Developing and Testing a Framework for Learning Online Collaborative Creativity in Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Study.

Abstract

Background: Collaborative creativity (CC) is a social process of generating creative and innovative solutions to real-world problems through collective effort and interaction. By engaging in this process, medical students can develop abilities and mindset for creative thinking, teamwork, interdisciplinary learning, complex problem-solving, and enhanced patient care. However, medical students have demonstrated limited creativity, constrained by existing pedagogical approaches that predominantly emphasize knowledge outcomes. The increasing complexity of health care challenges necessitates a pedagogical framework for medical students to foster CC in a rapidly evolving professional environment.

Objective: This study aimed to develop, test, and evaluate a new Framework for Learning Online Collaborative Creativity (FLOCC).

Methods: FLOCC builds on established pedagogical approaches such as design thinking and integrates sociocultural learning methods (team-based learning [TBL] and problem-based learning [PBL]). It includes 4 individual asynchronous activities (empathy map, frame your challenge, turning insights into how might we questions, and individual brainstorming) and 5 collaborative synchronous activities (bundle ideas, list constraints, final idea, prototyping, and blind testing). In this cross-sectional study, 85 undergraduate medical students participated in 2 separate studies (study 1, n=44; study 2, n=41) involving health care and engineering sustainability problems. Learner acceptability was measured using a 31-item survey (using 7-point Likert scale) consisting of 4 factors (distributed creativity, synergistic social collaboration, time regulation and achievement, and self and emotions) and 3 free text questions. Free-text comments were subjected to the inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Most students were positive about FLOCC, with distributed creativity and synergistic social collaboration factors receiving the highest mean percentages of "'Agree" (78/85, 92% and 75/85, 88%, respectively). These were followed by time regulation and achievement factor (68/85, 80%) and the self and emotions factor (59/85, 70%). Only time regulation and achievement was statistically significant (P=.001) between means of studies 1 and 2. Thematic analysis revealed 4 themes such as learning experiences, collaborative responsibilities, perceived skill development, and technical challenges.

Conclusions: With effective time management, FLOCC shows potential as a framework for nurturing CC in medical students. Medical schools could provide the opportunity and environment that supports creative thinking; therefore, creativity-focused approaches could be integrated into the curriculum to encourage a culture of creativity for breakthrough solutions by future doctors.