Creativity in higher education
This piece focuses on the question, how much detail and guidance should we provide in assignment briefs for higher education students?
As academics, we value a well-crafted and structured approach to learning and teaching. Take setting assignments as an example. We tend to provide very detailed guidance: here is what we expect, what you should include, and here is how we will assess you. Still not clear enough? Let’s construct a rubric for each component so you are fully aware of every word you write or say. However, we are likely to end up with robotic tasks where all students produce similar work.
Well, there is a rationale behind that. The goal is to design the brief to align with the intended learning outcomes, challenge their cognitive abilities, and, most importantly, ensure consistency, fairness, objectivity and transparent marking. However, a recent experience made me question what we do and why we do it this way. Should the assignment brief clearly explain the task requirements to help students understand the purpose, expectations, and the steps to reach that target? Should it even include examples to demonstrate how students can develop and apply their knowledge to complete the task?
A revised version of Bloom’s original taxonomy by Krathwohl (2002) placed creativity above evaluation as the higher-order thinking skill. (1). There is no clear, universally accepted definition for creativity, making it challenging for educators to implement consistently. In education creativity encompasses self-expression, imagination, originality, openness to experiences, and problem-solving. This broad scope makes it difficult to apply in an assessment environment. (2)
The style of group work assignments offers students a chance to test their skills beyond the classroom, unlike a written exam with confined space and time. For first-year students, it provides an opportunity to develop teamwork skills and a sense of belonging, an ultimate goal at this stage of higher education as group dynamics are still forming.
Therefore, to create a space for creativity and cultivate autonomy, instructions must be open to interpretation, allowing for originality, critical thinking, and personal empowerment. A well-structured approach is beneficial, but how effective would it be if it limits creativity?
Our assignment brief, what is 'just right'
The task I am referring to involves group presentations for first-year pharmacy students to design a health campaign for public health awareness about a specific health issue, sustainable health care or health literacy. The task required negotiation skills to determine the best approach for promoting their campaign. To encourage creativity, I kept the brief flexible and simple, allowing students to develop their own designs for the health awareness campaigns. Wouldn’t that be the case in real-world situations, where such an activity would not come with an instruction manual?
However, due to the intentionally concise brief, students were uncertain about how to proceed. Some comments requested exemplar presentations to show the standards they should be meeting. To address this, I created a “Padlet” as an interactive tool and used it to guide them through the assignment. Upon reflection, for first-year students tackling their initial university assignment, I recognised the importance of providing more detailed guidance. So, back to our creativity-fostering point, I quote: "It is vital that learners have sufficient understanding of the material with which they are being asked to be creative." (3)
The students demonstrated teamwork skills and ultimately produced a range of interesting designs to promote their health campaigns, varied from leaflets, posters, podcasts to social media platforms and digital apps. Feedback showed that, although students felt the task was not clearly defined, they found the activity informative and engaging, overall rating their experience in this group presentation at 4.61/5 (n=134). They appreciated getting to know their group and valued the creative aspects of the task.
This experience made me wonder: why and how do we approach things in academia in a certain way? In this case how much guidance should we provide in assignments while encouraging creativity?
Heba Ghazal, a Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy who has just obtained her Senior Felowship, is known for her support to students, helping them strive to pave the way to success. She has been nominated by her students multiple times for support and excellence in supervising.
References
1. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
2. McWilliam, E., Dawson, S. Teaching for creativity: towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice. High Education 56, 633–643 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9115-7
3. Cambridge Assessment International Education (2011). Chapter 4: Innovation and creativity In Developing the Cambridge learner attributes. Access in September 2024 from https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/images/426483-chapter-4-innovation-and-creativity.pdf.