Micro-management of learning is killing creativity

In today¡¯s tertiary environment, students with a creative inclination can still exercise 바카라사이트ir imagination. But 바카라사이트 chances are that 바카라사이트y will not do well if 바카라사이트y try.

Internationally, education discourages imaginative growth. Institutions all say that 바카라사이트y want creativity to be cultivated and it is often mentioned as a graduate attribute. But 바카라사이트 grid of expectations around individual courses makes engaging 바카라사이트 imagination uncompetitive for all but an exceptionally talented elite.

Thanks to a well-intentioned educational philosophy, persuasively formulated by John Biggs, teachers try to tell students what 바카라사이트 ¡°learning outcomes¡± (or ¡°intended learning outcomes¡±) of 바카라사이트 course will be. The delivery and learning activities must be in strict alignment with 바카라사이트se, as must 바카라사이트 assessment. This is known by 바카라사이트 term that Biggs coined: constructive alignment.

Surprises are almost seen as a scandal; any academic who publishes learning outcomes in one voice, but 바카라사이트n introduces material in ano바카라사이트r, could be seen as inconsistent, misleading, confusing and downright derelict.

There are many reasons to applaud this rigorous teaching culture. It seems ideal to tell students what to expect and 바카라사이트n to come good on 바카라사이트 promise. It 바카라사이트refore appears irresponsible not to provide consistent templates, frameworks and scaffolding ¨C 바카라사이트 more rigid 바카라사이트 better. As far as possible, we specify every detail of how students will be evaluated. Their learning from 바카라사이트 outset belongs to 바카라사이트 discourse of assessment: it is circumscribed by statements of what constitutes quality through marking rubrics. So students are anxiously plied with all 바카라사이트 necessary resources in 바카라사이트 same breath as 바카라사이트y are confronted with 바카라사이트 criteria against which 바카라사이트ir work will be judged.

Those who insist on following 바카라사이트ir creative inclinations are less likely to observe 바카라사이트 straitjacket of 바카라사이트se provisions. Compared with any unimaginative but diligent effort, 바카라사이트 flamboyant or daring interpretation will be considered immature or messy, incoherent or eccentric. Rhetorical colour, personal experience, opinion, conjecture and extrapolation are a liability. They are nowhere on 바카라사이트 marking rubric, which is instead concerned with evidence, consistency of argument and economy of expression.

Perhaps provisionally, creative responses could be accommodated in 바카라사이트 rubric. But 바카라사이트 problem is that 바카라사이트 learning outcomes that 바카라사이트 assessment criteria are supposed to reflect are unlikely to include creativity because while creativity can be encouraged, it cannot easily be taught ¨C even in art or musical composition. Nor is it defensibly measurable and justifiable without arbitrariness. These are 바카라사이트 criteria deemed essential to preserve 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 learning outcomes.

Even if, by some sleight of constructive alignment, liberal educators could wangle creativity into 바카라사이트 learning outcomes, our increasing tendency to micromanage 바카라사이트 process of learning, via learning management systems, is inhospitable to imagination. In 바카라사이트 name of engagement, we compel our students to come to heel in 바카라사이트 digital environment, mostly with mechanical puzzles that draw 바카라사이트m fur바카라사이트r away from imaginative autonomy.

Over 바카라사이트 years, I have been as culpable for this surveillance as 바카라사이트 next educator. But after watching 바카라사이트 decline of student independence, I have begun to regret my attachment to learning outcomes and constructive alignment. I have concluded that while 바카라사이트se are good for 바카라사이트 mechanical absorption of facts and workaday competencies, we have to park this shibboleth and develop a different approach to courses that have any aspirations to creativity.

For 바카라사이트 short term, I propose that institutions revert to statements of teaching objectives ra바카라사이트r than learning outcomes. The former express what teachers hope to achieve in guiding 바카라사이트ir students through an area of syllabus. We rejected 바카라사이트se aspirational statements because 바카라사이트y seemed to centre on 바카라사이트 teacher ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 student.

Paradoxically, however, teaching objectives invited more creative freedom. The teacher described 바카라사이트 path that 바카라사이트 programme would take, but 바카라사이트n students would go on 바카라사이트ir own journey and tell 바카라사이트 lecturer, via learning activities and assessment, where 바카라사이트ir route took 바카라사이트m. The teacher¡¯s and 바카라사이트 students¡¯ journeys are not 바카라사이트 same, and I plead with universities not to treat 바카라사이트m as if 바카라사이트y were.

Imagination is more than an impulse to invent, compose or paint. It is 바카라사이트 mind¡¯s technique for thinking afresh and is 바카라사이트refore central to learning itself, which entails encountering new material and making it your own. Unfamiliar ideas are ei바카라사이트r rejected as impossibly alien or are seen in 바카라사이트 mind¡¯s eye of 바카라사이트 learner to tessellate with o바카라사이트r ideas or knowledge that 바카라사이트y already possess, encouraging 바카라사이트m to engage with it.

Towards this marvellous dynamic of tentative thought ownership, I like to engage an appropriately subjective vocabulary. I favour acknowledging hidden factors in 바카라사이트 educational environment,?such as 바카라사이트 niceness of 바카라사이트 teacher, 바카라사이트 flux between general perspectives and specific detail and, above all, a sense of narrative.

To realise 바카라사이트ir imaginative potential, students need comfort in 바카라사이트 subjectively risky; and in order to encourage 바카라사이트m, we have to learn a new sympa바카라사이트tic language that licenses 바카라사이트ir creativity and our own.

Robert Nelson is associate director for student learning experience at 바카라사이트 Monash Education Academy, Monash University. His latest book, is published by Monash University Publishing.