‘Virtualmente’ los mismos resultados de aprendizaje. Un caso de estudio de un proyecto de comunicación internacional

Contenido principal del artículo

Alexandre Duarte
Kirstie Riedl


A medida que el mundo se vuelve cada vez más turbulento, complejo y competitivo, ha habido un mayor interés en la creatividad como la fuerza principal para preparar a los estudiantes para esto. Los estudiantes nativos digitales de hoy en día están acostumbrados a trabajar en un entorno rico en información y conocimientos accesibles al instante, pero los estudiantes están menos satisfechos con sus cursos en el entorno en línea. Al mismo tiempo, los educadores deben utilizar métodos innovadores para fomentar la creatividad en línea, como lo harían en el aula presencial.

En 2010, seis universidades europeas crearon un proyecto internacional, llamado Cross Border Brand Communication (CBBC) que se ha llevado a cabo todos los años desde entonces, pero en 2020 se llevó a cabo en línea debido a la pandemia de Covid-19. Este artículo describe y analiza las mejores prácticas resultantes de este caso y aborda las preguntas de investigación sobre si los resultados del aprendizaje creativo y las prácticas de enseñanza en línea son los mismos que los presenciales y en qué medida los estudiantes están satisfechos con este entorno de aprendizaje. La reflexión sobre el proyecto y el caso indica que, aunque los resultados del aprendizaje en línea son "virtualmente" los mismos, la experiencia del estudiante es inferior a la de esos proyectos presenciales.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
Duarte, Alexandre, y Kirstie Riedl. 2021. «‘Virtualmente’ Los Mismos Resultados De Aprendizaje. Un Caso De Estudio De Un Proyecto De comunicación Internacional». Revista ICONO 14. Revista científica De Comunicación Y Tecnologías Emergentes 19 (2). Madrid, ES:189-211. https://doi.org/10.7195/ri14.v19i2.1724.
Biografía del autor/a

Kirstie Riedl, University of Applied Sciences for Management & Communication

International Course Manager / Academic Co-ordinator Corporate Communication

International Co-ordinator
Department of Communication

Corporate Communication

 FHWien der WKW

University of Applied Sciences for Management & Communication


Adams, R. S., & Forin, T. (2016). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. Design Studies, 45, 30-67

Ahmad, W., Stufhaut, M., & Labianca, J. (2017). Collaborative Dynamics of Creative Teams: Modeling Creative Process in Advertising Design. Business & Economic Review, 9(4), 157-180. doi: 10.22547/BER/9.4.8

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson College, 231 Forest Street, Babson Park, MA 02457: Babson Survey Research Group

Amabile, T. M. (1998), How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review Sept–Oct: 77–87

Bangert, A. (2005). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17 (2), 79–99

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Chen, W. (2016). Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 461-487. doi: 10.1007/s10798-015-9315-2

Clegg, P. (2008) Creativity and critical thinking in the globalized university, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45:3, 219-226. doi: 10.1080/14703290802175982

Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends 5: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area. EAU
Dow, G. & Mayer, R. (2004) Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training, Creativity Research Journal, 16:4, 389-398. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534550

Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235. doi: /10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x

Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195-212. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12097

Fisher, R. (2004). What is creativity? In R. Fisher & M. Williams (Eds.), Unlocking Creativity: Teaching Across the Curriculum. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Gustina, C., & Sweet, R. (2014). Creatives teaching creativity. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(1), 46-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2014.01778.x

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. doi: 10.1080/0305569032000159750

Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. P. Crowther (Ed.). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

Lindström, L. (2006). Creativity: What is it? Can you assess it? Can it be taught? International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(1), 53-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2006.00468.x

Livingston, L. (2010) Teaching Creativity in Higher Education, Arts Education Policy Review, 111:2, 59-62

Karpova, E., Marcketti, S. and Barker, J.(2011), The Efficacy of Teaching Creativity: Assessment of Student Creative Thinking Before and After Exercises, Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 29(1) 52-66. doi:

Markova, T., Glazkova, I., & Zaborova, E. (2017). Quality Issues of Online Distance Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 685–691. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.043

McWilliam, E. (2009) Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3). pp. 281-293. doi: 10.1080/02188790903092787

McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice. Higher education, 56(6), 633-643. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9115-7

NACCCE (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education). (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London, UK: NACCCE.

Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 21-43). New York: Cambridge University Press

Peltier, J. W., Drago, W., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2003). Virtual communities and the assessment of online marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 260-276. doi.org/10.1177/0273475303257762

Pezenka, I., Rußmann, U., Schwarzbauer, T., & Bernhard, J. (2020). 100% Distance Learning von heute auf morgen – eine Umfrage unter Studierenden an der FHWien der WKW im April 2020. FNMA Magazin – Forum Neue Medien in der Lehre Austria, Sonderausgabe „Plötzlich online“, 38–41. Available online

Pink, D. H. (2006) A Whole New Mind. New York: Riverhead Books

Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44(3), 217–235. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005

Robinson, K. (2001). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41-45.

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology. 55. 657–687.

Saebø, A. B., McCammon, L. A., & O'Farrell, L. (2007). Creative Teaching—Teaching Creativity. Caribbean Quarterly, 53(1-2), 205–215. doi: 10.1080/00086495.2007.11672318

Salazar, S. M. (2013). Laying a foundation for artmaking in the 21st century: A description and some dilemmas. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 246-259. doi: 10.1080/00393541.2013.11518897

Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002

Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005

Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research methods knowledge base.

Tseng, H. W., & Walsh Jr, E. J. (2016). Blended vs. traditional course delivery: Comparing students’ motivation, learning outcomes, and preferences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1)

Vanada, D. I. (2016). An equitable balance: Designing quality thinking systems in art education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 17(11)

Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15–25. doi.10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005