learner perceptions of assessment of creative products in communication design

87

ADCH 10 (1) pp. 87–100 Intellect Limited 2011

Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education Volume 10 Number 1

© 2011 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/adch.10.1.87_1

Eric Francis Eshun and K. G. dE GraFt-JohnsonKwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

Learner perceptions of

assessment of creative

products in communication

design

abstract

One major dilemma that appears not to help art and design students in their studio work is the assessment of creative outputs. Key issues inherent to assess-ment are who is carrying out the assessment and with what measure, especially when learners do not contribute to the assessment processes. This study sampled 247 tertiary students (104 male and 143 female) for their perceptions of assessment of their creative project-based learning in the Department of Communication Design, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana. Data were sourced using a self-administered questionnaire. Four themes emerged from the participants’ responses during data analysis: (1) perceptions on importance of creativity in graphic design, (2) relevance of creative process in creative production, (3) assessment and (4) assessment practice. Descriptive analysis was used to evaluate students’ perceptions of creativity and its assessment, and to further investigate how their perceptions might affect their attitudes towards the creative process. Results indi-cated that students overwhelmingly appreciated the concept of creativity, and suggest that teachers wishing to improve students’ attitudes towards the creative process and assessment of their creative projects, in general, should involve students in defining the learning outcomes and assessment criteria and involve them in the

KEywords

creativityassessment of creative

productcommunication designhigher educationstudio critiquecreative process

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

ADCHE_10.1_Eshun_87-100.indd 87 2/24/12 5:10:52 PM

Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n

Eric Francis Eshun | K. G. de Graft-Johnson

88

process. This study provides a pioneering work on how students perceive the assess-ment of their creative projects, and opens the way for further assessment studies involving both instructors and students. The findings have implications for instruc-tors of communication design and school administrators, particularly those in terti-ary education.

rELEvancE to dEsiGn practicE

Studies have shown that providing an enabling and congenial school envi-ronment is crucial to the creative development of the student (Lowenfeld and Brittain 1987; Burke 2007; Haring-Smith 2007). Assessment contributes largely to school acceptability, and determines what and how students learn. This study explores this issue and determines students’ perceptions of the assessment process. The results of the study contribute to discourse of finding an acceptable assessment and evaluation process that can benefit the institu-tion and the student.

introduction

Assessment in art and design education is as important as in other disciplines (Lindström 2006). However, it is an area persistently bedevilled with chal-lenges (Craft 2001; Cowdroy and de Graaf 2005; Jackson 2005; Rohrbach 2009; Willems 2009; Williams et al. 2010); Assessment of creative work, object or event is difficult and problematic (HMIE 2006; Ellmers 2006; Aschenbrener et al. 2007; Mason et al. 2003; de la Harpe and Peterson 2008; Clerke 2007) and its impact, could be both positive ornegative on creative development (Mason et al. 2003). In considering the sources of challenges in assessment in art and design, Mason et al. (2003) have advanced many propositions, nota-ble among them varying educational contexts, leading to different art educa-tion goals; a wide range of practical, critical and contextual activities; different assessment procedures and instruments; and the varying nature of work.

In Eca’s contribution to the sources of challenges, she notes that ‘students’ artworks are not easy to assess’(2002: n.p.), and therefore the lack of clear consensus on best practices and common parameters to consider when evaluating students’ efforts or creative production aggravates the problem (Rohrbach 2009; Balchin 2005). Rohrbach (2009) further notes that lack of documentation and an acceptable assessment format continues to impede the assessment of creative products, and that this challenge provides new researchable areas for consideration.

On the other side of the assessment debate in art and design is the ques-tion of what assessment in art and design should focus on (de la Harpe et al. 2009). Several studies have shown that creativity is central to the assessment of art and design education (Williams et al. 2010) and the cause of all chal-lenges. The relevance and importance of assessing for creativity has been vividly captured by Balchin, who opines that ‘creativity assessment might be regarded as an attempt to recognise or identify creative characteristics or abil-ities among people or to understand their creative strengths and potential’ (2005: 1). Consequently, the assessment of creativity and creative production has been attracting researchers since creativity became a topical issue in educa-tion (Treffinger et al. 2002); however, it is fraught with many challenges.

There is no single definition of creativity (Willis 2010), and many stud-ies concede that defining creativity is complex (Aschenbrener et al. 2007;

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n

Learner perceptions of assessment of …

89

Harris 2008; Williams et al. 2010), let alone its assessment. I argue that E. P. Torrance’s (1966) definition of creativity as cited in Kim as

A process of becoming sensitive to a problem, deficiencies, gaps in knowl-edge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the diffi-culty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypothesis about these deficiencies; testing and retesting these hypothesis and possi-bly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating the result.

(Kim 2006: 3)

Provides the best platform for teachers to develop curriculum and assessment. Lowenfeld and Brittain consider creativity as being “constructive, produc-tive behaviour that can be seen in action or accomplishment” (1987: 74). They further argue that the accomplishment or action should not necessar-ily be phenomenal or unique, but a contribution from the individual to the society. These proposals challenge many of the definitions put forward by vari-ous scholars, in that they allow for and support the minutest contribution an individual can make. They also serve as a motivator for the young to explore further and more deeply (Lowenfeld and Brittain 1987: 74), and as a base for childhood education.

Creative ideas and products come from manipulating and transforming resources through a process. The creative process offers a credible and system-atic approach to arriving at a conclusion or solution. Williams et al. postulate that ‘creativity and creative processes are as much about problem definition as they are about problem solving’ (2010: n.p.). Several creative processes were proposed in Torrance’s (1993) study, notable among them the pioneering works of Wallas’ (1926) ideation process, Osborn–Parnes’ (1953) creative prob-lem-solving process and Edward de Bono’s (1967) lateral thinking. The primary concerns of these models were to study and evolve defined and recognizable human thinking and a structured methodology that facilitates critical thinking in problem solving, thereby facilitating the evaluation of the process.

Contributing to the discourse on the importance of the process to student learning, Ehmann speculates that ‘the journey is the destination’ (2005: 109). She emphasizes that assessing the process has the potential to involve the student in his or her learning, whereby a stronger approach to learning and risk-taking is seen as a tool for understanding improving personal develop-ment. Accordingly, assessment of the process is built into the curriculum with clear goals. However, in Salamon’s study, she speculates that the ‘process can be as valuable as the product’ (2008: 77). In Rogers and Fasciato’s (2005) study, they suggest that creativity is an individual characteristic and expres-sion, and hence cannot be assessed; rather, the process and product are worth assessing. Other studies on creativity have suggested that the assessment of product or the final artefact is popular among higher education institutions (de la Harpe and Peterson 2008). Jackson (2005) isolates only the process and product, while de la Harpe et al. (2009) suggest process, product and person. However, Balchin (2005: 2) concludes that the best complex composite instru-ment should assess not only the product, but the four P’s (product, process, person and press).

King and Anderson, as cited in Kleiman (2004), sincerely believe that it is the product that is used to evaluate the personality behind the product, and hence it is the product that needs to be evaluated. Kleiman (2004) acknowl-edges the challenges posed by assessing the process, when clearly there is no

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


90

correlation or definite line of determination between a good creative process and a good creative product.

Another controversial area within the assessment milieu is who (Jackson 2005) should do the assessing within the school system. Many diverse views have been expressed and proposed. Three common opinions exist: the teacher, namely, a sole assessor, or preferably a team of experts within the school, other-wise termed consensual assessment (Balchin 2005; Jackson 2005; Welch 2008), or perhaps the teacher and students engaged collaboratively in the process of assessment. Rohrbach (2009) again acknowledges the great difficulty the assessor (instructor) and the assessed (student) continue to encounter, in terms of evalu-ating the student’s effort through his or her creative products, and by extension, comparing achievements with learning objectives and projected outcomes.

Welch (2008) recommends that the parties involved in teaching and learn-ing should negotiate what could and should be assessed within a studio-based learning environment. Harris (2008) recommends that teachers, course leaders and anyone who matters in the assessment of students’ creative products should share their common understanding of what creativity is and what is expected.

Balchin (2005) considers that due to the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of creativity, it is impossible to carry out a comprehensive assessment with simple instruments for analytical procedures. Consequently, it has been postulated that the time has come for more consistency, clarity, continuity and transparency in assessment practice in the creative arts for greater fairness in subjective judgements (Eca 2002; Clerke 2007; Willems 2009).

Information about perceptions of communication design students on crea-on crea-tivity, the creative process and assessment of creative products is needed to assist educators in developing programmes and practices that will positively impact the work and career futures of design students. Learners can serve as sources of information about how the communication design education programme impacts students’ preparation for future work, expectations for work and careers, and sources of support for school and careers.

In response to the current era of school reform, the purpose of this study was to provide information to educators that will assist them in enhancing the employment readiness and career preparation of communication design students. The primary objective of this study was to investigate student perceptions towards creativity and assessment issues. Selected variables were examined to determine possible influences on student perceptions. Specific research questions for this study were:

1. To what extent did the students perceive creativity as a useful component of graphic design education?

2. To what extent did the students perceive the creative process as a useful learning experience?

3. How does assessment impact on student learning?4. How could the assessment practice be improved to further enhance

student learning?

MEthodoLoGy

The research was undertaken in a medium-sized university, using a quan-titative approach, bound by a case study method in order to explore partici-pants’ perceptions on creativity and assessment of creative product practice. The data were collected as part of an initial study examining communication

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


91

design students’ perceptions about the assessment of their creative products. The study uses the descriptive and analytical survey methods.

popuLation oF study

A total of 247 undergraduate students from the Department of Communication Design at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, a public university in Ghana, were selected to participate in the study. The inclusion criteria for students include (1) being enrolled in a communication design programme at the undergraduate level and (2) currently being in the third semester or above in their study. The selection of students in the third semes-ter or above is to ensure that they have enough knowledge to answer ques-tions relating to creativity, the creative process and assessment practices in the programme. The purposive sampling method was used. Three academic levels took part in the study, and the total number of students involved in the study was 250. About 100 (40.5%) level 200, 50 (20.2%) level 100 and 97 (39.3%) level 400 students completed the questionnaire. A total of 247 respondents returned usable questionnaires.

data coLLEction

In this study, a field survey was conducted in which questionnaires were administered on evaluation and assessment of creative products. The aim was to determine students’ perceptions about how the assessment of creative products is conducted in the department. The questionnaire was distributed directly by the researchers to the students immediately after a lecture to elicit the maximum participation, responses and effective collection. A return rate of nearly 98.8 per cent was achieved.

MEasurEMEnt

The questionnaire collected demographic information about each respondent, as well as his or her offerings in statistics, measurement and research meth-odology. The questionnaire items for this scale were specifically designed for the study. The questionnaire consisted of a number of items rated on a five-point Likert scale, from 0=‘strongly disagree’ to 3=‘strongly agree’, and were intended to include at least two items for each attribute. There were 25 items generated based on the literature on assessment practice in art and design in higher education. Interviews were conducted with students outside of the study sample (Sudman et al. 1996). There were four dimensions tested in the study, namely, perceptions on importance of creativity in graphic design (N=6), relevance of creative process in creative production (N=8), assess-ment (N=6) and assessment practice (N=5). After the initial interviews were completed, eight items were dropped from the scale and minor changes were made to make them conceptually relevant. All quantitative survey responses were coded, entered into the data editor and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), release 16.0.0.

rEsuLts and discussion

The following four areas emerged as important characteristics of the assess-ment environment for fostering creativity: (1) perceptions on importance of creativity in graphic design, (2) perceptions on relevance of creative proc-ess in creative production, (3) views on assessments and (4) perceptions on

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


92

assessment practice. The demographic distribution is as follows: 50 respond-ents (20.2%) came from level 100, 100 respondents (40.5%) were from level 200 and 97 respondents (39.3%) were from level 400. A total of 147 (57.9%) of the respondents were female, and 104 (42.1%) were male. The age range of the participants is as follows: eleven students (4.5%) were 19 and 20 years of age; the majority of the respondents, 186 (75%) were between 21 and 23 years of age; 38 respondents (15.4%) were between 24 and 25 years of age; nine students were between 26 and 30 years of age; and three students (1.2%) were above 31 years of age. The demographic data collected were limited to academic level, age and gender.

pErcEptions on iMportancE oF crEativity

To address the first research question, ‘To what extent did the students perceive creativity as a useful component of graphic design education?’ a quantitative survey was conducted after an assessment session. Descriptive statistics of student responses from six closed response-type items in the questionnaire were computed to reveal the students’ perceptions of creativity. As shown in Table 1, in the first category, which sought students’ knowledge on creativity, an overwhelming majority of 242 respondents (98.0%) agreed that creativity is significantly important to every graphic designer. This was expected, and is a strong indicator of creative behaviour expected from the respondents; the result matches those obtained by Acheson (2006). A negli-gible number of five respondents (2%) disagreed, stating that creativity is not important. Again it was observed that 86.20% of students believe that every-body was born with some level of creativity, while 13.8% disagree. Acheson’s (2006) study showed similar results, although this result provided higher numbers supporting the notion of innate ability. Respondents in this instance have much greater awareness and better appreciation of creativity due to the nature of the programme being pursued. When asked whether creative

SD D A SA M SD

Importance of creativity to the graphic designer

1 (0.4%)

4 (1.6%)

16 (6.5%)

226 (91.5%)

2.89 0.393

Everybody was born with some level of creativity

18 (7.3%)

16 (6.5%)

69 (27.9%)

144 (58.3%)

2.37 0.897

Creative behaviour can be acquired

4 (1.6%)

17 (6.9%)

63 (25.5%)

163 (66.0%)

2.56 0.695

Creative behaviour can be attained immediately

104 (42.1%)

72 (29.1%)

49 (19.8%)

22 (8.9%)

2.96 0.989

Creativity is an ongoing process

8 (3.2%)

12 (4.9%)

54 (21.9%)

173 (70.0%)

2.59 0.732

Creativity should be assessed

17 (6.9%)

13 (5.3%)

77 (31.2%)

140 (56.7%)

2.38 0.870

Note: 3=strongly agree (SA); 2=agree (A); 1=disagree (D); 0=strongly disagree (SD).

Table 1: Results of perceptions on importance of creativity (N=247).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


93

behaviour could be acquired, 91.56% agreed, while only 8.5% disagreed. This result is similar to one reported by Acheson that indicated that ‘creativity can be developed’ (2006: 4).

About a third (28.7%) of students responded that creative behaviour could be attained immediately, while most of the students (71.2%) disagreed. Almost all the respondents (91.9%) thought that creativity was an ongoing process, while less than a tenth (8.1%) disagreed. The majority of the respondents (87.9%) were of the view that creativity should be assessed, while 12.2% disa-greed completely with this. The results from the table undoubtedly suggest that most of the students appreciate the foundations of creativity theory as propounded by creativity theorists such as Lowenfeld and Brittain (1987) that everyone was born with some element of creativity, while some of the students may not have been well enough prepared for the questionnaire, or some may have had a weak understanding.

pErcEptions on crEativE procEss

To address the second research question, ‘To what extent did the students perceive creative process as a useful learning experience?’ eight items on the questionnaire addressed the students’ ability to apply prior knowledge in the creative process and how they use the creative process in art produc-tion. Table 2 shows that the respondents were divided on the question of whether creativity needs a creative process: 57.8% disagreed with the idea that no creative process was needed, while 42.1% believed that without the process one could equally produce a creative product. This finding corrob-orates Kleiman’s view. The majority of respondents (83.4%) thought that lecturers should teach students how to go through the creative process, while 16.6% of the students disagreed with any teaching of the process. Though the number disagreeing could be considered small, it is significant since the creative process has over time proven to be a major contribut-ing factor to individual creative development. It was also found out that 93.1% agreed that when they went through the creative process it helped them produce creative products that were statistically rare and objective-attaining.

On the other hand, a very small number (6.9%) thought otherwise. When asked whether lecturers encouraged them to go through the creative proc-ess, 76.6% of students agreed, while 23.5 % disagreed. There could be other reasons for these results, since students engage in other activities and pursue courses that do not require that they go through the creative process. Again, from the information gathered, the researchers found that 83.8% of students were willing to go through the creative process, while 15.8% were not. A quarter of the population indicated that they do not embark on thorough background search and study before tackling a task, while the remaining three-quarters (75.5%) did some research before every project. Most students (85.1%) in the population sampled know about the creative process, while 14.9% did not. The results in Table 2 clearly show the attempts by the lectur-ers in the department to use or adhere to basic design tenets; however, some respondents showed strong reservations about the use of the design process. This reservation is indicative of student preference for one’s own approach to solving design problems, which is a typical creative behaviour and freedom of expression.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


94

pErcEptions on assEssMEnt

The third research question dealt with assessment, and six items on the ques-tionnaire addressed the question: ‘How does assessment impact on student learning?’ The results are captured in Table 3. About 56% agreed that low marks could be a motive to work harder, while 44% disagreed with this state-ment. This result is indicative of the fact that assessing creativity has been an inhibitor, as acknowledged by Acheson (2006). Almost half of the respond-ents (49.0%) were satisfied with their marks anytime they were assessed by the teacher, while 51.0% of the students claimed they were often unsatisfied with their marks. About 65% of students agreed that lower marks discouraged them and affected their subsequent performance, while 34.8% disagreed. This view corroborates Clerke’s (2007) assertion of the impact of grade on student aptitude for a subject. As many as 87.2% of the respondents agreed that more studio critiques should be conducted, while 12.8% of students did not feel this was necessary.

Although most respondents were not satisfied with the mark they received, they were not upset, but rather considered it as a challenge. Regarding lecturer bias, 46% conceded that lecturers were biased in their assessment, while the majority 54% disagreed. These results are similar to Rohrbach, where approxi-mately half of the respondents ‘believed that their professors reviewed their work moderately well and that the feedback they received was moderately accurate’ (2009: 9). Lastly, 53% of students thought that their lecturers did not open up to them when they tried approaching them concerning their marks for creative product, as compared to 47% who considered their lecturers to

Questions on creative process

SD D A SA Mean SD

Creativity does not need a creative process

72 (29.1%)

71 (28.7%)

54 (21.9%)

50 (20.2%)

1.33 1.102

Teachers should teach creative process

11 (4.5%)

30 (12.1%)

82 (33.2%)

124 (50.2%)

2.29 0.848

Creative process helps in producing creative products

3 (1.2%)

14 (5.7%)

96 (38.7%)

134 (54.3%)

2.46 0.661

Creative process should be encouraged

4 (1.6%)

13 (5.3%)

49 (19.8%)

181 (73.3%)

2.65 0.658

Teachers encourage students to go through creative process

11 (4.5%)

47 (19.0%)

94 (38.1%)

95 (38.5%)

2.11 0.863

Willingness to go through creative process

8 (3.2%)

31 (12.6%)

90 (36.4%)

117 (47.4%)

2.28 0.820

I know about creative process

10 (4.0%)

27 (10.9%)

92 (37.3%)

118 (47.8%)

2.29 0.818

I conduct research pertaining to the course I’m taking

9 (3.6%)

54 (21.9%)

90 (36.4%)

94 (38.1%)

2.09 0.860


Table 2: Results of perceptions on creative process (N=247).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


95

be open to discussing grading-related issues. The findings indicate a mixed response, suggesting that some of the students may not have been treated well earlier on or may have been in an uncomfortable situation at one time.

pErcEptions on assEssMEnt procEss

To address the last research question, ‘How could the assessment practice be improved to further enhance student learning?’ five items were used to collect the data. An overwhelming 86.7% agreed that students should be part of the assessment process, while a minority of 13.3% did not agree that students should be part of assessing their works. This result suggests students’ preference towards realizing greater clarity and accountability in assessment, as shown by Acheson (2006). A total of 84% of the students believed that project guidelines should be given alongside design assign-ments, while 16% students disagreed with this statement. A simple majority of 66% of students said that they became confused and wasted their time without assignment guidelines, while 34% disagreed with this statement. Again, 38% of students said that assessment criteria are given to them before commencing a new assignment, while 62% of the respondents did not agree. Almost 47% of the students sampled had participated in the evaluation of their own works, while 53% of the students had not participated in the eval-uation or assessment process. The opinions expressed by the respondents clearly suggest that the challenge of assessing students’ creativity and crea-tive products is real and cut across many educational systems, regardless of borders and remained unresolved; when students are not involved in the evaluation process and when students do not know of the assessment crite-ria. The students’ responses varied and came in different forms. They included positive, negative and constructive criticisms on students’ involvement in the assessment processes. The responses from the students clearly showed direc-tions of students’ perception and provided solutions for better assessment development.

Questions on assessment SD D A SA M SD

Lower marks discourage students and affect their performance

35 (14.2%)

51 (20.6%)

79 (32.0%)

82 (33.2%)

1.84 1.042

Low marks encourage me to improve

59 (23.9%)

50 (20.2%)

73 (29.6%)

65 (26.3%)

1.58 1.119

I am satisfied with my marks anytime I am assessed

29 (11.7%)

97 (39.3%)

83 (33.6%)

38 (15.4%)

1.53 0.892

More studio critiques should be conducted

13 (5.3%)

19 (7.7%)

70 (28.3%)

145 (58.7%)

2.40 0.845

Lecturer is biased in assessing 53 (21.5%)

81 (32.8%)

72 (29.1%)

41 (16.6%)

1.41 1.003

Lecturers open up whenever students approach them about marks

58 (23.5%)

74 (29.9%)

61 (24.7%)

54 (21.9%)

1.45 1.077


Table 3: Perception on assessment (N=247).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


96

discussion

Walker and Barfield (2006) suggest that the studio-based environment provided by art and design education offers various opportunities to involve students in the assessment processes, thereby increasing and improving their learning opportunities. The respondents were divided on the issue of lecturer bias. The perception of lecturer bias is alarming and somewhat justi-fiable, especially when they are used to teacher-controlled learning environ-ments and students do not participate in the classroom decision-making and assessment processes. Another important issue worth noting is the provision of assessment criteria. The school has traditionally provided the grounds for competition among students; for teachers, parents and students the student’s school results are a measure of his or her intelligence, success and strength. This has helped to build a culture of ‘survival of the fittest’, which has both negative and positive implications for student learning. Consequently, it could be assumed that the provision of assessment crite-ria before a project would suggest to the ‘good’ students that the ‘weaker’ students have been ‘given support’, especially when the students are only exposed to teacher-centered school systems and are frequently assessed using traditional assessment procedures to determine whether concepts taught are learned and mastered.

For effective teaching and learning to take place, the following suggestions corroborated by Nicol (2009: 17) on good assessment and feedback practice are worth considering:

1. Provision and use of criterion-referenced assessment of creative product should be seriously considered, since studies have shown that using criterion-referenced assessment helps improve student learning and performance.

2. Since studio critique is an appropriate environment for giving feedfor-ward and evaluation, involving students in studio critique sessions would promote clarity of feedforward and sincerity, and improve accountability in the assessment process. This may also correct any wrong perceptions

Questions on assessment SD D A SA Mean SD

Students should be part of the assessment process

5 (2.0%)

28 (11.3%)

50 (20.2%)

164 (66.5%)

2.51 0.775

Project guidelines should be given anytime an assignment is given

2 (0.8%)

37 (15.0%)

72 (29.1%)

136 (55.1%)

2.38 0.766

I waste time and get confused without any project guidelines

23 (9.3%)

62 (25.1%)

68 (27.5%)

94 (38.1%)

1.94 1.002

Assessment criteria are given to me before starting an assignment

55 (22.3%)

99 (40.1%)

88 (35.6%)

5 (2.0%)

1.19 0.852

Students are included in evaluating their creative products

49 (19.8%)

83 (33.6%)

78 (31.6%)

37 (15.0%)

1.42 0.971


Table 4: Perception on assessment process (N=247).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


97

students have relating to lecturer bias. Lecturers should be more approach-able when discussing assessment-related issues with students.

3. Students should be encouraged to learn how to criticize their peers’ visual products so that they are aware of some of the mistakes that are likely to occur when they are working on their own products.

4. The issue of assessment policy and use of assessment criteria should be discussed and developed in the class. It should also be discussed in the design brief.

5. The assessment criteria should include all stages of the creative process and the end product. This would encourage students to use and exploit the creative process.

6. Encourage interaction and dialogue around learning (peer and teacher–student).

7. Provide high-quality feedforward information that would help the learner to self-correct.

8. Give choice in topic, method, criteria and timing of assessments.

concLusion

This investigative research has been an attempt to determine what students know about creativity, the creative process, and how the assessments of their creative products by lecturers affect their learning and performance. It is refreshing to note that the majority of students appreciate what creativity is and its characteristics, which is very important in design education. They also unanimously agreed that the creative process is relevant to the achievement of learning outcomes and expected skill competence; however, there were a few grey areas. The division of respondents on assessment and lecturers’ bias needs further examination.

This study has revealed communication students’ increased desire to be part of the assessment process. The above recommendations are to serve as solutions to enable students to better appreciate the challenges of assessing creative products. There is a need for more research into students’ views on assessment within art and design, especially their participation.

acKnowLEdGMEnts

This article was prepared as a part of an ongoing study being conducted in the Department of Communication Design, Faculty of Art, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology at Kumasi. We sincerely appreciate the enthusiasm of the students who participated in the study.

rEFErEncEs

Acheson, D. (2006), Facilitating Creativity in Higher Education, London: The Creativity Centre Ltd, www.heacademy.ac.uk/.../id589_facilitating_ creativity_in_he_ntf_views.rtf. Accessed 20 December 2010.

Aschenbrener, M., Terry, R., Torres, R. and Smith, A. (2007), ‘Assessment of creativity and job satisfaction of second year agricultural education teacher’, in Proceedings of the 2007 AAAE Research Conference, 34. Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 16–18. vol. 34, pp. 56–59.

Balchin, T. (2005), ‘Assessing students’ creativity: Lessons from research’, Higher Education Academy, April, pp. 1–5. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk. Accessed 24 September 2010.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


98

Blaikie, F., Schonau, D. and Steers, J. (2004), ‘Preparing for portfolio assessment in art and design: A study of the opinions and experiences of existing secondary school students in Canada, England and the Netherlands’, Journal of Art and Design Education, 23: 3, pp. 302–07.

Burke, C. (2007), ‘Inspiring spaces: Creating creative classrooms’, CB, 5: 2, pp. 35–39.

Clerke, T. (2007), ‘Re-assessing assessment practices in design to support students’ long-term learning’, in EAD07 Conference Proceedings, The Faculty of Fine Arts and Design at Izmir University of Economics, Turkey, 7th International Conference of the European Academy of Design in April 2007. http://uts.academia.edu/TeenaClerke/Papers/234281/Reassessing_assessment_practices_in_design_to_support_students_long-term_ learning. Accessed 20 October 2011.

Cowdroy, R. and de Graaf, E. (2005), ‘Assessing highly – highly creative ability’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30: 5, pp. 507–18.

Craft, A. (2001), ‘An analysis of research and literature: On creativity in educa-tion’, report prepared for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (London, QCA).

De la Harpe, B. and Peterson, F. (2008), ‘A model for holistic studio assessment in the creative disciplines’, in Proceedings of the ATN Assessment Conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 20–21 November.

De la Harpe, B., Peterson, J. F., Frankham, N., Zehner, R., Neale, D., Musgrave, E. and McDermott, R. (2009), ‘Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design?’, International Journal of Art and Design Education, 28: 1, pp. 37–51.

Eca, T. (2002), ‘A conceptual framework for art and design external assessment’, paper prepared for the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11–14 September, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002283.htm. Accessed 24 May 2011.

Ehmann, D. (2005), ‘Using assessment to engage graphic design students in their learning experience’, in Making a Difference: 2005 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Sydney and Melbourne, 30 November–1 December, pp. 108–12.

Ellmers, G. (2006), ‘Assessment practice in the creative arts: Developing a standardized assessment framework’, teaching and learning Scholars Report, Faculty of Creative Arts, University of Wollongong: New South Wales, Australia.

Haring-Smith, T. (2007), ‘“Developing institutional environment that stimu-lates creativity”: What works, what matters, what last’, vol. 4, Project Kaleidoscope. http://www.pkal.org/documents/DevelopingCreative Environment.cfm. Accessed 16 November 2010.

Harris, J. (2008), ‘Developing a language for assessing creativity: A taxonomy to support student learning and assessment’, Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 5: 1, Autumn 2008.

HMIE (2006), ‘Emerging good practice in promoting creativity: A report by HMIE’, http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/hmieegpipc.html. Accessed 18 October 2011.

Jackson, N. (2005), ‘Assessing students’ creativity: Synthesis of higher education teacher views’, http://normanjackson.pbwiki.com/discovering-creativity- in-higher-education. Accessed 12 May 2011.

Kim, K. H. (2006), ‘Can we trust creativity test? A review of the Torrance test of creative thinking (TTCT)’, Creativity Research Journal, 18: 1, pp. 3–14.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


99

Kleiman, P. (2004), ‘On assessing creativity: Some considerations’, http://www.google.com.gh/#hl=en&q=assessing+creativity&start=170&sa=N&fp=484558410a9dde94. Accessed 13 November 2009.

Lindström, L. (2006), ‘Creativity: What is it? Can you assess it? Can it be taught?’, International Journal of Art and Design Education, 25: 1, pp. 53–66.

Lowenfeld, V. and Brittain, W. L. (1987), Creative Mental Growth, 8th ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Mason, R., Steer, J. and Bedford, D. (2003), ‘The impact of formal assessment on secondary school art and design education’, EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education, University of London, London.

Nicol, D. (2009), Transforming Assessment and Feedback: Enhancing Integration and Empowerment in the First Year (Quality Enhancement Themes: The First Year Experience), Glasgow: QAA Scotland, www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/events/presentations. Accessed 11 October 2011.

Rogers, M. and Fasciato, M. (2005), ‘Can creativity be assessed?’, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14–17 September.

Rohrbach, S. (2009), ‘Educational assessment in emerging areas of design: Toward the development of a systematic framework based on a study of rubrics’, in Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, 16–19 July, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/488/1/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2010.

Salamon, M. (2008), ‘Developing a strategy for assess creativity: The creative spiral’, Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 5: 1, pp. 77–78.

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. and Schwarz, N. (1996), Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Torrance, E. P. (1993), ‘Understanding creativity: Where to start?’, Psychological Inquiry, 4: 3. pp. 232–34.

Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C. and Shepardson, C. (2002), Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators, Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/trefyoun.html. Accessed 1 October 2010.

Walker, A. and Barfield, R. (2006), ‘Assessment in art and design: Findings of the Scottish enhancement theme on assessment from an art school pers-pective, with examples from a joint programme in China’, The Glasgow School of Art. http://www.adm.heacademy.ac.uk/library/files/events/enhancement-in-scotland/keynote-walker-assessment-in-art-and- design.pdf. Accessed 08 August 2010.

Welch, D. J. A. (2008), ‘Edging closer to the creative core’, www.acuads.com.au/conf2008/papers/welch.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2010.

Willems, C. H. (2009), ‘Objectifying the subjective: Assessment and feedback in creative arts studio learning and teaching’, in Stephanie Wilson and Karin Watson (eds), Curriculum Development in Studio Teaching. Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Sydney, Australia, pp. 192–198.

Williams A. P, Ostwald M. J, and Askland H. H. (2010). Assessing creativity in the context of architectural design education. In Conference Proceedings. DRS2010. Design and Complexity. Design Research Society International Conference, eds. D Durling, R Bousbaci, Ll Chen, P Gauthier, T Poldma, S Roworth-Stokes, E Stolterman. Montreal: Design Research Society Accessed from www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/PDF/129.pdf [18 September 2011].

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n


100

Willis, J. (2010), ‘How do students of creative arts become creative profes-sionals? Learning to be professional through a higher education e-book’, http:// Learningtobeprofessional.pbworks.com/w/page/28385770/ Learning- to-become-acreative-professional. Accessed 26 October 2011.

suGGEstEd citation

Eshun, E. F. and de Graft-Johnson K. G. (2011), ‘Learner perceptions of assessment of creative products in communication design’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 10: 1, pp. 87–100, doi: 10.1386/adch.10.1.87_1

contributor dEtaiLs

Eric Francis Eshun is a graphic designer and lecturer with a Bachelor of Arts (first-class honours) in Graphic Design from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi. Eric has lectured in the Department of Communication Design at the Faculty of Art (KNUST) since 2002, and has experience teaching in face-to-face learning environ-ments. Eric is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of General Art Studies at KNUST, and holds a Master of Arts (KNUST, Kumasi). His research inter-ests cover creativity development, assessment in graphic design and graphic design practices for social development. His continuing research into creativ-ity in art and design has culminated in the co-development and supervision of Ghana’s first Forum for Creativity in Art & Design Education.

Contact: Department of Communication Design, Faculty of Art, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), PMB, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.E-mail: [email protected]

Kwamena GyanPanyin de Graft-Johnson, a cartoonist and illustrator, is an alumnus of KNUST and holds an M.Sc. in Communication Design from Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. He has worked as a lecturer in the Department of Communication Design, KNUST, since October 1986. His research inter-ests are in graphic design education and information design in develop-ment communication. He has participated in the research and development of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) schemes for the Volta Rural Water and Sanitation Project (1992–1998). He edited, developed and tested communication-support materials for the Centre for the Development of People, Ghana Grains Development Project and the Crops Research Institute. He has also served on monitoring and evaluation committees in the Curriculum Research and Development Division, Ministry of Education and the Ghana Book Development Council. He has developed training programmes in graphic design for art teachers to support national educational reforms. He is a member of the Ghana Association of Book Designers and Illustrators and the Ghana Institution of Graphic Artists.

Contact: Department of Communication Design, Faculty of Art, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), PMB, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.E-mail: [email protected]

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.


Copyri

ght In

tellec

t Ltd

2011

Not for

distr

ibutio

n

learner perceptions of assessment of creative products in communication design

Documents