. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria, 16(11), 1–9. Ugwoke, E., Edeh, N. I., & Ezemma, J. C. (2019). Business education lecturers’ perception of learning management systems for effective teaching and learning of accounting in universities in South-East, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019(January). Valcarcel, M. S. (2017). Erotismo , Sexualidad y Cultura Islámica : Notas sobre lo impensado pensable. Anaquuel de Estudios Árabes, 28, 181–208. Valderrama, L. B. (2013). Jóvenes, Ciudadanía y Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación. El movimiento estudiantil chileno. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, 11(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.11600/1692715x.1117010812 Voces, J. (2015). Narrativas Audiovisuales de Ficción: La Hibridación Trasngenérica del fenómeno Fandom en el Tráiler Cinematográfico. 1616: Anuario de Literatura Comparada, 5, 85–105. Young, S., & Collins, S. (2010). A view from the trenches of music 2.0. Popular Music and Society, 33(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007760903495634