Complete thesis - Murdoch University

for individual students to complete successfully on their own; it had to address the learningoutcomes identified through the curriculum mapping, and provide a mechanism for studentsto demonstrate their competency in achieving these.This latter point is relevant in light of the importance placed on a creativity-enhancingenvironment. Cowdroy and de Graaff (2005) suggest that the focus of assessment of highlycreativeability is forced onto the end-product (the painting, the performance), rather thanthe creative process behind the product (the concept, the schemata) when the originatingconcepts are not revealed. Pertinent to this discussion, they differentiate between severaltraditions of formal education for creativity, with the traditional apprenticeship model ofvocational education being categorised as oriented towards ‘followship’ while a ‘studio apprenticeship’tradition is oriented towards passing on the abilities and values of the masterand is comparable with Cognitive Apprenticeship models in higher education. The point tobe made is that both these focus on schematisation and execution, whereas the highest levelof creative ability is conceptualisation. They concludeif this is neither taught nor assessed, then it must be accepted that creative abilityas a whole is neither taught nor assessed.(Cowdroy and de Graaff, 2005, p 511)If this is true of the creative arts, how much more difficult to teach and assess these withinan engineering ethos?Therefore it was important that students were able, through the assessment activities, todemonstrate not only their conceptual understanding of the discipline, but also the creativeprocess undertaken (the conceptualisation of the product). Learners were expectedto construct a problem representation based on the triggers provided, and manipulate theproblem space so that an external representation (in this case the artefacts that were deliverables)could be created from the multiple individual representations at a fine enough grainto demonstrate group and individual achievement of the appropriate learning outcomes.As well as providing a dedicated ‘office’ space – a laboratory specifically designated for useby SE students in third and fourth year, a collaborative on line work space was enabled foreach group. Only group members and the teacher had access to this area – with studentsrequired to maintain all documentation on the site. This resource facilitated constructionof the shared understanding necessary for collaborative learning, and enabled students totune the accuracy and suitability of individual understanding through disentangling cognitiveconflicts. It also introduced technical issues of version control and change management,also authentic in the domain. From the researcher’s perspective, these versions document the295